ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/128

(2004/C 78 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2566/03

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: EU aid for construction projects in Italy

The firm Planten en Bloemen, based at Batzenhofen (Germany), commissioned the firm Europepartner, owned by Geom. Cataffo Doriano and based in Salerno (Italy), to build a warehouse in Täfertingen (Germany), an investment totalling EUR 850 000. The construction firm considered that there was a possibility of EU aid and, according to its own information, applied for it. The project, however, was not completed and the whereabouts of the Italian builder is unknown.

1. Is there any possibility in general of such construction projects receiving aid?

2. If so, under which programme could the aid be paid?

3. Was an application made for aid for the above project?

4. If so, when and want amount was paid out?

5. Were accounts duly kept?

6. Is the Commission aware that the project was not completed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the area in question is not among those defined as eligible for European regional aid under the Structural Funds, nor is it covered under the rural development programmes of the CAP. Accordingly, there is no Community financial instrument available to the Bavarian authorities to support the project in question.

The Commission is informed that the project is not yet complete, but would point out that only the investor (in this case Planten en Bloemen, Batzenhofen) may apply for Community co-financing via the Bavarian authorities, and not the individual building contractor.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/261

(2004/C 65 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3034/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Term of patents for computer-implemented inventions

At the sitting of 24 September 2003 Parliament voted at first reading on the proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

Pursuant to Article 8(b) of the proposal, as amended by Parliament, the Commission is required to submit to Parliament and the Council a report on the issue of whether the rules governing the term of patents and the determination of patentability requirements, and more specifically novelty, inventive step and the proper scope of claims, are adequate.

Can the Commission state whether it regards the standard patent term (20 years) as suitable for software-related inventions? Does the Commission not regard a shorter period as desirable for this kind of high-technology invention? Does the Commission not take the view that such a decision might foster competition on the European market in software-related inventions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

It is a long-standing feature of patent law that the term of protection is the same for all inventions, in all fields of technology. This principle has been enshrined as a firm legal obligation at the international level in the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. The only deviation from this rule currently practised is to allow for an increased term of protection for certain products which are subject to lengthy regulatory approval procedures and which would therefore be subject, in the absence of such a provision, to a relatively short period of effective protection in the marketplace.

Nevertheless, the Commission is aware of arguments to the effect that the standard term of protection of 20 years is not appropriate for all fields of technology, and for this reason has agreed, in its response to the amendments made at first reading to the proposal, to examine the question. This examination would naturally take account of the need to encourage innovation and competition. It must, however, be appreciated that there would be considerable legal and technical challenges involved in making any change in this area, not the least of which is the practical difficulty in defining, in sufficiently precise and watertight legal terms, the boundaries of the subject-matter to which different terms of protection might be applied. Moreover, even if it should be concluded that it is desirable and feasible to make such a change, for the reasons mentioned above, this would need to be pursued as a policy objective through international negotiations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/223

(2004/C 33 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2125/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Fixed book prices

In a resolution of 16 May 2002 (P5_TA(2002)0244), the European Parliament called on the Commission to submit to Parliament by the end of 2002 (!!), on the basis of Article 95 of the EC Treaty, a legislative proposal on the fixing of book prices.

Has the Commission drafted a legislative proposal, and can it indicate the substance of the proposal? If not, why has the Commission not acted upon this request by the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

On 4 November 2002, the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market informed the Parliament's Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee that book price fixing systems existed in various Member States in the form of legislation or professional agreements. He explained that these systems had not caused any problems to date with regard to Court of Justice case law in this field.

The Member of the Commission also stated that, in keeping with its commitments to clarify and modernise European legislation, the Commission felt that harmonisation of these national systems would not bring sufficient benefits to justify changes to the legal framework developed by the Court of Justice.

No new information has been received since then to justify changing this analysis.

In addition, as the Member of the Commission pointed out, and following a detailed examination of the Parliament's legislative proposal of 16 May 2002, the Commission considers that the definition of the key concept of ‘circumvention’ established by this proposal is too broad and is likely to significantly impede the free movement of books between Member States, particularly those involved in e-commerce. A broad definition of ‘circumvention’ would also be incompatible with the obligation to interpret restrictively all exceptions to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty.

The Commission also notes that this approach has been adopted by all the national book price fixing systems, including the German system adopted on 2 September 2002.

It should also be stressed that the proposal for a Commission Regulation on sales promotions implicitly authorises the prices of certain products to be fixed nationally, insofar as provision is made, in this respect, for a specific exception to the ban in principle on Member States limiting the value of sales promotions: by virtue of this exception, the Member States are therefore authorised to specifically limit the value of discounts (and not of other promotions) for fixed-price products.

In view of the above, the Commission has decided, for the moment, not to back the idea of an ad hoc legislative proposal such as that proposed by the Parliament.

At any rate, it is continuing to monitor the implementation of national book price fixing systems and their compliance with Community law. If ever this were to prove necessary, it would consider all practical initiatives.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/38

(2004/C 33 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Recognition by Unesco of ‘olive and olive oil routes’ as the fourth cultural heritage route

Unesco has already received proposals from many quarters that it should sponsor the ‘olive and olive oil routes’ by officially proclaiming them the fourth world cultural heritage route.

Events along the ‘olive and olive oil routes’ are organised every year by various bodies — such as chambers of trade, local councils and agricultural associations — following an itinerary which starts in Greece, passes along the Turkish coast and through the countries of the Middle East and North Africa and returns via Spain, Portugal, France and Italy to the Peloponnese. Along this route there are cultural activities and demonstrations focused around the theme of olives.

Olives and olive oil are not only prized by Mediterranean peoples for their gastronomic and therapeutic qualities but have also influenced their lives over thousands of years, in terms of their daily routines, customs, beliefs and religion; the olive-branch has prevailed as the global symbol of peace. In view of these facts, is the Commission intending to back the proposal for Unesco recognition of the ‘olive and olive oil routes’ in its meeting next May? If so, how is it intending to do so?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

The Commission, while acknowledging the historical, cultural and economic significance of olives and olive oil for Europe, would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it has no competence to intervene in decisions of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/208

(2004/C 33 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) and Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Lifting the current ban on feeding fishmeal to ruminants

The current ban on feeding fishmeal to ruminants was implemented in December 2000 as a precautionary measure as a consequence of the BSE situation. There is, however, no evidence of links between fishmeal intake and TSE or BSE.

Since December 2000 TSE regulations and revised animal by-product legislation have been implemented. A satisfactory analysis method to distinguish between meat and bone meal and fishmeal has also been developed and ring-tested. The fishmeal industry has implemented quality systems that ensure that pure, safe and traceable fishmeal enters the trade and industry risk assessments indicate that the worse scenario from a cross-contaminated fishmeal is one incident in 100 years.

In the light of these developments and with reference to the employment impact of the ban will the Commission now lift the ban on its expiry on 30 June 2003?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

The Parliament and the Council recently adopted a proposal for a Regulation (1) which prolongs the transitional measures to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2), until 30 June 2005. The prolongation was necessary because of certain delays in establishing the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status of countries. The ban on feeding fishmeal to ruminants was one of the transitional measures prolonged.

In parallel, a Commission proposal introducing the current provisions of the feed ban into Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 without a fixed time schedule, thus ending the transitional nature of the feed ban is now in the process of adoption. It will apply from 1 September 2003.

Fishmeal itself does not present a risk for BSE. The reason for banning fishmeal in feed is the control of the feed. In particular, the presence of fishmeal may hamper the control of the presence of ruminant meat-and-bone meal in feed. Results of a recent ring trial indicate that 50 % of the laboratories failed to detect a contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed containing 5 % of fishmeal with the official detection method. Research to improve the method is ongoing.

It therefore seems appropriate to reconsider the use of fishmeal in ruminant feed only when improved control measure are available in the light of new scientific developments and, where appropriate, in the light of the outcome of a risk assessment.

A Commission working document outlining the state of play of the feed ban will be forwarded to the Parliament and the Council in the coming weeks.

(1) COM(2003) 103 final.

(2) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/164

(2004/C 33 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1746/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 May 2003)

Subject: Carrickmines Castle archeological finds

Could the Commission please indicate the current position as regards its investigations into the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out under Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and, in particular, its failure to appraise the impact on the archaeological heritage of the Carrickmines site? Further to the Commission's answer to Oral Question H-0649/02 (2), will it please indicate when it expects to report on its investigation, bearing in mind the urgent nature of this situation, given the imminent destruction of this archaeological treasure?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

The Commission confirms that its appraisal as regards the adequacy of assessment of archaeological impacts under the environmental impact assessment (EIA) carried out on the M50 motorway project pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3), is ongoing. This assessment raises precise technical questions that require careful examination. Separately the Commission is aware that work on this site has been halted by a legal action in the national courts related to compliance with national law. It is conscious of the desirability of advancing the examination of the EIA aspects, and hopes to be able to convey more precise information to the Honourable Member within the next two months.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) Written reply dated 22 October 2002.

(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/89

(2004/C 65 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1713/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Operation of the capital market in Greece

Between 1999 and 2001, a redistribution of income estimated at EUR 100 billion took place in Greece via the stock market. The sharp fall in the General Price Index on the Greek stock market (which began in 2000 and accelerated through 2001 and 2002) created social tension and bleak prospects for hundreds of thousands of Greek citizens who had invested their savings (or borrowed to invest) on the stock market. The entire situation has raised legitimate questions concerning the way in which the capital market in Greece is operated and supervised and the possibility of avoiding a similar situation in the future.

What is the Commission's view of the structure and operation of the capital market in Greece, with particular reference to the period 1999-2001? Did a similar redistribution of income via the stock market occur in other Member States of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2003)

The Commission cannot confirm the figure mentioned by the Honourable Members regarding the losses made by investors on the Greek stock markets, but it certainly shares their concerns regarding the consequences of the fall of share prices on the Greek stock market.

However, it should also be considered that the sharp fall in the General Price Index of the Greek stock market followed a very sharp increase between 1996 and 2000. The modernisation of the stock exchange and the prospect of joining the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) raised investors' expectations of returns on equity holdings in the late 1990's. The General Price Index on the Athens stock exchange increased by some 600 percent between 1996 and 1999. It has fallen subsequently by some 65 percent. This is undoubtedly a sharp fall, but is in line with trends on the majority of stock markets. Since January 2000, the main French index has fallen by some 50 percent, the German index by some 55 percent, the British index by some 40 percent.

Beginning with the deflation of the bubble in technology, media and telecommunications stocks, the fall in prices has spread to all sectors, reflecting investor concern about the prospects for corporate earnings amid a weak global economy and geo-political uncertainty, as well as a loss of confidence in corporate governance and market integrity. The Commission would like to stress that the rapid and complete implementation of all the measures in the Financial Services Action Plan, the initiatives in the area of corporate governance, as well as the rationalisation of the framework for Union-level regulation and supervision, will go a long way in raising the level of investor protection, strengthening the stability of the financial system, and increasing its efficiency, to the benefit of investor and companies alike.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/112

(2004/C 65 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2126/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Compulsory provision of basic banking services for all EU citizens

In Belgium, the Basic Banking Services Act will enter into force in September 2003. From then onwards, everyone who so wishes must be able to open an account at the bank of his choice for a maximum of EUR 12 per annum. In return, the bank must provide a number of minimum services. The Belgian legislature considered this measure to be necessary partly because banks were refusing to accept many less affluent people as customers, and such people were consequently unable to engage in payment transactions which are regarded as a normal part of modern life.

Is the Commission aware of this Belgian initiative, and, in the light of it, is the Commission considering introducing a similar socially desirable initiative at European level so that all citizens of the Union can expect minimum services from banks and thus continue to participate in modern payment transactions? If so, what steps will it take? If not, why will it not introduce such a measure?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the Belgian law, which introduces minimum banking services at a national level.

While the question of access to minimal banking services is an important question, at present the Commission does not envisage to propose a legal instrument that would introduce a similar obligation in the financial services sector throughout the Union. The issue was discussed at a workshop organised by the Commission back in February 2001. The idea of access to basic banking services was not included either in the Commission's Green Book on services of general interest published in May 2003 (1).

According to the information available, the national economic and social framework and, consequently, the national approaches on minimum services from banks differ from one Member State to another. In other words, this is a matter best left to national regulation.

In the absence of harmonisation, Member States are free to adopt or maintain laws such as the Belgian one provided the national measures comply with the general principles of the EC Treaty and fulfil the requirements of proportionality and non-discrimination.

(1) COM(2003) 270 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/222

(2004/C 65 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2816/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Community initiatives

The Berlin European Council of March 1999 approved the economic resources for the Structural Funds and the Community Initiatives for 2000-2006.

The Community Initiatives support European-scale policies on completing the Union. They are activities which the Commission proposes to the Member States, with a view to resolving specific existing programmes throughout Union territory. They supplement the work of the Community Support Frameworks and the Single Programming Documents, which the Commission and the Member States negotiated on the basis of regional or national development plans.

For 2000-2006, over which period the Commission wished to step up the European dimension of the Community Initiatives, and likewise the way in which it complements priority objectives.

Four Community Initiatives are to be carried out, each one funded by one of the Structural Funds:

— Interreg III: Cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation (ERDF);

— Urban II: Regenerating urban areas in crisis (ERDF);

— Leader+: Rural development (EAGGF Guidance);

— Equal: Fighting discrimination and inequality relating to the labour market (ESF).

There is a danger that some of these Community Initiatives will be claimed by the Member States, on the understanding that they are domestic policies.

What does the Commission think of the renationalisation of the Community Initiatives, and specifically, Interreg III — Chapter A, on cross-border cooperation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission will make proposals for cohesion policy for the period after 2006 in the Third Cohesion Report which is scheduled for publication before the end of this year. While it is too early to speculate on the nature of these proposals, they will take account of the contributions to the debate on future cohesion policy that the Commission launched in January 2001 with the publication of the Second Cohesion Report. The Parliament has been fully associated with this debate. The Commission's proposals will also include those regarding the future of the Community Initiatives, taking into account their added value in relation to the interventions supported under the mainstream regional development programmes.