ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/822

(2004/C 84 E/0917)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0621/04

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Revision of TEN-T

A revision of the EU's Trans-European Networks — Transport (TEN-T) is currently under discussion. A new concept, ‘Motorways of the Sea’, is being introduced in this connection, which can be endorsed in theory but, in practice, there is a great risk of distortion of competition depending on the implementation. In the light of this situation.

Would the Commission provide clarification on the following points:

— can ships be regarded as infrastructure in the context of TEN-T and, therefore, be built and purchased using TEN-T finance;

— must support for ‘Motorways of the Sea’ projects always be provided by way of a tendering procedure in the Member State concerned;

— will discounts on port dues, stevedoring, pilot services etc. in specific ports in connection with the opening of new routes be taken into account within the ceiling for state aid for the opening of such new routes?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission proposal of 1 October 2003 on the revision of the Community Guidelines on the development of the TEN-T network (1), proposes amongst other priority projects the ‘Motorways of the Sea’. This concept was already announced by the White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ (2) which was presented by the Commission in 2001. The Commission is of the opinion, that this concept has to be applied in a way adapted to the different areas. Whilst Community financial support to the construction of infrastructures as part of the Motorways of the Sea projects is sometimes enough for the successful implementation, sometimes financial incentives beyond the purely infrastructure part may be necessary. This is why the Commission has proposed the possibility of EU co-financing of start-up aid for shipping companies of the motorways of the sea limited to two years, based upon a thorough tendering procedure. Such a support would be applied in accordance with the Community guidelines on state aids with maritime transport published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) on the 17 January 2004 which allow start-up aids for a maximum period of three years.

This proposal is now under discussion in the Council and the Parliament.

(1) COM(2003) 564 final.

(2) COM(2001) 370 final.

(3) OJ C 13, 17.1.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/322

(2004/C 84 E/0370)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0161/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission established a central accounting department independent from the authority responsible for budget activities?

Has the Commission ensured that each DG has a separate accounting entity to analyse and evaluate the accounting aspects of the DG's activities? Do these entities liaise with the central accounting department?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/770

(2004/C 84 E/0866)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0313/04

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Galway incinerator

The city of Galway plans the installation of an incinerator near Galway Bay, which is the only fresh water source for the area. This area is also a designated tourist area.

Is the EU Commission aware of or involved in plans to monitor the installation of this incinerator? Can the Commission confirm it is in line with the directives regarding the environment and consumer protection?

Would the EU Commission confirm its involvement in the construction of the incinerator in Vienna, Austria?

Can the Commission explain the difference between the proposed Galway incinerator and the Vienna model?

What advantages are there in choosing the so-called Vienna model? I am informed by residents in Galway that the Vienna incinerator also heats homes and can blend into its surroundings. Can the Commission confirm this, and is the Vienna incinerator the most up-to-date model available?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

All installations which incinerate waste have to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (1). The Directive covers incineration and co-incineration plants. The limit values set in Directive 2000/76/EC aim at preventing as far as practicable, negative effects on the environment and the resulting risks to human health. The granting of permits for waste incinerators falls under the responsibility of national authorities. The actual risk at local level has to be assessed for each individual case within the authorization procedure. The national authorities do not need to notify applications for the construction and operation of a waste incinerator, or the permits issued, to the Commission. The Commission is therefore not aware of the request to construct the incinerator mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/693

(2004/C 84 E/0778)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0875/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Human rights violations in northern Uganda

For more than 16 years a civil war has been raging in the northern regions of Uganda between the Ugandan army (Uganda People's Defence Force, UPDF) and the armed opposition, the LRA. As both sides are struggling to gain control over the population, civilians are caught increasingly frequently in the crossfire between the two groups. 400 000 people have been driven out of the districts of Gulu and Kitgum since 1996; in Gulu alone this represents some 80 % of the population. For a long time the extent of the human rights violations perpetrated by the LRA against the population has diverted attention from similar violations on the government side.

Executions, acts of cruelty and rape by Ugandan soldiers are everyday occurrences.

In addition, opposition groups active mainly in the west and north of the country are also responsible for serious human rights violations, mainly against the civilian population. Civilians with no involvement in the dispute are the victims of deliberate, arbitrary killings. Even children are mistreated, raped, sexually enslaved and forced to bear arms. Escape bids are paid for by many girls and boys with their lives.

In view of this high level of brutality against the civilian population, would the Commission say whether it is already aware of this situation and whether it intends to do something about these crimes, or has already done so?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-0646/04 by Mr Mauro. (1)

(1) See page 646.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/617

(2004/C 84 E/0691)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0533/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Horse passport

How many of the Member States have put the Directive into their national law?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The principles of identification of equidae are laid down in Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (1). Minimum requirements for the identification of registered equidae are laid down in Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae (1). Both Directives have been transposed by all Member States into national law.

Based on Directive 90/427/EEC, the Commission adopted Decision 93/623/EEC of 20 October 1993 establishing the identification document (passport) accompanying registered equidae (2).

In accordance with Article 4 of Directive 90/42 6/EEC and motivated by animal welfare and public health concerns, the Commission adopted Decision 2000/68/EC of 22 December 1999 (3) amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production.

According to Article 4 of Commission Decision 2000/68/EC, Member States shall ensure that as from 1 July 2000 at the latest, registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production are accompanied during their movement by the identification document as referred to above. This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Decisions 93/623/EEC and 2000/68/EC do not oblige Member States to notify the legal provisions they have implemented to comply with the provisions of these Decisions. So far, the Commission has not received any complaint in connection with non-implementation of the mentioned Decisions in the Member States.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2) OJ L 298, 3.12.1993.

(3) OJ L 23, 28.1.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/627

(2004/C 84 E/0703)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0555/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Illiteracy and social exclusion

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(m) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to produce a Green Paper on illiteracy and social exclusion?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/640

(2004/C 84 E/0720)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/04

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Ban on entering Russia for Danish journalist

The Danish journalist, Vibeke Sperling, who works for the daily newspaper Politiken, has been refused an entry visa into Russia without any justification. This is a serious matter which raises issues of principle concerning the standards that the EU requires of its partners, including Russia.

Will the Commission, therefore, say whether it has contemplated raising such problems of freedom of the press in the context of the forthcoming negotiations with Russia on the cooperation agreement between the EU and Russia, and making clear to Russia that such infringements of fundamental freedoms are not acceptable to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission is concerned at reports of infringements of the freedom of the press in Russia and is closely following developments, including with regard to the specific case of Ms Sperling. Although the decision to grant a visa or not is the prerogative of Russia, it is most regrettable that Russia has chosen to act in a restrictive and opaque manner in this case. The Commission recalls the public declaration of concern on media freedom issued by the EU in July 2003.

In its recent Communication on relations with Russia (1), the Commission underlined the need for the EU to hold an open and frank dialogue, in order to insist that Russia respect the values to which it is committed as a member of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Council of Europe, including respect for human rights and media freedom. These issues are frequently raised in the political dialogue which the EU holds with the Russian authorities.

The EU's activity is not limited to political dialogue. In view of its concerns on media freedom, the Commission will continue to support the development of an independent and pluralistic media in Russia, including via projects funded under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

The Commission does not see this issue as linked to the extension of the EU/Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to the ten acceding Member States, which is a purely technical procedure.

(1) COM(2004) 106 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/413

(2004/C 84 E/0482)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0480/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Commission open competitions

Following a recent article in Le Figaro regarding the case of Jean-Louis Gibault, a French citizen who took the Commission's open competition in the field of external relations and management of aid to non-member countries:

— Could the Commission give details of why he scored 19,5 for the oral test and thus failed in his application?

— Why was the motivation for this mark not revealed to the applicant despite numerous requests?

— Is the Commission involved in legal proceedings with Mr Gibault? If so please give details of the date of the case.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The notice of the competition referred to by the Honourable Member in his question stipulated a pass-mark of 20 points out of a total of 40 points. The applicant referred to in the Honourable Member's question achieved a mark of 19,50. Failure to reach the stipulated passmark is obviously a legitimate reason for excluding a candidate.

Mr Gibault was informed of his marks. A series of precedents from the Court of Justice confirms that the act of communicating the marks to the candidate is a sufficient explanation for the selection board's decision.

Article 6 of annex III of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities stipulates that the work of the selection board is secret. The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have repeatedly upheld the need to safeguard the confidentiality of the deliberations of selection boards in order to guarantee their independence, the objectivity of their work, and to protect them from any outside pressure or interference. This has been confirmed in the judgement of the Court of Justice of 4 July 1996 in case C-254/95 P, Parliament v. Innamorati and in the judgements of the Court of First Instance of 27 March 2003 in case T-33/00, Martínez Páramo and others v. Commission, of 25 June 2003 in case T-72/01 Pyres v. Commission and of 23 January 2004 in case T-53/00, Angioli v. Commission.

Mr Gibault has contested his exclusion and is seeking the annulment of the open competition, or at least the decision of the selection board, under case T/294/03. The case was lodged on 25 August 2003 and is still pending.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/695

(2004/C 88 E/0714)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/04

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject: River Ebro water transfer

In view of the recent news that Brussels confirms that Spain has not correctly applied the Directive demanding that the environmental impact of specific projects be assessed before they are approved, by guaranteeing prior consultation, and given that the Commission has brought the relevant charges before the EU Court of Justice in connection with this incorrect application, in the case of a regulation implemented in processing the Ebro water transfer as part of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan, will the Commission tell me to what extent the Spanish Government's failure to meet the requirements could affect the implementation of the National Hydrological Plan, since Spanish Environment Ministry sources have stated that ‘even if the court were to say that we have to change this aspect of the law, this would not invalidate the decisions taken’?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

As the Honourable Member rightly states, the Commission recently decided to bring an action against Spain before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty, for incorrect transposition into Spanish law of certain provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2).

However, it should be noted that this decision was taken within the context of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission to examine the conformity of Spanish legislation transposing Directive 97/11/EC. These are general proceedings unrelated to any specific case, such as the one mentioned by the Honourable Member. The decision stems from complaints that the transitional arrangements provided for in Directive 97/11/CE and the obligations arising from Articles 3 and 9 were not being met and had not been clearly incorporated into Spanish law.

The infringement proceedings do not necessarily mean that the Directive on environmental impact assessment is still being applied incorrectly in Spain. Any consequences for specific projects would have to be determined through a case-by-case examination of the procedure followed.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/805

(2004/C 84 E/0900)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0525/04

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Potato ring rot

The Commission will be aware that the recent outbreak of potato ring rot in Wales gave serious concerns to potato growers in other parts of the United Kingdom, including my own constituency, Scotland. The Commission may also be aware that the National Union of Farmers in Scotland, together with colleagues in Ireland, are keen to take action to prevent the spread of this disease to their own crops by establishing ‘high health regions’. This would allow Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to attain official designation as areas which are free from potato ring rot and enable a ban to be imposed on the import of seed from non-designated areas. This strategy would achieve the dual aims of stemming the spread of the disease and ensuring that disease-free areas are able to cultivate healthy potato crops.

Would the Commission agree that measures such as those being proposed by the farmers of Scotland and Ireland would assist in preventing the spread of this disease and indicate what needs to be done at EU as well as at national or devolved level of government to achieve these aims?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

We are well aware of the outbreak of potato ring rot to which the Honourable Member refers and are carefully monitoring the situation, on which we are regularly updated by the British authorities. On the proposals made by Scottish and Irish farmers, we must point out that the Union already has appropriate legislation in place for preventing appearance of this disease on its territory and controlling it if it does occur. The legislation is Directive 2000/29/EC (1), enacting health provisions in connection with entry into the Union and movement within it of plants and plant products, including potatoes, and Directive 93/85/EEC (2), which contains a set of very detailed technical measures for thwarting the appearance of this disease and controlling it. Under the Community provisions no movement of potatoes is possible unless the plant health requirements have been met, namely that they are free of ring rot, in the case of seed potatoes are accompanied by a plant health passport attesting that fact, and in the case of ware potatoes that the grower or packer is officially registered. We do not see what further measures could be added. Moreover, under single market rules once harmonised technical measures are in place no prohibition for plant health reasons on movement within the Community is permitted.

(1) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, OJ L 169, 10.7.2000. Last amended by Commission Directive 2003/116/EC, OJ L 321, 6.12.2003.

(2) Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the control of potato ring rot, OJ L 259, 18.10.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/716

(2004/C 88 E/0736)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0901/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: The treatment of animals in livestock markets

Could the Commission please advise what infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the Treaty have been initiated against Member States with regard to inadequate implementation of EU legal provisions on animal welfare?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The treatment of animals in livestock markets is only governed by Community Law currently in force to the extent that it falls within Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport (1) as amended by Directive 95/29/EC (2).

Transport of the animals to, and unloading them at, the market would be covered if the journey to the market was more than 50 kilometres but once the animals pass out of the control of the transporter the Directive does not deal with their situation until loading for the journey from the market commences.

The Commission's proposal for a new Regulation on the protection of transported animals aims, in particular, to extend the protection afforded by Community Law to animals at markets. Personnel handling animals at markets would have to receive the necessary training. Livestock market operators would be responsible for ensuring that the welfare of the animals was respected during their stay at the market including during loading and unloading. Market operators would also be responsible for the introduction and monitoring of the appropriate procedures to ensure respect of the relevant rules on their premises.

Infringement proceedings were opened against Belgium in the year 2000 in connection (inter alia) with serious animal welfare deficiencies in relation to loading and unloading of animals at a livestock market.

Following further incidents, Belgium modified its legislation and adopted strict enforcement procedures including prosecution of those alleged to be responsible for some of the incidents. Following reports of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), which indicated an improved situation, the Commission subsequently decided not to proceed further with the infringement action.

Other incidents concerning alleged mistreatment of animals in markets in some other Member States have also been brought to the attention of the Commission in recent years but following the intervention of the Commission's services, action was in most cases taken to improve the situation. It was not considered necessary to open infringement proceedings in relation to these incidents.

In relation to the Commission's general position on initiation of infringement proceedings in relation to breaches of Community animal welfare legislation, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given to written question E-2884/02 of Mr Erik Meijer on 20 November 2002 (3).

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(3) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.