ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/811

(2004/C 84 E/0905)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0568/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(19 February 2004)

Subject: Final report concerning Eurostat

The Internal Audit Service's final report on the awarding of contracts at Eurostat was announced for February 2004.

Is that still the case, and when will the report be forwarded to Parliament?

According to information from Mrs Schreyer, the investigation into former UCLAF and OLAF officials for neglect of duty (including in connection with Eurostat) is nearing completion. When is the report likely to be submitted?

In the six months before the Eurostat affair became public in May 2003, the firm Planistat obtained no fewer than 20 new contracts from Eurostat which were subsequently terminated in summer 2003. Is that latest and last batch of contracts the subject of OLAF investigations, or is OLAF confining itself only to events in 1999, 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the report by the Internal Audit Service supplementing the examination of the contracts conducted in 2003 has now been finalised. Internal Audit Service reports are normally intended for the party being audited, in this instance the Commission and its departments.

However, in order to help Parliament perform its supervisory work and since the Budgetary Control Committee is likely to ask to see the report in due course, the Commission is prepared to forward the report to your institution. It will send the report to the Chair of the Budgetary Control Committee, Ms Theato, for the attention of Mr Bayona, who is the rapporteur for the 2002 discharge, and of Mr Bösch, who is the rapporteur for the fight against fraud, on the terms laid down in Annex III to the Interinstitutional Framework Agreement signed by Parliament and the Commission in June 2000.

The internal investigation to which the Honourable Member refers and which concerns former officials of the anti-fraud coordination office, UCLAF (now the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF), is currently being finalised by OLAF. Once the final investigation report is ready, it will be forwarded in accordance with Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1).

As regards the contracts awarded to Planistat by Eurostat during the six months prior to May 2003 and subsequently terminated, OLAF confirms that there is no investigation under way.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/686

(2004/C 78 E/0731)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0151/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject: Shortage of intensive care units in Greece

There is a significant shortage of intensive care units in Greece. Under the 2nd Community Support Framework (CSF), measure 1.1 of the health section of the Health and Welfare Programme provides specific appropriations for the modernisation of intensive care units and the creation of new units.

1. How many intensive care units were planned when the Health and Welfare Programme was submitted under the 2nd CSF? How many were created and how many of those are now operational?

2. How many units planned under the 2nd CSF were not completed?

3. How many completed units are not operational and why?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/536

(2004/C 84 E/0613)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0111/04

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Subject: Dioxins in farm-raised salmon

According to a report published in the reputable ‘Science’ journal, significant quantities of carcinogenic substances, such as PCBs, have been found in farm-raised salmon. This has caused great concern among consumers and breeders.

Given the large quantities of salmon consumed, since it is one of the healthiest fish, being rich in omega-3 fatty acids, reducing the risk of heart disease, together with the fact that it is a major source of revenue in areas such as Scotland, can the Commission confirm the reports of contaminated fish and will it take immediate measures to eliminate the danger to consumers and safeguard the livelihood of fish-breeders?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to a study published in the journal ‘Science’, which analysed 246 samples of farmed and wild salmon from all over the world for 14 organochlorine contaminants, including dioxins (sum of dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)).

The substances, other than dioxins, mirex and PCBs are organochlorine pesticides or metabolites thereof, the use of which has been prohibited for a long time, with the exception of lindane which has been prohibited only since June 2002. Their presence in fish is due to the fact that residues of these pesticides are still present in the environment long after their prohibition, due to their very persistent nature.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2375/2001 of 29 November 2001 amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (1) establishes maximum levels for dioxins in a range of foodstuffs including fish. The levels found in this study were all below the set maximum levels. The Commission is of the opinion that the levels of dioxins and PCBs found in this study are in line with those previously found and this study does not raise any new food safety issues. No immediate action from the Commission is therefore required but the long term strategy foresees a progressive reduction of the maximum levels.

(1) OJ L 321, 6.12.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/564

(2004/C 84 E/0641)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0276/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Air pollution

Would the Commission agree that the public has a right to be informed about the nature and quantity of pollutants released by businesses in Europe?

Is this right currently protected by EU legislation? If not, does the Commission intend to take measures towards this?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission agrees that the public has a right to be informed about the nature and quantity of pollutants released by businesses in Europe.

Public access to environmental information is currently laid down in Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 (1), which ensures freedom of access to information on the environment held by public authorities.

In order to get access to environmental information, a person (‘the public’) has to make a request to the public authority that he/she believes to hold the specific information. As a general rule, this right of access should be as wide as possible and only on the basis of a limited number of grounds may access to the information be refused. This Directive does not oblige the public authority to make available all environmental information it possesses on its own initiative, nor does the Directive itself oblige the public authority to collect such information.

The new Directive on public access to environmental information, Directive 2003/4/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 (2), amending and replacing Directive 90/313/EEC, contains not only the obligation for public authorities to give access to environmental information upon request, but also an obligation to actively disseminate environmental information. This Directive has to be implemented by the Member States by 14 February 2005.

In the field of pollutants released by businesses, the Commission will launch the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) on 23 February 2004 in the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. EPER is the first Europe-wide register of industrial emissions into air and water. For the first time, detailed information on the emissions of 50 pollutants from about 10 000 large industrial facilities in the EU will be publicly accessible on the internet (www.eper.cec.eu.int).

EPER was established by Commission Decision 2000/479/EC of 17 July 2000 on the implementation of a European pollutant register (EPER) according to Article 15 of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) (3), which is based on Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (4). In Article 15(3) of this Directive it is stated, that:

an inventory of the principal emissions and sources responsible shall be published every three years by the Commission on the basis of the data supplied by the Member States.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2) OJ L 41, 14.2.2003.

(3) OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.

(4) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/569

(2004/C 88 E/0580)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/04

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Subject: Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003

With the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003 (1) of 23 December 2003 a number of countries, including Argentina and India, once again became beneficiaries under the Community scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 2002-2004, and from 1 January 2005 will benefit from reductions in the European Union's import duty for certain kinds of finished leather.

Bearing in mind that:

— by virtue of well-established dumping practices these countries enjoy great competitive advantages at the expense of the Italian tanning industry;

— there are no reciprocal and equivalent market conditions as regards commercial policy measures, since both India and Argentina set up substantial tariff and non-tariff barriers to their own exports of raw materials and imports of finished products;

— Italian businesses find themselves in difficulty as a result of the fall in demand for finished products and the unfavourable euro-dollar exchange rate,

can the Commission say whether it does not consider that Regulation No 2331/2003 should be revised?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003 of 23 December 2003 was adopted under Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for developing countries (GSP). It was thus adopted by the Commission under an obligation within a legal framework set by the Council.

The GSP, which is a multiannual system, provides that the scope of preferences has to be adjusted each year by the Commission. Regulation No 2331/2003 does so for 2005. Since the GSP is a limited trade concession, it has to be continued to countries and products which have a real need. Article 12 has introduced a system of graduation/degraduation allowing the GSP to be withdrawn from countries/products which are competitive on the international market or to reintroduce countries/products which had been excluded from the GSP in the past for this reason but which are no longer competitive.

This is a non-political and purely economic mechanism. The objective criteria which apply are those set out in Article 12 (as amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2211/2003 of 15 December 2003) (2). It was on the basis of these criteria that it was decided to reintroduce preferences in 2005 for India and Argentina for the products in question.

Trade defence mechanisms can combat dumping if the necessary conditions are satisfied. Tariff and non-tariff obstacles to exports are one of the Community's priorities in the Doha Development Agenda and bilateral negotiations.

A new GSP system will be adopted on 1 January 2006 after consultation of all the parties concerned. We would invite the Honourable Member to encourage industrial associations to play an active part in these consultations.

(1) OJ L 346, 31.12.2003, p. 3.

(2) OJ L 332, 19.12.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/204

(2004/C 84 E/0248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0370/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Extension of the Working Time Directive to excluded sectors

Directive 2000/34/EC (1) on the extension of the 1993 Working Time Directive (Council Directive 93/104/EC (2)) was scheduled to be transposed by all Member States by 1 August 2003 (apart from the provisions relating to trainee doctors for which the transposition date is 1 August 2004).

How many workers in Ireland does the Commission estimate would be covered by this Directive if it were to be implemented in full by the Irish Government?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

In the ‘White Paper on sectors and activities excluded from the working time directive’ (3), the Commission estimated that all sectors and activities excluded from the scope of Directive 93/104/EC, including self-employment, represented 5,6 million jobs (around 4 % of total jobs in the EU), of which 3,5 million (about 2,5 % of total jobs) were in the road transport sector. This gives an indication of the numbers involved at EU level. The Commission does not have the breakdown of these figures by Member State.

(1) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

(3) COM(97) 334 final, paragraph 18.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/766

(2004/C 84 E/0861)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0182/04

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Network and information security

Does the Commission agree that ICT products should be designed with specific security standards in mind, and with the goal of being evaluated and certified as having an internationally recognised level of security? If so, how can the European Network and Information Security Agency use the ‘Common Criteria’ to promote this goal?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/351

(2004/C 84 E/0408)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0282/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Identification of the outermost regions on official Community maps

Article 299(2) of the Treaty identifies the outermost regions, which, naturally, are not to be confused with the overseas countries and territories referred to in Article 299(3) and listed in Annex II, or with other regions or countries having a different status and referred to elsewhere.

Nonetheless, the Official Publications Service of the European Communities, was still, in 2003 and under the Commission's copyright, perpetuating the error of referring to the outermost regions as ‘non-continental and overseas territories of the Member States’.

In the case of the Autonomous Region of the Azores (mentioned only summarily as ‘the Azores’), one of the outermost regions with a geographical location outside Europe, not one of the islands is actually named, and the only town mentioned is Ponta Delgada: the historic towns of Angra do Heroísmo and Horta are passed over.

Can the Commission explain why it has not identified these regions correctly, i.e. as outermost regions, and has used a term which could create confusion with the overseas territories listed in Annex II?

Has the Commission any objection to the future inclusion in the maps concerned of the designation ‘Autonomous Region of the Azores’ and the inclusion of the towns of Angra do Heroísmo and Horta?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to maps which the Commission publishes with the aim of informing the general public about Europe. They are not official maps and do not serve any legal or administrative purpose. In order to ensure that a map is readable, some editorial standards are needed concerning what names to use. Among the standards followed, one is that the maps made freely available to the public use the short form of names of countries and regions and that only one city per region is mentioned. Islands are named, but not on smaller scale maps. Similarly, the expression ‘outermost regions’ referred to by Article 299 of the EC Treaty has not been used for strictly editorial reasons, as this term is not widely known and understood among the general public of all the Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/635

(2004/C 84 E/0713)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/04

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Aid to stud farms

What is the Commission's position on Irish state aid to stud farms? In Ireland, there is no tax on ‘nomination fees’ which a stud farm owner receives when a stallion impregnates a mare. The opposite is the case in Denmark, which gives Irish stud farms a competitive advantage over the other Member States.

Will the Commission say whether Irish practice in this respect is consistent with EU competition and state aid rules?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/398

(2004/C 84 E/0462)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0436/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject: EURO 2

Under Directive 1999/96/EC (1) stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will have to decrease by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The Commission is also looking at a further phase in reducing emissions, EURO 6, which is being considered for 2012-2013.

When is the Commission thinking, for example, of applying these standards, which aim to reduce emissions from new vehicles only, to older vehicles in the EURO 2 category or taking these highly polluting vehicles off the road?

(1) OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/262

(2004/C 88 E/0267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/04

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) and Guido Sacconi (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject: Protection and conservation of the marine environment

On 19 June 2003 Parliament adopted a resolution on the Commission communication: ‘Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment’ (P5_TA(2003)0295). In the resolution Members called for greater integration of environmental protection considerations into decision-making processes and for the protection and conservation of marine ecosystems, which are of vital importance in safeguarding biodiversity.

Parliament also called on the Commission to put forward, as soon as possible, a consistent and harmonised thematic strategy on the marine environment, not least in view of the current critical state of some marine ecosystems.

Can the Commission state whether, when it drew up the strategy, it took due account of the following:

— the precautionary principle;

— the concept of sustainability;

— a strategic environmental assessment;

— an integrated approach to address threats caused by all human activities affecting the marine environment and a careful assessment of their impact on this environment and the mutual influence and dependency of such impacts;

— an integrated approach regarding coastal and offshore marine management;

— a regional approach taking into account regional diversities, ecological characteristics, threats and socio-economic aspects;

— strategic marine spatial planning for the regional seas covering the whole of the EU continental shelf, which would introduce a plan-led approach to the sectoral decision-making systems?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is currently in the process of drawing up a European Maríne Strategy. As part of this process, a Stakeholder Conference will be organised jointly with the Dutch Presidency in November 2004. Publication of the final proposal is foreseen in March 2005.

The main elements of the foreseen strategy will be a common approach for all European seas, combined with:

— a specific regional approach to enable regional problems and solutions to be addressed;

— a holistic integrated approach to address all human uses impacting on the marine environment.

An essential element in the implementation of the strategy will be an ecosystem approach for the management of human activities impacting on the marine environment which will take account of all the elements mentioned in the Honourable Member's written question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/903

(2004/C 84 E/0998)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Closure of the Valeo factory in Portugal

The French multinational Valeo has informed workers that its Santo Tirso plant in Portugal, by word of mouth, is to be closed because of restructuring, threatening to throw the 330 workers out of a job. In fact, the company has already relocated machinery from the factory to Morocco, and cut the number of workers at the plant.

Valeo has factories, research and distribution centres in various European countries, and has two plants in Portugal (Santo Tirso and Viana do Castelo), devoted to producing electronic and link-up components.

Valeo employs over 68 000 workers in various countries world wide, it has 129 factories, 65 research centres and nine distribution centres; its profits in 2003 were in excess of nine thousand million euros.

1. Has Valeo received any Community subsidy for its factories in Portugal and in the other countries of Europe?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the rights of Valeo's workers in Portugal, specifically the right to employment?

3. What is the Commission's strategy to prevent the persistence of these relocations by multinationals, which are worsening unemployment and blocking the development of various Portuguese regions?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

With regard to the first part of the question, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the firm Valeo has not received any Community assistance under the European Social Fund or the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to its answer to Written Questions P-376/04 by Mrs Luciana Sbarbati (1) (in particular paragraphs 2 and 3) and P-0528/03 by Mrs Bastos (2) (in particular paragraph 2).

The Commission is aware of the phenomenon of business relocations in the European Union. This problem is related mainly to concerns about de-industrialisation, regarding which the Commission gave a preliminary response to the request of the 2003 European Council in its communication ‘Some Key Issues in Europe's Competitiveness — Towards an Integrated Approach’ (3). In fact, several Community policies help to create a favourable climate for businesses in Europe.

While continuing this work, the Commission also intends to carry out further analysis of the concept of de-industrialisation and to make specific proposals for action in its forthcoming communication on industrial policy.

(1) See page 204.

(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003.

(3) COM(2003) 704 final.