ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/184

(2004/C 33 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1888/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: International air transport

A report in an Athens newspaper claims that Commissioner de Palacio has expressed the view that there should be only 5 or 6 major air carriers in the EU, whereas there are currently 14 national airlines.

Is Mrs de Palacio's view a personal one or is it Commission policy? In the latter case, what provisions have been made for dealing with unemployment in the air transport sector?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The Commission does not in any way plan to set the number of air carriers in the EU. This number depends on the market, which has been fully opened up since 1997. The figure cited by the Honourable Member refers to the view expressed by most of the experts in the industry, one which the Vice-President responsible for transport and energy and the entire Commission have repeated on several occasions. Many analysts agree that there is not room in the European market for some fifteen intercontinental airlines and that the industry needs consolidation, especially during a crisis like the one currently facing the industry. Since the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001, the air transport sector has been going through an unprecedented crisis brought about by a number of destabilising factors (fears of further terrorist attacks, conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)) in a climate of general economic downturn. The concentration of players in this sector to achieve a critical size and boost their efficiency and economic viability in the market constitutes a natural trend, especially since many European carriers are too small compared with their international competitors.

However, this trend is not irreconcilable with increased activity, which liberalisation has made possible, on the part of European regional air carriers or with the emergence of new carriers (like the low-cost airlines), which lead to the creation of jobs. A number of new companies have appeared over the last few years and are obtaining excellent economic results.

For its part, the Commission intends to leave the companies to develop in the framework of the competitive European market. As Guardian of the Treaties, it will exercise vigilance and take action in respect of any unlawful State aid which might favour some companies to the detriment of others.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/264

(2004/C 65 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3063/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use

It has been scientifically proven that medicines affect women and men differently, yet women are underrepresented in clinical trials and the data gathered is not systematically treated as gender-specific.

North Rhine-Westphalia's Commission of Inquiry, ‘The future of women-friendly healthcare in North Rhine-Westphalia’, has put forward suggestions for a women-friendly implementation of Directive 2001/83/EC (1). It considers that the directive needs to be amended to take women into account in research.

1. Is the Commission planning to amend the directive accordingly for the whole EU, so that women and men are equally represented in clinical research and the data collected is consistently recorded separately for each gender?

2. Or will the Commission ensure that the Member States implement the directive in a way that is suitable for both genders?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended by Commission Directive 2003/63/EC of 25 June 2003 (2), sets out in its Annex I the analytical, pharmacotoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of medicinal products for the purpose of granting a marketing authorisation.

In Part I point 5.2. (f) of this Annex, it is foreseen that the clinical observations shall be summarised for each trial indicating:

(1) the number and sex of the subject treated;

(2) the selection and age-distribution of the groups of patients being investigated and the comparative tests …

(6) details concerning patients who may be at increased risk, e.g. elderly people, children, women during pregnancy or menstruation …

The general rule, as foreseen in Directive 2001/83/EC, is therefore that an appropriate study design should be chosen and the clinical trial must be conducted in a way that the results of the trials, including the statistical assessment, must provide a positive efficacy of the indication, which supports a marketing authorisation of the medicinal product without a gender specific restriction.

Exceptions to this general obligation are only accepted for marketing authorisations of medicines with gender specific indications.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

(2) OJ L 159, 27.6.2003.
2.

Cargo was loaded onto the ship at a number of ports. One of these ports was Antwerp, where, among other cargo, two 18-metre loading arms and two smaller, 13-metre loading arms were loaded onto the ‘Karin Cat’. The Danish Maritime Authority report states that the securing of the load in the Port of Antwerp was carried out by the crew of the ‘Karin Cat’. Can the Commission confirm this? The report goes into the possible causes of the accident in some detail. It states that the shift of the loading arms mentioned above caused a hole in the hull of the ‘Karin Cat’, through which so much water poured into the hull that the ship sank. According to the report, the reason for the shift of the cargo was that it had been insufficiently secured to withstand the movement of the vessel during the prevailing rough sea (see the conclusion on page 20 of the report).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/168

(2004/C 33 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1771/03

by Jean-Pierre Bébéar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject: IOPC Fund — marine pollution

The derisory offer of compensation issued by the IOPC Fund following the ‘Prestige’ disaster has led me, and many others, to question whether this compensation fund is of any real use.

The Commission has expressed the wish to remedy the shortcomings of the IOPC Fund by setting up a EUR 1 billion compensation fund for the benefit of the various victims affected when oil tankers go down.

If it proves impossible to set up this fund at international level, does the Commission intend to propose a European organisation modelled on the efforts the United States has already made to protect its coastline?

In that event, what arrangements are envisaged, what funding is proposed, what timetable will be laid down and what will be the responsibilities of the Member States in relation to setting up this fund and ensuring its effective operation?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1769/03 and P-1771/03

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member about the need to ensure that sufficient compensation is available for all victims of oil pollution incidents.

Therefore, the Commission proposed on 6 December 2000 to establish the COPE Fund, which would raise the overall maximum compensation to EUR 1 billion instead of the current international limit of around EUR 185 million. Such a measure would ensure that all victims who have a legitimate claim for compensation will be fully compensated in case of an oil spill in Union waters and would also serve to speed up the compensation of victims.

The Council decided not to proceed with the proposal, but instead to promote the establishment of a similar fund at international level. The Diplomatic Conference on the Supplementary Fund at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on 12-16 May 2003 adopted a new Protocol to the existing international oil pollution compensation regime. The new International Supplementary Fund increased the available compensation up to EUR 920 million, which is more than USD 1 000 million, available in the US Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Commission, therefore, welcomes the adoption of this new Protocol.

Now it has to be ensured that Member States live up to their commitment to bring this new fund into operation before the end of the year. Until all Member States, at least those with a coastline, are parties to the new Supplementary Fund, the Commission will not reconsider its proposal on the establishment of a COPE Fund at Union level.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/190

(2004/C 65 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2731/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Framework agreement on customs union between Turkey and the northern part of Cyprus

The Turkish Government has signed a ‘framework agreement’ on customs union with the self-proclaimed ‘Turkish Democracy of North Cyprus’, which is neither an independent state nor a recognised entity under international law or UN resolutions.

Since the signing of this agreement represents a flagrant violation of the principles of international law, the UN charter and the Security Council's decisions and the principles and decisions of the EU and conflicts with the institutional framework of relations between the EU and the Republic of Cyprus as well as with Turkey's application for accession, could the Commission say whether its opinion was sought before the signing of the ‘framework agreement’, whether that agreement is consistent with the principles and provisions of the association and customs union agreements between Turkey and the EU, and whether it considers that it is likely to influence Turkey's progress towards accession and the evaluation of its candidature by the competent Community bodies?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2679/03 and P-2731/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2003)

The Commission regrets the signing on 8 August 2003 of the so called ‘customs union framework agreement’ between Turkey and northern Cyprus (TRNC). This ‘agreement’ has no legal validity under international law and was signed without any prior consultation with the Union. The Union has made it clear to the Turkish Government that ratification of the so called ‘framework agreement’ would be in breach with the customs union between the Community and Turkey and would not be conducive to a settlement of the Cyprus problem.

With regard to the fears expressed by the Honourable Members concerning exports from northern Cyprus, the Commission wishes to underline that in order to benefit from the preferential treatment provided for by the EC-Cyprus Association Agreement, imports from Cyprus must be covered by origin certificates issued by the recognised authorities in accordance with the decision of the Court of Justice from 1994 (Anastasiou Pissouri Ltd and Others). The Origin certificates are checked by the customs authorities of the Member States. If products covered by irregular certificates were to be released for circulation, the Commission and Member States could take the appropriate measures at customs level.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/254

(2004/C 33 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Relocation of the American Tool company away from Albergaria-a-Velha

The multinational company American Tool has a factory in Albergaria-a-Velha, where it produces saws of various types and other cutting tools. On 27 June 2003 it notified its workforce that it intends to close down its operations in Portugal with effect from September, to which end it has already launched the process which will result in the collective dismissal of all 74 of its employees.

In a letter to those employees the company has cited ‘reasons relating to technology and to the current economic situation’ as grounds for closing its factory in Albergaria-a-Velha and relocating part of its production to Denmark.

American Tool's announcement has come as a complete surprise, since the company and the group to which it belongs were not known to be in financial difficulty. In addition to its factory in Denmark, the group has several plants in other EU countries, in particular Spain and Italy.

Would the Commission say whether or not the company has received EU support and, if so, how much?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

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 33/113

(2004/C 33 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/03

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Application of agreements on dual nationality by certain Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany

The EU treaty provides for the existence of European citizenship.

On 19 September 2001, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany signed the European Convention on Nationality of 6 November 1997, and decided to withdraw from the Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality of 6 May 1963.

The Act amending the German Nationality Act (Gesetz zur Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitsrechts) of 15 July 1999, which came into force on 1 January 2000, states that the granting of dual nationality to EU citizens resident in Germany must be subordinate to the principle of reciprocity.

On 25 May 2002, a ministerial decree of the Italian Republic stated that EU citizens may acquire Italian nationality without forfeiting their own citizenship, and vice versa, thereby fulfilling the conditions of reciprocity set out in the German legislation.

Following a bilateral agreement between Italy and Germany of 22 December 2002, the arrangement referred to in Article 87 (2) of the amended German Nationality Act became applicable, making it possible for Italians living in Germany who satisfy certain conditions to apply for German citizenship without having to give up their Italian citizenship. The Länder of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg have, however, interpreted the legislation restrictively, despite the reciprocity requirements that exist between Italy and Germany, as the Italian measure is not a law, but simply an administrative act.

In light of this information, what steps does the Commission intend to take to safeguard the rights of Italian citizens resident in these Länder and to standardise the rules governing nationality at European level in such a way as to resolve at the outset any judicial and political conflict that may arise between Member States in this area?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission would point out that the issues relating to double nationality and nationality laws raised by the Honourable Member are matters falling under the competence of Member States. This is confirmed by the Declaration on nationality of a Member State appended to the Treaty of Maastricht, which states that the nationality of Member States is entirely a matter for the Member States concerned. It does not fall under the competence of the Union. It is therefore for each Member State, having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality (1), including rules concerning double nationality.

In these circumstances, the Commission is not able to take any initiatives relating to the subject matter.

(1) See judgement of the European Court of Justice in case C-369/90 Micheletti of 7.7.1992, ECR 1992, p. I-4239.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/64

(2004/C 65 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Florence

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Florence, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Florence has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Florence has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/256

(2004/C 33 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/03

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Interreg bureaucracy

The rules governing Interreg subsidies in the Netherlands include passages which make administration unnecessarily difficult. For example, in order to be eligible for a subsidy it is necessary actually to show proof of payment of all invoices and wage/salary payments. This discourages organisations from applying for subsidies, so that inadequate use is made of the funds potentially available.

In the Netherlands, the procedure for applying for an Interreg BMG (Benelux-Middengebied/Central Benelux Region) subsidy is often seen as enormously cumbersome: merely producing a thorough project plan with defined end products already costs a huge amount. In addition, the administration is of considerable complexity: it is necessary to produce evidence of deployment of manpower, invoices, copies of pay slips and now, as mentioned above, also proof of payment.

This means in practical terms that each month a partner has to check which employees on the pay roll have contributed to the project and must print out a list of them, after which he must submit proof of payment/a copy of the bank statement providing the requisite overview. All this information is computerised and stored on payment diskettes, so that it is relatively easy to retrieve from the system, but it is difficult to print out because the relevant lists are enormously long. In a word, while partners' administrative work and book-keeping are computerised, Europe is still insisting on manually produced evidence/copies.

Moreover, I have found that, as a result of the various national approaches and interpretations, project concepts which would be very suitable are often refused Interreg funding and an unnecessary amount of time is wasted because of inadequate coordination.

1. Is the Commission aware of the bureaucratic complexities involved in applying for Interreg subsidies, an example of which appears above?

2. Do the Interreg subsidy rules in other Member States likewise include such provisions, which promote bureaucracy? If so, what?

3. Will the Commission take measures to put an end to unnecessary bureaucratic procedures involved in the granting of Interreg subsidies? If not, why not? If so, what will it do?

4. Will the Commission investigate the scope for setting up one competent authority per Euregion for the central coordination of Interreg project applications, processing and finalisation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

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 33/104

(2004/C 33 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1292/03

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Export of live cattle to third countries

How many live cattle for (i) slaughter, (ii) fattening and (iii) breeding were exported in 2002 from each Member State to each individual third country of destination?

How much was paid out in export refunds in 2002 in respect of the export of live cattle from the EU to third countries for (i) slaughter, (ii) fattening and (iii) breeding?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

A table which shows the quantities of Union exports of live bovine animals for 2002 by Member State and country of destination, is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Based on export licences for live bovine animals issued in 2002, export refunds amount to:

— EUR 10,0 million for pure-bred breeding animals;

— EUR 51,8 million for slaughter and other animals (including animals for fattening) (1).

(1) No separate figures are available for animals for slaughter and for other animals.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/62

(2004/C 33 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0654/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Mozambique sugar farmers

Is the Commission aware of the devastating effect the 8 000-tonne import quota imposed on sugar exports from Mozambique is having on Mozambican inhabitants?

Mozambique has the means to produce as much as 30 000 tonnes of sugar for export to European countries. However, they are unable to do so owing to the strict import quota. Sugar factories in Mozambique are prepared to fund small-scale farmers to buy equipment to enable them to produce sugar from their rich farmland, therefore alleviating the dependence of Mozambicans on EU aid. However, the quotas imposed are restricting this possibility.

Is the Commission prepared to review and increase the quota, beyond the proposed 15 % increase, imposed on Mozambique sugar imports? Will the Commission make every effort to open up the market to Mozambique, therefore empowering its people to rebuild their economy and in turn reduce the need for international aid?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Mozambique had no access to the Community's sugar market before the ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA) initiative. This initiative has, therefore, offered them new preferential export opportunities and has played an important part in the revival of the sector after civil war and flood.

Mozambique will be able to export unlimited quantities of sugar to the Community from 2009. Meanwhile, transitional arrangements apply: they participate in the EBA quota which increases year on year by 15 % from 74185 tonnes in 2001-2002 to 197 355 tonnes in 2008-2009. These transitional arrangements were necessary to allow the Community to undertake the necessary internal adjustments necessary to cope with increased EBA imports.

It would be inadvisable for the sugar sector to rely solely on access to one foreign market: for development reasons, all export opportunities should be considered. Mozambique is thus starting to export to other markets both within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region and to the United States, which should further help Mozambican sugar farmers.