ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/221

(2004/C 33 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2117/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Data Protection Directive

The Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC (1)) was adopted EIGHT years ago in 1995.

Will the Commission please give details of which Member States have not yet implemented the Data Protection Directive?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Honourable Member inquires which Member States have not yet implemented the Data Protection Directive, Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. All Member States have notified implementing measures to the Commission. France notified the data protection law of 1978 while announcing its intention to pass a new law that is not yet adopted.

The Honourable Member can find more details about the implementation of the Data Protection Directive in the report recently adopted by the Commission (2) (15 May 2003).

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/lawreport/data-directive_en.htm.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/225

(2004/C 65 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2825/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject: Linguistic diversity

The Action Plan for 2004-2006 promoting language learning and linguistic diversity makes repeated reference to the learning of ‘regional’ and ‘minority’ languages as well as of the more widely spoken languages. It states that national and regional authorities are encouraged to give special attention to supporting language communities whose number of native speakers is in decline from generation to generation. After all, these languages also form part of the European cultural heritage.

Should the protection of these languages be left up to the goodwill of Member States?

Does the EU itself not have to take an active role in supporting teacher training activities and schools that take on this task?

What instruments are available to the EU to encourage Member States to take action if they are currently failing to support this part of our cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that regional and minority languages are part of Europe's cultural heritage.

However, in the field of culture, it intervenes within the scope of the powers granted to it under Article 151 of the EC Treaty, which states that ‘Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action...’. Under the subsidiarity principle, responsibility for protecting regional and minority languages is a matter for Member States.

Under Article 149 of the EC Treaty, the Community contributes to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and supporting and complementing their action. This includes ‘developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States’. Educational establishments teaching a regional or minority language can take part in the Socrates/Comenius programme in the same way as other educational establishments. The teaching of these languages can also form the subject of cooperation projects between teacher-training colleges funded under Socrates/Comenius, which also offers grants for teacher training. Only those activities involving learning a language as a foreign language are limited to the official languages plus Irish and Luxembourgish, under the decision establishing the Socrates programme.

The Commission Action Plan ‘Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity’ provides in point III. 1.1 for the organisation of a conference in 2005 to promote cooperation on questions relating to regional and minority languages in education systems.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/139

(2004/C 65 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2388/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: Implementation of the Sapard programme

The Community's Sapard programme was set up on 1 January 2000 with the objective of establishing management and monitoring systems in a number of applicant countries (excluding Cyprus, Malta and Turkey). Its total funding in 2001 was in excess of EUR 1 billion.

The Commission has asked the applicant countries to take responsibility for the management of this programme and for the decisions concerning project selection, tender procedures and award of contracts.

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of appropriations by country? Can it also state what specific actions have been financed and what monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure the proper operation of the programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

The indicative allocation by beneficiary country of the maximum amount of the annual Community contribution was set out in annex to the Commission Decision 1999/595/EC of 20 July 1999 (1). The information concerning the breakdown of appropriations by country is available in the Sapard annual report 2000 from the Commission to the Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. For each year from 2000 to 2003 the breakdown by country has been made in accordance with the regulation described in Section 3.1 of that report, and annual financing agreements concluded each year with every country set out the maximum Community financial commitment. For the year 2003, EUR 560 millions is allocated to the beneficiary countries.

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Sapard programme, contrary to the other pre-accession instruments, is implemented on a decentralised basis, and so the Commission, is not involved in the choice of the projects receiving support. The projects must however be consistent with the measures (‘actions’) in the programme approved by the Commission which, as is the case with Member States, has the right to obtain all relevant information in particular for purposes of control.

Concerning the monitoring system (Monitoring Committee, evaluations, monitoring indicators), it is described in Section 5 of the Sapard report for 2001. The report 2002 is due to be transmitted to the Parliament shortly.

Indicative allocation by beneficiary country of the maximum annual amount in 1999 prices:

(euro) Country Amount Hungary 38 054 000 Latvia 21 848 000 Slovenia 6 337 000 Bulgaria 52 124 000 Czech Republic 22 063 000 Lithuania 29 829 000 Slovakia 18 289 000 Poland 168 683 000 Estonia 12 137 000 Romania 150 636 000 Total 520 000 000

(1) OJ L 226, 27.8.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/43

(2004/C 65 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: ‘Prestige’ Solidarity Fund

On 21 November 2002, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the ‘Prestige’ disaster off the coast of Galicia. Paragraph 8 reads:

Calls for fisheries workers and other local and regional businesses affected by the disaster to be fully and swiftly compensated for the economic losses they will suffer; calls, further, for assistance to be provided under other appropriate instruments (Solidarity Fund, Structural Funds) with a view to assisting the people and economic sectors affected by the oil pollution and restoring the environment of the regions concerned.

On 19 December 2002 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on safety at sea and measures to alleviate the effects of the ‘Prestige’ disaster. Paragraph 12 reads:

Calls for the immediate adoption of measures to alleviate the damage occasioned to those affected, through the use of the Solidarity Fund.

What sums from the Solidarity Fund have been allocated to alleviating the effects of the ‘Prestige’ disaster?

What percentage of the total estimated damage and prejudice does this sum represent?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

In January 2003, the Commission received an application from the Spanish authorities to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) with respect to the disaster resulting from the ‘Prestige’ tanker accident and subsequent oil spill affecting the Galician coast.

The Commission has examined the request on the basis of the requirements imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (1), hereafter the EUSF-Regulation. The Commission has established that the disaster, based on the information provided by the Spanish authorities, does not qualify as a ‘major disaster’ within the meaning of the Regulation, because the damage caused does not meet the threshold of EUR 3 billion or 0,6 % of gross national income (GNI).

The EUSF-Regulation, however, provides that under exceptional circumstances a region could benefit from assistance from the Fund, where that region has been affected by an extraordinary disaster affecting the major part of the population with serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of the region. The EUSF may intervene only exceptionally if it is demonstrated that the criteria of Article 2(2) of the EUSF-Regulation are complied with, and furthermore, it obliges the Commission to examine with utmost rigour any requests, which are submitted under this subparagraph.

The Commission can confirm that it is now examining the Spanish request and in order to carry out a proper assessment, it has requested supplementary information from the Spanish authorities, in accordance with the requirements of the EUSF-Regulation.

It is only after this assessment that the Commission may decide to propose the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund to the Budgetary Authority.

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/90

(2004/C 65 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1760/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject: Turin to Lyons high-speed rail link: a priority for Europe

The French Government has announced that work on the Turin to Lyons high-speed rail line section cannot begin before 2015.

It is essential to build this line not just for Piedmont, an important geo-economic area, but also in order to create an interconnected Europe-wide system of links between the northern and southern halves of the continent and to link northern Italy to eastern Europe.

Will not the Union stress again, in particular for the benefit of the French Government, that the Turin to Lyons section constitutes a priority where completion of Corridor V is concerned, as the Member of the Commission responsible for transport has repeatedly stated?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The French Government has not yet officially adopted a position on the Lyon-Turin project. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance and the Ministry of Transport have carried out an audit at its request. This was followed by a debate in the National Assembly and the French Senate in May 2003. On the basis of the conclusions of the audit and the debate, the French Government will take a decision in the autumn on the priority it intends to give the project. Against this background, the Commission has emphasised on several occasions, in Parliament as well as to the French authorities, the major importance of the Lyon-Turin project in restoring the modal balance of traffic on a strategic route which will enable western and eastern Europe to be linked across the Alps and Italy. The support given takes the form of a significant financial contribution amounting to EUR 100 million for the period 2001-2006 — under the budget for the trans-European networks — for the studies programme.

In addition, the Lyon-Turin project is one of the projects covered by the scope of the Commission proposal to increase to 20 % the rate of co-funding for which cross-border rail projects crossing natural barriers could be eligible under the budget for the trans-European networks (TEN). The proposal — which was amended (1) following the vote on first reading in Parliament in July 2002 — is still languishing before the Council, and it is not possible to anticipate when the 20 % rate will become effective.

(1) COM(2003) 38 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/695

(2004/C 84 E/0781)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0892/04

by Véronique De Keyser (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: European Super-Commissioner

Mr Prodi has just expressed himself in favour of creating a European Super-Commissioner responsible for economic affairs. Does the Commission intend to encourage the creation of an analogous post in the field of social affairs or would the Super-Commissioner for economic affairs also be responsible, in a clear and precise manner, for social affairs?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Under Article 217 of the EC Treaty, as last amended by the Nice Treaty ‘the responsibilities incumbent upon the Commission shall be structured and allocated among its Members by its President’. Thus it is for the person who is appointed President of the next Commission to decide how responsibilities in the economic and social fields will be allocated and whether, more particularly, wide-ranging coordination responsibilities in the social field should be allocated to a Member of that Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/399

(2004/C 84 E/0463)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0437/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject: EURO 5

In the answer to my Written Questions E-3639/03 (1) and E-3502/03 (1) on pollution in the Wipp and Eisack valleys and air quality standards in areas of heavy traffic, I was referred to Directive 1999/96/EC (2), under which stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will be reduced 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.

In the light of the danger to the health of residents in areas of heavy traffic, would it not be useful to bring this phase forward, perhaps to 2007, and reduce both nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions much earlier and more drastically?

What is the Commission's view on this?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2) OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/582

(2004/C 84 E/0658)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject: Secret detention in the USA of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities because their visa is not in order

Has the Commission taken any political or humanitarian steps in view of arrests of this kind in the USA, which have even been ratified by the Supreme Court, and affect 700 individuals, against whom the sole existing charge is that they have infringed the immigration laws of the USA?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Terrorism represents a fundamental attack to the values of the European Union laid down in Articles 6 and 11 of the Treaty on European Union, namely the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and the rule of law as essential elements of EU policy.

The Commission supports bringing suspected terrorists to justice and reaffirms that terrorism represents a threat to security in Europe and beyond.

However, the Commission also emphasizes its conviction that the fight against terrorism must fully respect human rights and the rule of law.

The Commission is not in a position to ascertain whether the charges leading to the arrests mentioned by the Honourable Member, as reported by the media, were solely based on alleged violations of any particular type of internal United States laws.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/759

(2004/C 84 E/0855)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0080/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Rheumatism and Biomed programme

According to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), more than 50 % of Europe's population suffer, at one time or another, from an acute or chronic rheumatic disease. Has the Commission given consideration to including the combating of rheumatic diseases as a theme under the Biomed programme and if so, what conclusions has it come to?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission's commitment in rheumatic diseases research is evident in eight on-going projects related to rheumatic diseases, financed with an EU financial contribution of more than EUR 11 million under the 5th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development. The results of these projects are expected from 2004 onwards.

In the 6th Framework Programme (FP) health related research is mainly financed under priority one ‘life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’. This programme focuses on basic research in functional genomics, applications of genomics and biotechnology, and applications related to medicine and health care. Already under the first call of priority one of the 6th FP a project related to tissue and cell engineering, which has a strong relevance for rheumatic diseases, has been selected and is currently under negotiation. The outcome of the second call, with a closure date of 13 November 2003, will be available mid-2004.

The Commission is defining at present topics to be considered for future calls of this priority with its scientific programme advisory group and its programme committee. It is the intention of the Commission to propose another topic for research related to rheumatic diseases in a later call of priority 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/243

(2004/C 88 E/0246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0905/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: Bicycle helmets

Is the Commission aware of the position of the European Cycling Federation opposing legislation that makes the wearing of helmets compulsory for all cyclists? Particularly, is the Commission aware of the studies they quote showing that the compulsory use of helmets does not decrease the accident rate involving cyclists?

Is the Commission prepared to investigate the matter and, if appropriate, reconsider the need for such legislation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the position of the European Cyclists' Federation on the wearing of protective helmets by cyclists, and of the studies referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has not so far supported or opposed Community legislation on the wearing of helmets by cyclists. In the third European road safety action programme (1), adopted in 2003, which provides the reference framework for Commission initiatives up to 2010, it announced that it intends to compile figures on the use of helmets by cyclists in the EU and the effectiveness of cycle helmet use in reducing the risks of head injury, in particular amongst 10-14 year olds, the high-risk group. The negative or positive impact on bicycle use and the measures to be taken, where appropriate, at EU level, will also be studied. As this study is not one of the priority actions, it will not start before 2005.

(1) Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: a shared responsibility — Communication from the Commission, COM(2003) 311 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/953

(2004/C 78 E/1007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/04

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: Hospitals for ‘national defence’ in Italy

According to a series of articles published in the Italian press the L. Spallanzani hospital in Rome, which specialises in infectious diseases, is gradually becoming a hospital for ‘national defence’. This means that it is to have — if it does not already have — high-security laboratories to combat level-4 bacteria and viruses (Ebola, smallpox, infectious diseases, etc.).

Since the hospital is located in one of the most densely populated districts of Rome, can the Commission say whether it has obtained the required certification from international and European bodies allowing it to accommodate the necessary BSL4 chambers and, more specifically, in accordance with what forms of certification the L. Spallanzani hospital houses the highly pathogenic level 4 bacteria and viruses?

Finally, can the Commission say whether it knows of any bilateral agreements between Italy and the United States to combat bioterrorism?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0095/04 by Mr Papayannakis (1)

(1) See page 930.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/520

(2004/C 88 E/0533)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject: Polish VAT increase for citrus fruit

The Polish Parliament recently adopted a bill on taxing goods and services. The bill includes a significant increase in taxes on consumer goods, particularly citrus fruits and other imported products. The bill provides for a VAT rate of 22 % on citrus fruit, whereas all other Polish-produced fruit and vegetables will be taxed at 7 %.

Community legislation lays down that all food products qualify for the lowest rate of VAT, but that it is up to each Member State to decide the rate it wishes to apply to these products.

However, the Polish bill severely distorts competition, by favouring certain products, most of them locally produced, to the detriment of others mostly produced in other EU countries, such as citrus and other imported fruit. The current situation, which directly affects Community citrus fruit growing already discriminates against citrus fruit by applying a 7 % rate, as against the 3 % applied to other substitute products; this is completely arbitrary, given the similarity of the cost of citrus fruit with these other, similar products, which are not affected by the measure.

What measures is the Commission going to take in view of this possible tax discrimination by Poland against imported citrus fruit coming from other Member States in favour of Polish domestic products of a similar nature, with a view to safeguarding the principles of freedom of competition within the internal market?