ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/255

(2004/C 78 E/0256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3293/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject: Structural Funds

Does the Commission keep records or have a breakdown of the amount and type of Structural Funding allocated to EU constituencies, regions or cities that can be made available to MEPs? Are there, for example, centrally kept records for such funds for London in the UK, specifically for the London Boroughs of Islington, Hackney and Waltham Forest?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Of the programmes financed under the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006, it is principally those that are cofinanced under Objectives 1 and 2 that are targeted geographically. Under Objective 2, which intervenes in London, assistance is concentrated on the worst-affected areas at sub-regional level. In the case of London, the Objective 2 programme covers 95 wards in 13 London Boroughs, including parts of Waltham Forest and Hackney. No areas in the London Borough of Islington are covered under the Objective 2 programme.

In accordance with General Regulation 1260/99 (1), the Objective 2 programme is subject to management and control, monitoring and evaluation as a single entity and, accordingly, the Commission has no information on the break-down of the Structural Funds between the Boroughs concerned.

The Honorable Member may wish to contact the Management Authority for the London Objective 2 programme (2) in order to explore the possibility of obtaining financial data at sub-programme level.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Government Office for London European Unit, Riverwalk House, 157/161 Millbank, London SW1P 4RR, tel. 0044-207-217-3067, fax 0044-207-217-3461.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/429

(2004/C 78 E/0448)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2790/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Banking rules in EU emissions trading: invariability of AAU (BSA) amounts

Under the EU emissions trading directive (not yet published in the Official Journal) national decisions concerning the possibility for operators to bank emission allowances will be permitted during the time span covering the EU internal emissions trading period (2005-2007) and the first Kyoto period (2008-2012). In every Member State there may be companies which, prompted by substantial fluctuations in their annual output, for example, might wish to bank emission allowances even if they were prohibited from doing so in their home country. This creates an incentive to transfer the allowances in question temporarily to another Member State.

However, cross-border transfers during the internal emissions trading period will not lead to changes in the emission allowance (AAU or BSA amount) allocated to an individual country, contrary to what will happen from the beginning of the first Kyoto period.

Does the Commission consider it a problem that a transfer to another country purely for banking purposes and back again from that country to the country of origin in the Kyoto period will unfairly alter the aggregate emission allowances of the country which has allowed banking and enable the emission allowance to be doubled in the country of origin as far as the banked amount is concerned? Should the rules on adjustment of AAU and BSA amounts be revised when the EU emissions trading directive is reviewed in 2004 or 2006, before the first transfers are made between Member States for banking purposes?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/748

(2004/C 78 E/0796)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2616/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 August 2003)

Subject: Exclusion of feta cheese, ouzo and Kalamata olives from the list of products with geographical indications of origin to be negotiated at the WTO

The Article 133 Committee has excluded the Greek products of feta cheese, ouzo and Kalamata olives from the list of products with geographical indications of origin to be negotiated at the WTO.

Given that this exclusion is tantamount to discrimination against vitally important Greek products that are recognised not only in Europe but throughout the world, will the Commission say:

1. why the abovementioned Greek products, which have been recognised as being of protected geographical origin, have not been included in the list of such products to be discussed at Cancun, Mexico?

2. what provisions on the recognition of products with geographical indications of origin have been included in the agreement on agricultural trade between the EU and USA (13 August 2003)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

1. On 27 August 2003 the Council's Article 133 Committee endorsed the list of geographical indications which the European Union will soon be submitting to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the objective being to prevent misuse of these names at international level. The list contains 41 names, two of which are Greek — ‘feta’ and ‘ouzo’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/378

(2004/C 88 E/0384)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1948/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Lithuanian referendum

Would the Commission please comment on the fact that seriously underhand tactics appear to have been used in Lithuania's referendum campaign for accession to the EU, namely that:

— electoral law was broken with consistent campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote in the 30 hours preceding the referendum, which is contrary to Lithuanian electoral law,

— senior government officials, celebrities and businessmen were used to put out the key ‘Yes’ message on State radio and television during the 30 hour purdah period before the referendum and throughout the two days of voting; that they used key political messages to persuade the voters not just to turn out but also to vote Yes',

— the key Yes' message, to ‘vote for tomorrow's youth’, cannot be interpreted as merely awareness-raising,

— goods – drinks, confectionery and detergent – were offered by the largest supermarket chain to Lithuanians who could prove that they had voted in the referendum, which promoted a surge of voters who took the overall vote above the necessary 50 % participation level,

— this surge of over 300 000 voters after the announcement of free goods for votes may be directly attributed to this ‘special offer’, which was announced hourly on State radio, since the enormous increase in voting after the announcement was not consistent with the voting pattern for the first day of voting,

— senior government officials met after the first day of voting and decided to use ‘further agitation’ to promote a ‘Yes’ vote, which is specifically banned under Lithuanian electoral law,

— the extraordinary efforts of senior officials and businessmen, especially the free goods for votes offered in the supermarket chain, materially affected the outcome of the referendum?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member falls exclusively within the competence of Lithuania as a democratic and sovereign country. It is also fully within the responsibility of Lithuania to organise the Accession Referendum Information Campaign, including the choice of the slogans.

The referendum on Lithuania's accession to the Union was held on 10 and 11 May 2003. There was a 63,3 % turnout and 91,07 % voted in favour of accession.

The organisation of the Referendum has been based on the Lithuanian Referendum Law. According to this law any complaints about possible violations of the law, which prohibits campaigning during 30 hours before the referendum and on the days of the referendum are to be handled by the Central Electoral Committee of Lithuania. Following the referendum on Lithuania's accession to the Union, several Lithuanian citizens submitted complaints, which have been dealt with by the Central Electoral Committee of Lithuania. As a result the referendum has been considered as being valid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/518

(2004/C 78 E/0538)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3306/03

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Fluoride in drinking water

The 1998 Drinking Directive (98/83/EC (1)) lays down a limit of 1,5 milligrams per litre for fluoride in drinking water.

Can the Commission provide the number of Member States, or regions within Member States, that currently add fluoride to their drinking water supply? What are the rights of EU citizens concerning the addition of fluoride to their drinking water?

Given the planned revision of Directive 98/83/EC, does the Commission foresee a change in the parametric values for fluoride?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Fluoridation is currently allowed in four Member States (Germany, Spain, United Kingdom and Ireland); in the three first countries the decision to add fluoride is left to the local/regional authorities. In Italy, there is no specific law banning or authorising fluoridation. The situation at the regional level is not known by the Commission. The issue of the rights of Union citizens concerning the addition of fluoride to their drinking water is outside the formal scope of implementation of the Directive on the quality of drinking water and the matter of fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States' responsibility.

At this stage, where compliance with the standards fixed by Directive 98/83/EC (2) should be achieved by 25 December 2003, it is premature to foresee any change for any parametric value.

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

(2) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/128

(2004/C 88 E/0136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Denigration by Turkey of its ethnic minorities

Violations of human rights in Turkey are continuing. This is in spite of the fact that Turkey has adapted some of its national legislation to take account of EU standards. One example of the continued denigration of minorities is that the Turkish Education Ministry issued a decree on 14 April 2003 to all schools in the country requiring essay competitions and lectures to be organised denying the genocide in and after 1914 against ethnic Armenians and Assyrians/Syrians, and accusing these ethnic groups of having been traitors to the Ottoman Empire. Assyrian/Syrian and Armenian children are suffering discrimination on a daily basis, specially by being forced to participate in these lectures which are an insult to their own ethnic and religious identity.

The Turkish human rights organisation IHD has reacted sharply to the decree and has recently launched a campaign together with human rights lawyers seeking to prevail upon the Turkish government to cancel the decree and cease these violations. The Education Ministry's decree of 14 April 2003 contrasts starkly with the demands made on Turkey at the European Convention and elsewhere.

What measures does the Commission propose to take with a view to prevailing on the Turkish government to abolish this decree and cease the insults to its ethnic and religious minorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the Turkish Education Ministry circular of 14 April 2003 relating to the requirement of schools to organise essay competitions and lectures denying ‘the Armenian, Greek Pontus and Assyrian allegations’.

The Commission raised this matter with the Turkish authorities in the course of its regular dialogue. The issue has been addressed in the Commission's Regular Report, issued on 5 November 2003 (1).

More generally, the Commission is aware of the difficulties encountered by minorities throughout Turkey and will continue to closely monitor their treatment.

(1) COM(2003) 676 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/363

(2004/C 88 E/0369)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject: Imports of preserved mandarin segments from China

On 5 June 2002, because of massive imports of preserved mandarin segments from the People's Republic of China, Spain urgently requested application of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 (1), in particular Article 22 thereof concerning the safeguard clause in the event of the Community market being disturbed by imports.

If the Commission considered its application dubious, because of China's entry into the WTO or for some other reason, can it say:

— why it did not apply the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) establishing common rules for imports, after receiving all the relevant reports from the Spanish Government, the latest in March 2003:

— why it did not apply Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 (3) on a transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism for imports originating in the People's Republic of China?

The Community market in mandarin segments, originating almost exclusively in Spain, is being irreversibly damaged and seriously disturbed. When does the Commission envisage adopting measures to protect its own market?

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53.

(3) OJ L 65, 8.3.2003, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/294

(2004/C 78 E/0295)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3503/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Stray dogs and the Olympic Games

According to information released by the Associated Press, last August in the Attiki region alone 3 000 stray dogs were killed in order to ‘clean up’ streets in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games. It is the third time this year, following the campaigns launched at the beginning of the year and in April, that such barbarous acts have been committed.

Does the Commission intend to take action at some point to ensure adequate long-term protection for stray domestic animals in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission would refer to its answer given on 27 February 2003 to Written Question E-0177/03 of Mr Papayannakis (1) on the same issue.

For the additional information of the Honourable Member, the Commission is also able to state that during a mission of the Food and Veterinary Office to Greece in September 2003, the competent authorities indicated that there was now an official programme to deal with the stray animal problem in Athens in a manner which respected their welfare.

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 189.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/61

(2004/C 88 E/0066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2055/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject: Trade union rights for police officers in Latvia

1. Is it true that police officers in Latvia are not entitled to form a trade union?

2. Is not that situation in breach of ILO Conventions, the Council of Europe's Social Charter and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?

3. Has the Commission discussed this situation with the Latvian Government? If not, why not? If so, what was the outcome of the discussion?

4. Why has the Commission not referred to this issue in the annual progress reports?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The Latvian Police Law, which was adopted in 1991, does indeed prohibit police officers from forming trade unions.

The Convention for the Protection of Human and Fundamental Rights, and notably in its Article 11 (2), last sentence, provides, however, for lawful restrictions to the freedom of association with respect to the police. Moreover, certain articles of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention also allow for such restrictions.

The Social Charter of the Council of Europe, which was ratified by Latvia in 2002, also allows the contracting parties to determine by national law or regulations the extent to which the right to organise shall apply to the police.

The European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights which does not contain any such restriction is not yet a legally binding text. Even if it was so, it would not be applicable in areas which are not related to the exercice of Community competences.

Within the limits of its mandate, the Commission continues to follow this issue, as well as other social fundamental and human rights issues throughout the accession process.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/146

(2004/C 78 E/0151)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2647/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject: Use of synthetic prohormones for livestock fattening

Reports in the Flemish press suggest that the law enforcement authorities in Belgium are investigating a new livestock fattening product, which promotes the production of testosterone. It is apparently a synthetic version of a natural prohormone. The substance stimulates the brain to produce hormones naturally produced by the body, in this case testosterone. Hormones of this kind are banned in Belgium. According to the report, the hormone also contains dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), which causes liver damage and probably has other side-effects.

Is the Commission aware of this technique?

If so, what action has it already taken?

If not, does it intend to ask the European Food Safety Authority to issue a scientific opinion on the matter in accordance with Article 29(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) 178/2002 (1)?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission is aware that so-called pro-hormones can be used to stimulate the natural production of androgenic and oestrogenic hormones in livestock in order to stimulate growth. DHEA is such a substance. This substance is covered by Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of β-agonists (2).

It is the responsibility of the Member States to verify compliance with this legislation by applying Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (2) and to take the appropriate measures.

With the support of the Commission, the Community Reference Laboratory responsible for hormones is gathering the available technical information and is organising a workshop at which the issue will be discussed with the Member States in October 2003.

The Scientific Committee on Veterinary measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) evaluated the risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products treated with hormones for growth promotion in 1999, in 2000 and again in 2002. The reports are available on http://europa.eu.int/ comm/food/index_en.html. Consequently the Commission does not intend at present to ask the European Food Safety Authority to issue a scientific opinion on the matter, in accordance with Article 29(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) 178/2002 (3) of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety.

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(3) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/127

(2004/C 88 E/0135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3025/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Human rights violations against Greeks on the island of Imbros through the Turkish national land register

At a single stroke, the application of the law on the Turkish national land register on the island of Imbros deprives Greeks on the island and their heirs of their property and assigns it to the Turkish state.

More specifically, the application of the Turkish land register removes from the owners land which has not been cultivated or houses which have not been lived in for more than 20 years, and arbitrarily assigns them to the Turkish state. It removes all ownership and inheritance rights from anyone who has lost Turkish citizenship — because they did not serve in the Turkish army before the age of 21 — and prevents owners from claiming property which had been confiscated without compensation and illegally remains in the possession of Turkish settlers, even though the work which was supposed to have justified the expropriation has never been carried out.

It is clear that these practices are aimed at Greek owners and their heirs, who lose any legal right to ownership, in total contravention of Community law.

Bearing in mind that Turkey has the status of a candidate country for accession to the European Union and its application is to be reviewed in 2004, how will the Commission tackle this issue?

Will it intervene with the Turkish authorities with a view to restoring order and equal rights?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of concerns about the situation of the Greek minority on the Aegean island of Imvros to which the Honourable Member refers. The Commission has recently received information referring to violation of property rights on the island.

The Commission will examine this issue in the framework of its monitoring of Turkey's respect of the Copenhagen political criteria, which include the respect of human rights and the protection of minorities. It will provide an overall assessment of the difficulties encountered by minorities in Turkey in its forthcoming Regular Report, to be published on 5 November 2003.
1.

Between 1998 and 2002, a total of 75 letters of formal notice were notified to Ireland with regard to cases involving bad application of Union environmental legislation (1). An additional number of letters of formal notice were notified for cases involving only issues of non-communication of national implementing legislation or the non-conformity of such legislation, giving a total of 108 letters of formal notice. Of the 75 letters relating to bad application, most related to complaint files, but 14 concerned files opened on the Commission's own initiative. These addressed the failure to classify sufficient special protection areas for wild birds, the failure to sufficiently identify sensitive areas for purposes of urban waste water treatment and the failure to submit reports or other information required by environmental directives. Several letters of formal notice involved a failure to respond to Commission information requests, and were based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty (duty of co-operation). Other letters of formal notice forming part of complaint investigations covered a wide range of issues, including the following: the failure to undertake environmental impact assessments; threats to important wild-life sites from projects or activities; the lack of effective action to deal with illegal waste activities; the failure to ensure adequate groundwater protection; the lack of adequate protection of shellfish production areas from water pollution; the lack of compliance with rules on animal experiments; the odour nuisance from an urban waste water treatment plant.