ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/578

(2004/C 78 E/0610)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3529/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Amnesty International and Oxfam report on arms control

Has the European Commission seen or does it have any plans to respond to the report by Amnesty International and Oxfam entitled ‘Shattered Lives: The Case for Tough International Arms Control’?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Commission has received a copy of the report which it has acknowledged.

Member States have up to now, on the basis of Article 296 (ex-Article 223) of the EC Treaty exempted the trade in arms from the scope of application of treaty rules. Thus, there is for the time being no Community legislation on trade in arms. The arms trade is currently considered in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), to which the Commission is fully associated.

The Commission is active in broader Union work against the spread of small arms. The report refers to a number of Union initiatives and projects. The Union recognises the need for continued action and has earmarked substantial funds for the provision of financial and technical assistance to programmes around the world implemented by the Commission. In May 2003, moreover, a EUR 2 million small arms project in Tanzania was financed from the European Development Fund. Similar projects in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries may be supported upon request by recipient countries.

In this context, the Commission will carefully examine the steps proposed in the report.

The Commission has assured the authors of its continued support of their goal of a safer future for all.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/724

(2004/C 84 E/0814)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/03

by Florence Kuntz (EDD) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: Safeguarding the Iraqi archaeological heritage

The bombs that have been raining down on Mesopotamia since 20 March and the destruction and looting of the Baghdad Archaeological Museum remind us that Iraq's archaeological heritage has since 1991 been in peril.

Apart from the destruction of archaeological sites during the Gulf War there has been the looting, the departure of foreign archaeological missions, the abandonment of digs and trafficking with the West in stolen property.

The American military campaign of the past three weeks has brought about the collapse of the Iraqi regime. In the absence of a government, one can only wonder who is now protecting the seven national museums and some 10 000 archaeological sites throughout the country.

How does the European Union wish to show its support for the Iraqi people and help them protect their exceptional heritage?

How does the European Union intend to mobilise the Member States against the illegal trade in stolen property?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/137

(2004/C 88 E/0145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3252/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

The External Relations Council of 13 October, expressing deep concern that certain Western Balkan countries were still failing to cooperate sufficiently with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), reiterated the need to intensify efforts to bring Radovan Karadzic, General Mladic and General Gotovina to the ICTY.

In its Common Position 2003/280/CFSP (1) of 16 April 2003 the Council imposed an EU travel ban on some persons obstructing the mandate of the ICTY, and this has had a positive impact, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

What steps is the Commission taking to broaden the list of persons named in that Common Position to include those helping ICTY indictees elsewhere in the region to evade justice?

Specifically, will those sheltering Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina, whose respective support networks in Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro are reported by ICTY to be significant, now be subject to the travel ban?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

With Common Position 2003/280/CFSP of 16 April 2003 the Council adopted measures preventing the entry into or transit through Member State territories of individuals engaged in activities which help others to evade justice for crimes for which the ICTY has indicted them.

When adopting this Common Position, the Council agreed that amendments to the list of persons identified in the annex could be adopted as required. Thus, on 27 June 2003 under Council Decision 2003/484/CFSP (2), the Council, following recommendations from the office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and after consultations with the ICTY, added new names.

The Commission and Member States remain in contact with the ICTY and the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and keep the list under review. If or when new evidence emerges concerning other individuals, appropriate steps can be taken.

(1) OJ L 101, 23.4.2003, p. 22.

(2) OJ L 162, 1.7.2003 amended by OJ L 178, 17.7.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/65

(2004/C 88 E/0070)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2078/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject: Portuguese milk quota

In a recent meeting with milk producers in northern Portugal, the author of this question was made aware of the unfair treatment being inflicted on Portuguese farmers who exceeded the milk quota by the end of March.

These farmers have been penalised, whereas, by contrast, it has just been reported in Italy that an agreement has been reached to settle the problems of Italian farmers in the same situation.

Can the Commission provide information on the specific conditions of the Italian agreement and state what measures it plans or intends to take to remedy the unfair treatment of the Portuguese farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The question would seem to refer to a decision taken by the Council on its own initiative, under the special procedure provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, and falls outside the competence of the Commission. The question should therefore be addressed to the Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/209

(2004/C 78 E/0214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3018/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Promotions within the Commission

What is the Commission's position with regard to the claims made by the Commission official Josè A. Sequeira Carvalho (Staff No 61779) with regard to his failure to be promoted to A4, which he believes should have taken place in 2000?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The reasons why Mr Sequeira has not been promoted to grade A4 since 2000 were set out in detail in a note signed by Mr Richelle, Director General of Directorate General Development on 13 August 2003 and addressed to Mr Sequeira.

Officials who are not satisfied with a decision by the Appointing Authority can, of course, specify and register a complaint in accordance with Article 90 §2 of the Staff Regulation. Such complaints — or appeals — are given attention with rigour and with respect for the privacy of the individual.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/91

(2004/C 84 E/0114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3722/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Florence

With reference to question E-0963/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Florence (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/178

(2004/C 78 E/0184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Complaints or infringements regarding the implementation of Greece of Community environmental legislation

In reply to my question E-1829/03 (1), Commissioner Wallström obligingly indicated that it was possible to obtain general statistics concerning complaints and infringements regarding transposition into Greek law and implementation of Community environmental legislation in Greece. Would the Commission be kind enough to forward to me the relevant statistics and the matters to which they relate from 1994 to the present date?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

For technical reasons, the Commission can only provide the Honourable Member with statistics relating to 1995 onwards. Thus, between 1995 and 2002 the Commission registered and investigated 257 dossiers relating to alleged or established infringements of Community environment law in Greece. These dossiers were opened on the basis of complaints, petitions and parliamentary questions, and on the Commission's own initiative. At 24 September 2003, 98 dossiers relating to alleged or established infringements of Community environment law in Greece were still open.

The infringement procedure laid down by Article 226 of the Treaty was initiated for 85 of the 257 dossiers. Of these 85 dossiers, 19 concerned air pollution, 18 related to Community waste management legislation, 13 dealt with nature protection, 11 related to chemicals, ten concerned water protection, five related to Directive 85/337/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (3), three concerned genetically modified organisms and six concerned other areas of Community environment law.

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 175.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/117

(2004/C 88 E/0123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2815/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Arrest and detention of Rev. Rinaldy Damanik in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

I have received several concerned letters regarding the case of the Reverend Rinaldy Damanik, a leader of the Protestant Christian Community in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Has the Commission any further information on his current situation and are there any plans to investigate his case?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The Commission is following the case of Rev Rinaldy Damanik who has been accused of illegal possession of weapons. According to the Protestant Church Council in Jakarta (PGI), the case against the Christian Minister has been fabricated. As the three year sentence for illegal possession of weapons has been appealed, and the case is still pending, any possibility of making representations has been greatly reduced.

The Commission Delegation in Jakarta is closely monitoring the case and has contacted the minister's lawyer, Mr Johnson Panjaitan to receive updated news about his request to be released or to be put under house arrest pending the appeal. The authorities have not yet responded to the request, despite the fact that the legal basis for his detention has expired.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/114

(2004/C 88 E/0120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2775/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Unlawful detention of an EU citizen in Thailand

1. Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands national Machiel Kuijt is still being held in detention despite having been acquitted by a Thai court of involvement in drugs smuggling?

2. Does the Commission agree that it is contrary to the principle of equality that an Italian fellow-suspect of Mr Kuijt's who has likewise been acquitted has, on the contrary, been allowed to leave Thailand pending an appeal? Does the Commission furthermore agree that it is undesirable for a friendly power to treat two EU citizens unequally?

3. Does the Commission agree that, in refusing to release Mr Kuijt on bail, the Thai authorities are failing to comply with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand has been a party since 1997?

4. Will the Commission raise the above issues with Thailand's representative to the EU?

5. Will the Commission consider sanctions to convince the Thai authorities that further detention of Mr Kuijt pending an appeal is a violation of international treaties? If so, what sanctions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Bangkok, has been following the case of Mr Machiel Kuijt in Thailand.

In the Commission's view, the competence to intervene in Mr Kuijt's case lies primarily with the Dutch authorities.

The Commission does not get involved in cases of a consular nature, nor take position, unless in the context of an Union démarche previously agreed with the Member States.

The Commission would therefore suggest that the Honourable Member might wish to raise the matter with the Dutch Government in the first place.

The Commission will continue to follow the case in co-operation with the diplomatic missions of the Member States in Thailand.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/835

(2004/C 78 E/0889)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3615/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Fishing for migratory salmon

The main spawning areas for wild salmon in the Baltic include the rivers which flow into the Gulf of Bothnia. When salmon swim out to sea from their spawning areas, they can be freely caught even by those who do not have any duty to take measures to preserve migratory salmon stocks. Are the existing restrictions on fishing sufficient to preserve fish stocks, and could Member States' quotas take account of their measures to preserve stocks in the rivers where the fish reproduce?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

The regulation at Community level of the fishery for salmon in the Baltic Sea includes total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas as well as technical measures, with a view to ensuring a sustainable utilisation of the resources. As is general within the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy the Commission bases its proposals concerning TACs and fishing quotas on scientific advice. By using these working methods, the Commission believes indeed that the existing regulation of fishery will allow us to preserve stocks.

As regards the allocation of quotas, the quotas for individual Member States are based on the concept of relative stability which is one of the important elements of the Common Fisheries Policy — see Article 20(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1). However, at the level of the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC) and within the framework of the Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010, Recommendation No XIX which was adopted in 2002 might lead to some changes in the future along the lines that the Honourable Member is suggesting. In the afore-mentioned Resolution, it is stated that IBSFC will decide on additional fishing possibilities on surplus reared salmon, which will be allocated to the Parties in relation to their release of smolt. It should also be noted that in order to utilise these additional fishing possibilities, the Party in question shall prove that it can target only reared salmon, by conducting fishery for the additional fishing possibilities in defined terminal fishery areas and by participating in a comprehensive adipose fin clipping programme which will allow for distinction between wild and reared salmon. The purpose of this new harvesting strategy is to shift fishery from the mixed wild and reared salmon fishery to a fishery that mainly targets reared salmon populations.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/543

(2004/C 78 E/0566)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3418/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Can the Commission clarify what it understands to be the political responsibility of the Commissioners with regard to the recommendations of the Committee of Independent Experts and the code of conduct for contracts signed in 1999?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/671

(2004/C 78 E/0714)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3903/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: Disparities in the treatment of debts by banks in connection with Democratici di Sinistra's unpaid debts

In 1996 the Italian party Democratici di Sinistra (DS) entrusted Beta Immobiliare, a company set up in 1995 with the remit of purchasing, building, managing, transferring and selling property and property rights of all kinds, with the job of putting its accounts in order. With a view to achieving this, the DS party's local federations entrusted Beta Immobiliare with a considerable number of properties, the proceeds from the sale of which would be used to bring the party's accounts out of the red. However, this recovery plan failed. The creditor banks include Monte dei Paschi di Siena, which is owed 27 instalments amounting to several million euro on the four loans it has made to the party. Despite the huge sum involved, the decision-makers at the bank do not appear to wish to demand that the outstanding amounts be paid, and the Bank of Italy's supervisory authorities have failed to take any action on the matter. What is more, the secretary-general of the DS, Mr Fassino, recently proposed that the party be given a 50 % rebate on the debt, with a view to tackling this situation. Although the proposal has not yet been formally accepted, the banks are clearly entertaining the possibility of doing so.

Under these circumstances can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. The normal practice is for banks to instigate recovery proceedings against a client who is in arrears, right from the second unpaid instalment. In this instance, however, no such action has been taken. Would the Commission not agree that this is in breach of the principle of equal treatment for consumers, in that those in a position of power receive preferential treatment while ordinary members of the public are obliged to pay sometimes very high rates of interest, together with charges on every bank transaction and penalties should they ever fall into arrears?

2. Would the Commission clarify the European banking laws applying in this instance, with particular reference to provisions on the protection of consumers in their dealings with banks?

3. Can this situation be viewed as a case of ‘overindebtedness’, on which the Economic and Social Committee has on several occasions given its opinion and on which it has often asked the Commission to take action?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The matters raised by the Honourable Member fall outside the scope of Community competence.

As the parties involved are not natural persons acting outside their business or professional activities, the Community provisions governing consumer protection to which the Honourable Member refers are not applicable.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/544

(2004/C 78 E/0571)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3423/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Does the Commission intend to change the relationship between the Commissioners and their Directors-General to ensure that in future the latter are high-level officials but are subject to the political authority of their respective Commissioners, as is the case in ministries in the Member States? If so, when is this decision due to be adopted?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/546

(2004/C 78 E/0578)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3430/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

After the fall of the Santer Commission in 1999 it was decided that relations with external firms should be governed by transparent provisions laid down in standard contracts. Why was this principle not followed by Eurostat? How can the new executive agencies avoid finding themselves in the same position?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/675

(2004/C 78 E/0718)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3918/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Reduced rates of VAT

Before the European Parliament on 3 December 2003, Commissioner Bolkestein stated that the Commission did not intend to submit any new proposal on extending reduced rates of VAT (particularly to work on homes or to restoration), as the Council has expressed reservations about its proposal of 7 July.

However, the proposal of 7 July was broader in scope, and particularly sought to eliminate exemptions, which is a controversial subject.

Would it not be desirable for the Commission to avoid conflicts and to act in accordance with the opinion of the European Parliament (Randzio-Plath report adopted on 4 December 2003, P5TA-PROV (2003) 0547), which wisely proposed extending the experiment with reduced rates of VAT on labour-intensive services, and increase the scope for States to apply reduced rates of VAT, particularly on restoration work?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

On 16 December 2003, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC (1) so as to extend the facility allowing Member States to apply reduced rates of VAT to certain labour-intensive services and a proposal for a decision extending the period of application of Decision 2000/185/EC (2) authorising Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain labour-intensive services in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 28(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC (3).

The extension is intended to allow the nine Member States which currently apply a reduced rate of VAT to labour-intensive services to continue to do so for a further two years up to 31 December 2005, under the same conditions, without altering or extending the scope of the experiment.

This should allow the Council the necessary time to reach unanimous agreement, on the basis of the original Commission proposal (4), on a decision on the future scope of reduced rates of VAT.

The Commission's aim in its proposal of 23 July 2003 was to improve the internal market, notably by simplifying and rationalising the rates of VAT. It proposed in particular to include restaurant services, house repair, maintenance and cleaning services, and home care services in Annex H.

That proposal is still before the Council. It is now up to the Council to reach a final decision on reduced rates of VAT in the light of Parliament's opinion.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) Council Decision 2000/185/EC of 28 February 2000 authorising Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain labour-intensive services in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 28(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC, OJ L 59, 4.3.2000.

(3) COM(2003) 825 final.

(4) COM(2003) 397 final.