ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/358

(2004/C 78 E/0377)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/03

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: GM crops and liability

How does the Commission assess the position in the WTO on the introduction of a liability clause for patent holders and/or producers of GM crops in the event of GMO contamination of conventionally or organically cultivated farmland?

More particularly, what initiatives has it taken to encourage a process at the WTO which will in the future mean that WTO rules incorporate provisions on the liability of patent holders and/or producers of GM crops to pay damages in the event of their product contaminating conventionally or organically cultivated crops?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised the complex issue of liability in the case of GM crops spreading into conventional or organic crops, should this cause damage to conventional or organic producers.

The issue is related to intentional and non-intentional spread of GMOs into the environment and to the co-existence of different agricultural production systems and is in particular a matter of gene flow. Gene flow between crops related to production methods in the country of origin and is therefore not a trade issue per se. The Commission therefore does not consider that the WTO is the appropriate international forum to discuss gene flows between GM crops and conventional crops and a liability regime.

Liability is normally addressed in international conventions dealing with particular issues. In the case of GMOs, the Commission is currently involved in the on-going discussions on liability and redress in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Such discussions are, however, at a very early stage and the formal negotiating process on this matter will only be launched at the First Meeting of the Parties to the Biosafety Protocol which is due to take place in April 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/578

(2004/C 78 E/0611)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3536/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Problems with the recognition of educational and professional qualifications in France

Social service graduates from various EU Member States, namely Portugal, Spain and Germany, living in France and wishing to follow their profession there, are faced with the French authorities' refusal to recognise their qualifications without further ado.

Instead, the authorities demand that the graduates do a six-month unpaid traineeship, and be registered with a teaching institution, for which they themselves have to pay. Thereafter, they are subject to an assessment, without which, the Ministry of Social Affairs will not authorise them to work professionally in France.

What measures are planned to make the freedom of movement of workers a reality within the European Union, and resolve the issue of the equivalence of educational and professional qualifications?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Directives 89/48/EEC (1) and 92/51/EEC (2) are not based on the coordination of training arrangements or conditions governing access to the professions covered by them. In accordance with Articles 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty each Member State remains free to regulate (or not) a given profession and to specify the level and content of the training required in order to be eligible to carry on this profession in that Member State. These directives could not therefore put in place a system of automatic recognition of diplomas.

These directives lay down that the host Member State is entitled to ask that a migrant take an aptitude test or complete an adaptation period not exceeding three years when the education and training he/she has received covers matters which differ substantially from those covered by the diploma required in the host Member State. The host Member State must, however, allow the migrant to choose between the aptitude test and the adaptation period. The directives lay down that the adaptation period shall be the subject of an assessment, and that the detailed rules governing the adaptation period, its assessment and the status of the migrant undergoing this period shall be determined by the competent authorities in the host Member State in accordance with Community law.

The Commission has no knowledge of problems concerning the recognition of qualifications held by social service graduates in France. It would ask the Honourable Member to forward any complaints she has received on this matter so that it can examine them and take appropriate action.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/482

(2004/C 84 E/0559)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2158/03

by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Sub-contracting, EU funding and Isbergue

The author of this question has duly noted the reply of 6 June 2003 which she has received from Mrs Diamantopoulou (on behalf of the Commission) in respect of her question P-l696/03 (1), but she would like to request further information: namely, can the Commission object to the restructuring envisaged on the Isbergue site if EU funding is received either by Arcelor or by the companies with which Arcelor has sub-contracting arrangements?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The answer to this question must set out the same principles already explained in the answer given on 6 June 2003 to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-1696/03.

The Commission cannot object to the restructuring of an industrial grouping based solely on whether this group has or has not received assistance from the Structural Funds.

However, for the current programming period 2000-2006, Article 30 of the Regulation (2) on the Structural Funds provides that if, within five years of the decision awarding assistance, an operation which has received assistance from the Structural Funds undergoes a substantial modification affecting the nature of the operation or its conditions of implementation, as a result of a cessation or change of location of an activity, the provisions on financial corrections set out in Article 39 of the Regulation apply. In this case, the Member State must inform the Commission and make the required financial corrections by cancelling all or part of the Community contribution.

For the previous programming periods, the regulations did not provide for any means to recover grants awarded under the Structural Funds, provided the operations were carried out and payments made on the basis of the legislation in force.

(1) See page 474.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/589

(2004/C 78 E/0622)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3559/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject: Groningen Rail Service Centre and non-use of cross-border railway line near Nieuweschans to Northern Germany

Why is an EU-funded transhipment station, the Groningen Rail Service Centre, not being used for direct freight transport from and to Northern Germany, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, with the result that unnecessary detours are being made, the railways are not being put to optimal use and no favours are being done to the environment, either?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

The Groningen Rail Service Centre handles approximately 100 000 Twenty foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) per year, and new investments are planned to further develop rail services linking Groningen to the Rotterdam area and other Member States. Growth is notably expected from freight traffic on the so-called Northern corridor, which links the Rotterdam port area with Northern Germany and Scandinavia. The market for freight transport by rail has been opened by Directive 91/440/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC (2), which provides that freight transport over the Trans European Rail Freight Network (TERFN) shall be opened by 15 March 2003 at the latest to all railway undertakings in possession of a European licence awarded under the framework conditions set by Directive 95/18/EC, as amended by Directive 2001/13/EC (3), and provided the railway undertakings possess the required safety certificates for the countries where rail services are planned. Any railway undertaking that sees an opportunity to operate services on those links can do so. Groningen is located on the TERFN. Within this context though, it must be observed that Directive 91/440/EC, as amended, requires railway undertakings to be managed according to the principles which apply to commercial undertakings.

The development of the Groningen Rail Service Center has been part of priority 1 (Industry, business services and tourism), as set out in the Single Programming Document (SPD) for the Objective 2 areas of Groningen-Drenthe in the Netherlands approved by the Commission in 1997. The contribution from the structural funds for this priority in the 1997-1999 period was 32,4 % (EUR 74,25 million).

(1) Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2) Directive 2001/12/EC of 26 February 2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(3) Directive 2001/13/EC of 26 February 2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/542

(2004/C 78 E/0563)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3413/03

by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurobarometer

A question on countries which represent ‘a threat to world peace’ in a recent Eurobarometer poll has upset certain countries, particularly Israel and the USA. One could, of course, debate the appropriateness of asking such a question, and even the way it has been formulated. Nobody doubts that a sort of ‘halo effect’ means that countries involved in military operations (domestic or foreign) which are to a greater or lesser extent the subject of dispute in the media risk, for that very reason, having a negative image worldwide.

At the very least, it would be preferable to pose the question in a slightly modified form, by asking ‘For each of the leaders of the following countries, tell me if, in your opinion, he or she represents a threat to world peace or not’ and adding ‘the Palestinian Authority’ to the list. Does the Commission intend in future to put the question in this form, rather than give up altogether on a useful indicator for understanding patterns of public opinion within the Union?

It would be interesting, furthermore, to investigate — as Eurobarometer has already done in the past — how much each individual questioned trusts his own nation and each of the other nations we wish to study.

Does the Commission believe that trust between nations is a ‘sine qua non’ of European integration and international life? If so, is the Commission prepared to put such a question again in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-3334/03 from Ms Muscardini (1).

The Commission is aware of the limits to the question on which countries are a threat to world peace while considering that the results obtained reveal deep-seated prejudices. It thanks the Honourable Member for his suggestions, but it has not yet decided whether or not to use this indicator in a modified form.

The question of trust between peoples arose many times between 1976 and 1996, and on each occasion, it was shown to be increasing gradually in the Union. The Commission is planning to look into this matter again.

(1) See page 263.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/606

(2004/C 78 E/0641)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3665/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Non-confessional organisations

Despite the proposed European Constitution, which confers equal status on churches and non-confessional communities, we have noted that the Commission has consulted certain religious communities about immigration and measures against prostitution and trafficking in persons. Non-confessional organisations were evidently not consulted.

1. Why were non-confessional organisations, such as the European Humanist Federation, excluded from this dialogue?

2. Why was the non-confessional organisation so excluded despite Declaration 11 appended to the Treaty of Amsterdam, which guarantees equal treatment of religious and non-confessional organisations? This exclusion was also not in the spirit of Article 51 of the Draft Constitution of the EU.

3. Can the Commission confirm that the dialogue with religiously inspired NGOs will immediately be opened up to non-confessional philosophical organisations?

4. Can the Commission confirm that in future non-confessional philosophical organisations will be treated equally to religious organisations?

5. Can the Commission guarantee that its attitude in this regard does not foreshadow its future interpretation of the application of Article 51 of the draft Constitution of the EU?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3602/03 and E-3665/03

given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Members that Article 51 of the draft Constitutional Treaty, which is entitled ‘the status of Churches and non-confessional organisations’, and which provides for a dialogue with such organisations, does not foreshadow any loss of status for non-confessional organisations. The dialogue referred to is in fact already organised on a regular basis, notably in the aftermath of European Councils, and the established practise will continue. The Commission is not aware of any particular dissatisfaction with this dialogue, on the part of non-confessional organisations.

The meeting referred to by the Honourable Member on 21 October 2003, was in fact an information meeting in advance of a conference to be held later on in Rome, at the initiative and under the organisation of the Presidency of the Council at that time.

Due to the fact that the Italian Presidency sought contact with experts from religious organisations for their Conference in Rome, it merely chose to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the presence in Brussels of such organisations — amongst others — who had come for one of the regular dialogue meetings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/156

(2004/C 78 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2705/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Renewable energies

The Altener Programme for research, promotion and funding at national level of projects dedicated to the development of renewable energies was allocated EUR 74 million in funding. Can the Commission indicate what projects were presented by Italy, which of these received financial support and of how much, and what results were achieved?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The period for the funding referred to in the Honourable Member's question is the period of the Altener II programme from 1998 to 2002. In response, a table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The table is giving details of all proposals which were submitted by proposers from Italy to the Altener programme for co-financing in the last two years of the Altener II programme (2001 and 2002). For these two years, this table contains details of those proposals for which funding was not awarded following evaluation and selection, and of those which were accepted for Community support. For those proposals which were accepted for support, the table also contains the amount of Community support to the Italian co-ordination and the location (home town) of the Italian co-ordinator (plus respective details of any Italian partner). For the first three years of the Altener II programme (1998-2000), the table contains only those projects with Italian coordinators which received support by the Community as for this period data regarding proposals that have not been selected are not available.

Every Altener project has to be concluded with a final report which must be approved by the Commission before final payments are made. These reports normally contain an executive summary together with details of the actions undertaken during the project and the final outcome of the work. A copy of the executive summary and/or the final report for any specific project will be made available to the Honourable Member on request.

The Honourable Member may also be interested to read the evaluation of the management and of the results of both successive Altener programmes for the years 1996-2000 (‘Evaluation of the Altener Programme (1996-2000): Final report for the Directorate General Energy & Transport of the Commission’), which was commissioned from external experts in the year 2000. This report does of course not distinguish between projects with Italian coordinators and other coordinators. However, in case of interest a copy of this Altener programme evaluation can also be provided on request.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/854

(2004/C 78 E/0906)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3749/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the LIFE III programme by the municipality of Massa

In its answer to question E-1052/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted projects and secured funding under the LIFE III programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted but they had not been funded.

Can the Commission say why the projects submitted were not considered suitable?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the proposal submitted by the municipality of Massa under the LIFE III Programme for 2000 was not co-financed. The Commission informed the applicant of the reasons in its letter of 10 September 2001. The municipality of Massa did not submit any proposals in 2002 or 2003.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 104.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/629

(2004/C 78 E/0664)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino

In its answer to question E-1011/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino had submitted projects and secured funding under the Daphne programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted, but that the outcome of the assessment would be available in July 2003.

Can the Commission say whether the projects submitted actually received funding and, if not, why they were not considered suitable?

Have any other projects been submitted in the meantime?

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 62.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/114

(2004/C 78 E/0115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2448/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Inappropriate incentive to destroy hedgerows

Article 22(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (1) of 11 December 2001 specifies that the width of hedgerows taken into account when determining the surface area of agricultural parcels eligible for area aid ‘must correspond to a traditional width in the region in question and shall not exceed 2 metres. The Member States may [ …] allow a width greater than 2 metres if those areas were taken into account for the fixing of the yields of the regions concerned.’

The upshot of these provisions is to encourage farmers to destroy hedgerows that exceed the permitted width, at a time when their conservation would often seem to be an objective in the general interest.

Might the Commission present to the Council and the European Parliament a measure reforming the article in question so as to put an end to its perverse effects?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

The Commission is committed to improving and maintaining the rural environment in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy. It considers hedges and field ditches as being of great importance for wildlife and other environmental functions across the whole farming spectrum. However, the Commission has also to ensure that only eligible land may benefit from Community aid, hence the provisions under Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, which were adopted only after much consideration of the environmental issues involved, allow the Member States to decide that certain features such as hedgerows may be considered part of the fully utilised area of an agricultural parcel.

Thus, the Commission considers that the regulatory provision cited by the Honourable Member provides sufficient flexibility for Member States to account for specific environmental needs, and does not agree with his assertion that the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 encourage farmers to destroy hedgerows.

Consequently, there are no plans to amend the article in question.

(1) OJ L 327, 12.12.2001, p. 11.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/508

(2004/C 84 E/0586)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3586/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: EU funding for an Italian company linked to Romano Prodi

Does the Commission intend to respond to the questions raised by various newspapers (Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph, European Voice) concerning the fact that since 1999 — the year in which Romano Prodi became Commission President — the EU has paid EUR 15 million to ItalTrend, an Italian development aid consultancy with its registered office in Reggio Emilia, in which Sylvia Prodi, a niece of Romano Prodi, has been employed since 1994 and is currently assistant to the director Silvana Garavelli?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission considers that it has already provided full answers through its spokesman to the questions raised by various press organs, including those cited by the Honourable Member. The Commission wishes to point out that cooperation with Italtrend in the area concerned, i.e. development aid, goes back at least as far as 1992. Silvia Prodi, President Prodi's niece, has worked on projects covered by contracts with Italtrend in the nuclear safety field as a nuclear engineer since 1994. On 31 December 2003, the value of contracts signed with Italtrend since 1 September 1999 amounted to EUR 7,97 million. Payments made to the company from 1 September 1999 amounted to EUR 39,84 million, of which EUR 35,3 million (equal to 89 %) was paid under contracts signed prior to 1 September 1999 and EUR 4,54 million under contracts signed after 1 September 1999.