ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/15

(2004/C 84 E/0016)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2243/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Distortions of competition by German goods-vehicle toll

1. Does the Commission consider that the basis of assessment for the goods-vehicle toll to be introduced at the end of August in Germany is in fact commensurate with the necessary volume of investment in road building?

2. How does the Commission react to the distortions of competition in the German transport industry (and other branches of the economy) that will result from the significant increase in transport costs caused by this new goods-vehicle toll?

3. Does the Commission stand by its rejection of the Federal Government's intention to offset the impact of the goods-vehicle toll on German transport undertakings by way of a credit against the petroleum tax?

4. Does the Commission anticipate any problems with an immediate reduction in the motor-vehicle tax levied on goods-vehicles in Germany to the minimum EU tax rate?

5. Does the Commission expect the new toll arrangements to put non-German transport undertakings transiting through Germany at a disadvantage?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2141/03 and P-2243/03

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Germany has notified to the Commission its intention to introduce a toll reimbursement system accompanied by the introduction of a mileage-based motorway user charge for heavy goods vehicles. In this context, the attention of the Honourable Members is drawn to the decision of the Commission of 23 July 2003 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/443

(2004/C 88 E/0451)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2972/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: EU funding in Kenya

Where have EU funds given to Kenya, particularly to the Gitaru Sub-location, gone and how are they tracked? What mechanisms exist to monitor the dispersal of these funds? If no such mechanism exists, could the Commission explain why this is the case? Furthermore, is the Commission able to provide information on the source of funding for places in secondary education for children in Kenya and the Gitaru Sub-location?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The basis of cooperation between the Community and Kenya is the Country Strategy Paper (CSP), which includes an indicative programme. The CSP has been negotiated with the Government of Kenya in support of sectoral and macroeconomic policies. The 9th European Development Fund (EDF) Country Strategy Programme approved by the Commission on 16 September 2003 (EUR 215 million of programmable aid for the period 2003-2007) mainly focuses on general budget support, rural development and road transport. Education is not a focal sector for Community co-operation. A copy of the CSP is forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

All actions financed by the Community are subject to detailed appraisal to establish clearly identified objectives, beneficiaries and results to be achieved by a set of activities. They also have monitoring schemes adapted to the different activities, providing regular operational and financial information. This may also include external monitoring. Furthermore, Community programmes are, in general, subject to mid-term and end of term evaluations in order to learn lessons and improve performance.

On the financial side, increasing use is being made of regular external audits to confirm that funds have been utilised correctly. The Finance and Contract section of the Delegation in Kenya (deconcentrated since April 2002) also carries out its own controls on the use of funds.

Whilst education is not a focal sector for Community support in Kenya, assistance to a certain number of individual schools has been provided under the Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF), which aims to support self help programmes. A list of secondary schools supported by CDTF is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The CDTF has not supported any projects in Gitaru sub-location to date.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/195

(2004/C 78 E/0200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Specific programme for research

In the European Commission explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a Council Decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006) (1), it is said that in the course of the ethical review, there will be an assessment of whether a free, express and informed consent of the donors has been obtained.

As it is intended that the stem cells for research will be obtained from early stage human embryos, can the Commission confirm:

— Who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested?

— How will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that in the context of the Commission proposal (2) and the condition (e) of the annex it refers to, the ‘donor(s)’ refers to the person(s) who is legally responsible for the human embryo created as a result of medically-assisted in vitro fertilisation designed to induce pregnancy and no longer to be used for that purpose (supernumerary embryo).

The person(s) legally responsible is defined differently in national legislations regulating in vitro fertilisation. For that reason, the Commission proposal (3), in the context of subsidiarity, makes reference to national legislation which imposes specific requirements concerning the consent procedure of the donor(s).

(1) COM(2003) 390 final.

(2) COM(2003) 390.

(3) COM(2003) 390 final — Proposal for a Council decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/73

(2004/C 88 E/0080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2223/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Secret European Union agreements with third parties on nuclear power

According to the ‘European Voice’ of 12 June 2003, last week the Council approved a secret agreement with China on nuclear power. The same newspaper also reports that the agreement will rule out the use of nuclear installations to construct weapons of mass destruction.

Can the Commission confirm whether it is aware of the existence of this agreement?

Can it make this agreement public or explain why it will not do so?

Can it explain how it is possible to ensure that an agreement of this kind will not have implications as regards the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?

Can it establish that no similar agreement has been concluded with Iran?

Can it supply the minutes of the meetings which it held with leading figures from the Iranian regime as part of the ‘constructive dialogue’ on energy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

There is no secret agreement on nuclear energy with either China or with Iran.

The Council adopted on 11 June 2003 negotiation directives for a future Euratom-China agreement. This agreement will be focused on research and its main objective should be to facilitate Chinese research institutions to have an access to the 6th Euratom Framework Programme (FP6) similar to the one they have to the overall 6th Framework Programme (EC FP6). The Chinese have always indicated that they are interested only in a research agreement and this view is shared by Members States who unanimously approved the directives.

There is no Euratom-Iran agreement and there is no draft for negotiation directives for such an agreement. Nevertheless, the Commission would like to recall that Iran is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and that there is a full scope Safeguards Agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which entered into force on 15 May 1974. For the time being, there is no Additional Protocol on strengthening safeguards between Iran and the IAEA.

The Commission is negotiating a Trade and Co-operation Agreement with Iran linked to parallel negotiations on an Agreement on political dialogue and fight against terrorism. These negotiations could lead to the first contractual agreement between the EU and the Islamic Republic, and could pave the way for closer economic and political ties. The EU pursues a comprehensive dialogue approach in its relations with Iran, covering bilateral, regional and global issues, including matters of human rights, terrorism and non-proliferation.

Since 1999, the Commission has been discussing non-nuclear energy issues in a high-level working group. Detailed information on the last meeting of the EU-Iran energy working group in October 2002 is available at the web-site of the Commission (1).

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/enlarg_2_en.html
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/467

(2004/C 84 E/0541)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1271/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Detention of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva in Cuba

Is the Commission aware of the situation of the human rights activist, Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva, who has been detained in prison in Cuba since 5 March 2002 under inhumane conditions and has still not been brought before a court? (See questions E-1458/02, E-1467/02 (1), E-3646/02 (2)).

What action has been taken by the EU recently in Mr Gonzalez Leiva's case and what response has this elicited from the Cuban authorities?

Is the Commission prepared to make stronger representations in the dialogue between the EU and Cuba on human rights issues and will it examine whether the violation of human rights is having a bearing on the Union's common position on Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-3646/02 (2).

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 109.

(2) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 16.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/580

(2004/C 78 E/0614)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3544/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Eurobarometer survey on threats to peace

The findings of the most recent of the Eurobarometer surveys carried out at the Commission's behest on a regular basis, which sought the European public's opinion on which countries were a threat to world peace, have given rise to widespread indignation.

The final result, in which 60 % of Europe's population placed Israel at the top of the list of most dangerous countries, gave rise to indignation among the world's Jewish community and consternation among the general public and drew a shocked response from the Commission President, Romano Prodi, who said he was disturbed and surprised by what have been interpreted as new anti-Semitic leanings in Europe. Since then, however, no attempt has been made to look further into the matter and there has been no self-criticism and no discussion of the reasons why Europeans consider Israel to be the leading threat to peace.

In view of the outcome, there would appear to be good reason to question both the political advisability of the survey and the manner in which it was conducted, given that Mr Prodi himself has criticised both the way in which it was drawn up and the fact that respondents were presented with a non-exhaustive list of countries from which to choose. One is also entitled to doubt the effectiveness and general usefulness of Eurobarometer surveys given that if a survey's findings do not serve any useful purpose, even if only to foster discussion and enquiry, it is nothing more than a waste of public money.

Given the above, would the Commission say:

1. Why the survey was commissioned?

2. Whether it intends to make constructive use of the findings by exploring the reasons for the fears they reflect and attempting to counter any tendencies which, if taken to the extreme, can give rise to anti-Semitic attitudes?

3. How much the invitation to tender both for this survey and for Eurobarometer surveys in general cost the Union?

4. Whether, as Mr Prodi claims, technical mistakes were made in drafting the questionnaire, and how any such mistakes could have escaped the Commission's notice and supervision?

5. How it is possible for the President of the Commission to be unaware of and thus surprised by the findings of a survey instigated by the Commission itself?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to Written Question No P-3334/03 by Ms Muscardini (1).

As a supplement to that answer, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it commissioned the survey in question and that the questionnaire was drawn up jointly by the Press and Communication DG and its contractor, TNS Sofres. It is aware of the limits to the question concerning countries that are a threat to world peace. Nevertheless, it considers that the replies obtained are indicative of worrying prejudices.

(1) See page 263.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/675

(2004/C 88 E/0692)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4088/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject: Reproductive health definition

On 16 December 2003, the EU Council stated that the term ‘reproductive health’ did not include the following: support, aid, facilitation, encouragement, promotion, sponsoring or provision of incentives for abortion (‘die Förderung von Abtreibung’).

How will the Commission take into account this definition when selecting EU partner organisations in charge of implementing EU policies in the field of reproductive health and rights?

Can the Commission confirm that applicant organisations which do not provide abortion or conduct abortion-related activities can be successful in applying for EU money in the field of reproductive health and rights?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

At the Parliament session on 16 December 2003 the Council representative, in his response to the question put by the Honourable Member, referred to recital 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1567/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries (1) which clearly states that no support is given under that Regulation to incentives to encourage abortions.

The Commission supports in full the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) policy and the ICPD Programme of Action with respect to sexual and reproductive health. The selection of partner organisations is governed by the Regulation referred to above.

The Commission considers that it is indeed possible that an organisation which does not provide abortion or conduct abortion-related activities may submit a successful proposal in one of the open calls issued by the Commission with respect to sexual and reproductive health and rights.

(1) OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/121

(2004/C 78 E/0122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2521/03

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Linguistic plurality of Spain with regard to passports

The Resolution of 10 July 1995 (1) requires all Member States to adjust the format of their passports by replacing the term ‘European Communities’ with that of ‘European Union’.

In connection with this adjustment, a proposal was tabled in the Spanish Parliament that centred on recognising the plurality of official languages in passports of citizens resident in autonomous communities where there is more than one official language. However, the Spanish Government rejected this proposal, citing the Resolution of 23 June 1981 (2).

Since Article I-3 of the Draft EU Constitutional Treaty states that ‘The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity’ and Article II-22 thereof adds that ‘The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity’, thus echoing the Charter on Fundamental Rights, and given the conclusions of the European Year of Languages established by decision of the Parliament and the Council: Does the Commission intend to propose that the said Resolution be amended so that, whenever the case arises, all the official languages in an EU Member State are included?

(1) OJ C 200, 4.8.1995, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 241, 19.9.1981, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/469

(2004/C 78 E/0493)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3135/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Disposal of toxic ships

Commissioner Wallström will be aware of the current movement of a number of contaminated US navy ships laden with toxic waste from the US to the UK for disposal. These ageing ships will be towed across the Atlantic at great risk to European waters especially to the coastal areas of Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In view of these facts I would ask the Commission whether these shipments are in keeping with the legislative packages drawn up in light of the ‘Erika’ I and II and ‘Prestige’ disasters and what, if any, measures can be taken to prevent Member States becoming a dumping ground for toxic waste of this sort?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

According to the information available to the Commission, the measures already adopted by the Union in the wake of the ‘Erika’ and ‘Prestige’ accidents do not apply to shipments of end-of life ships.

However, the commitment made in Johannesburg to protect our vulnerable marine environment and the experience learned from the ‘Erika’, ‘Prestige’ and Tricolor disasters should lead us to a precautionary approach.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community applies to all shipments of waste, and thus also to these end-of life ships. According to information submitted to the Commission, the end-of life ships are intended to be recovered in the United Kingdom. According to the Regulation, the countries involved in such a shipment, i.e. the countries of dispatch, destination and transit, all have to consent to the shipment. It thus follows that all the competent authorities involved can oppose the shipment.

A pre-condition to receive a consent from the competent authorities, in particular that of destination, is that the treatment facility is authorised and has adequate technical capacity to treat the waste in question under conditions presenting no danger to human health and to the environment. The Commission has received a complaint in this regard and is investigating the complaint as a matter of urgency with the United Kingdom authorities. The latest information at the Commission's disposal would suggest that the United Kingdom authorities are currently evaluating the situation with regard to the permit of the receiving company.

Finally, should the end-of life ships be intended for disposal, Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 provides that the Community only imports the waste concerned if the exporting country does not have the capacity to treat the waste itself.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/498

(2004/C 78 E/0518)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3232/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Updated budget figures

Can the Commission supply the figures for the following:

— the financial perspective ceilings for the years 1988 to 2003 inclusive;

— the own resources ceilings expressed in euros, for the same period;

— and the budget outturn for commitment and payment appropriations for the financial years 1988 to 2002 inclusive?

These figures should:

— be updated to reflect 2004 prices;

— include, for each figure, for each year, all the changes made to the initial figure, such as technical adjustments, amendments, revisions and mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, with the exception of adjustments connected with implementation of heading 2.

Can it also list all the changes made to each financial perspective since 1988, taking the now defunct annual publication ‘The Community Budget: The Facts in Figures’ as a model for this?

Supplementary answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The figures requested by the Honourable Member for the period 1988-2003 are given in the tables which are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/404

(2004/C 78 E/0426)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Motor-vehicle insurance

On 19 June 2003, the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman presented her annual report. The report indicates that, as from 1 January 2004, the no-claims bonus system will be replaced by a ‘claims history certificate’.

The annual report of the Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund for 2001 shows that, between 1997 and 2001, the number of accidents involving uninsured vehicles increased by 70 % — from about 4 950 to about 8 450. The Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund compensates the victims of uninsured drivers. It makes such payments from funds contributed by the insurance companies, i.e. ‘inter alia’ by drivers who properly insure themselves and their vehicles.

On a more general level, the number of uninsured drivers in Belgium is estimated at 100 000. A large proportion of that number are drivers who can no longer secure cover with proper insurance companies because of their history of making claims: either specific insurance companies are no longer willing to insure them or else the premiums are so high as to be unaffordable. As from 1 November 2003, such drivers in Belgium will be able to receive assistance from what is known as the ‘Rating Office’. Any losses would then be borne by all the insurance companies combined, i.e. ‘inter alia’ by drivers who properly insure themselves and their vehicles.

In its answer to Oral Question H-0525/02 (1), the Commission said that only those who caused damage should be required to pay compensation for such damage. In its answer, the Commission also took the view that obligatory no-claims bonus systems were prohibited. The Commission also stated that free trade in insurance products was in the interests of the vast majority of motorists who could choose the insurance company which rewarded good drivers by charging lower premiums.

Does the Commission share the view that the ‘claims history certificate’ is nothing more than a disguised no-claims bonus system? If not, why not? If so, what alternative can it propose in this instance?

Does the Commission share the view that, by virtue of their contribution to the Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund or to the Rating Office, good drivers are in one way or another indirectly footing the bill for damage caused by the ‘accident-prone’ persons referred to in the Commission's answer of 3 September 2002? How does it justify that situation? What alternative can it propose?

Although third-party liability insurance is compulsory, the number of uninsured drivers is increasing daily. What measures is the Commission proposing which it or the Member States must take in order to (a) significantly reduce that number and (b) simultaneously ensure that every driver may have access to affordable third-party liability insurance?

(1) Oral answer given on 3 September 2002.