ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/34

(2004/C 70 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1236/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Sale of PCs with preinstalled operating system

As numerous complaints from users testify, the great majority of PCs are now sold with the MS Windows operating system preinstalled. That trading practice has reached the point where PCs with no operating system preinstalled are virtually unobtainable without extra charge. Customers for such a machine not only frequently have to pay for an operating system they don't want, they are also expected to pay extra to have it removed from the PC they want to buy. There can be little doubt that this amounts to an irregularity on the internal market. These practices would appear to constitute a form of tied sales, not least because consumers cannot, for example, freely chose a different operating system without incurring extra costs.

Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs?

Does it consider this manner of trading as complying with Community law in force?

What action will it take to put a stop to these practices and again allow consumers a free choice?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties encountered by consumers in obtaining a personal computer (PC) from PC vendors without an operating system pre-installed. The Commission understands that Microsoft's licensing agreements with PC manufacturers require the pre-installation on PCs of an operating system, although this does not have to be a Microsoft operating system. The Commission intends to examine this question in greater detail once its ongoing Microsoft investigation has concluded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/125

(2004/C 70 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2654/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Rape and trafficking in women in Iraq

Yanar Mohammed, President of the Organisation for the Liberation of Women in Iraq, has issued a statement condemning the rise in violence against women seen in Iraq since coalition forces have been deployed in the region. It is estimated that over 400 women have been kidnapped, raped, and in many cases even sold. The perpetrators of the attacks are either gangs of people traffickers, who kidnap women in order to ransom or sell them, or criminals who abduct women with a view to raping them. The women's organisation claims that the American troops are doing nothing to stamp out the problem and have turned the streets into a ‘women-free zone’.

Will the Council exert pressure on the American Administration in order to put an immediate stop to and avert future cases of sexual assault, ill-treatment, and trafficking in women, which blatantly violate their human rights?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

1. The Council is fully aware of the precarious security situation currently prevailing in Iraq as a legacy of the conflict. It shares the Honourable Member's concern about the level of violence and crime suffered by ordinary Iraqi citizens — in particular women — in their daily lives. Security in Iraq remains a major priority. In its political contacts with the US, the EU stresses regularly the need to improve security.
1.

No, the Commission does not regard the Union's diplomatic efforts to persuade Russia of the case for ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as in any way a failure. The Commission expects that Russia will ratify when it has completed its own scrutiny of the facts and the arguments. Diplomacy does not mean subjecting another country to the will of the Union, or imposing a timetable for decisions, but rather involves a continuous two-way process of mutual explanation and understanding. The Green Diplomacy initiative has reinforced information exchange and co-ordination. Throughout the past two years there has been good co-ordination between the Commission and the Member States. Many statements by Russian representatives have testified to their good appreciation of the global and national advantages to be derived from ratification. Some more negative opinions have also been expressed from time to time as the debate has continued. The Commission is confident that Russia will proceed with the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in a timely manner. The Union, as well as the other Parties having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, should continue to encourage Russia in this direction. In order to do so, the Union is regularly discussing with Russian counterparts the advantages that the Kyoto Protocol could bring. To this end, seminars, workshops, visits and other activities are regularly organised.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/223

(2004/C 70 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3136/03

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject: Unused EU funding in Bavaria totalling EUR 17 million for 2002

At the beginning of October, I received an answer from the Commission to my question on the return by Bavaria of European Social Funds monies for 2002 (E-1953/03) (1). There is a mistake in the answer, however. It refers to 2000 instead of 2002.

The German Bundesland Bavaria was unable to commit funding of EUR 17 million from the rural development programme, provided under the 2002 EU budget, and returned it to Brussels.

Can the Commission give a prompt reply to the following questions.

1. Has funding from the European Social Fund also been returned by Bavaria?

2. What are the sums involved?

3. What areas of assistance are affected?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

1. The commitments for the European Social Fund (ESF) made for 2000 had to be spent till the end of 2002 due to n+2 rule (Article 31, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2)). As this was the case, no decommitment had to be prepared for ESF in the Objectives 2 Single Programming Document (SPD).

2. For the years 2001 and 2002, the n+2 rule applies at the end of 2003 and 2004 respectively. Whether Bavaria will be affected by the n+2 rule for the 2001 commitment will be known by the end of 2003.

3. This question has already been discussed at technical level with the Bavarian Authorities and will be readdressed during the annual review meeting (date not known yet) and the Programme Monitoring Committee meeting (13 and 14 November 2003).

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 206.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
1.

Why were non-confessional organisations excluded from this dialogue despite Declaration 11 appended to the Treaty of Amsterdam, which guarantees equal treatment of religious and non-confessional organisations, and despite Article 51 of the Draft Constitution of the EU?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/428

(2004/C 78 E/0447)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2789/03

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

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Banking rules in EU emissions trading: Member States' right to bank emission allowances

Under Article 3(13) of the Kyoto Protocol, Parties may bank emission allowances from one period to the next. Under the EU emissions trading directive (not yet published in the Official Journal), decisions may be taken at national level regarding the possibility of banking to be afforded to operators.

Does the Commission consider that Member States are entitled to bank emission allowances which have not been allocated, even though the directive applies only to operators (plants)? Does it believe that Member States will already have that right during the time span covering the EU internal emissions trading period (2005-2007) and the first Kyoto period (2008-2012)?

Should the emissions trading directive be amended in order to bring it into line with the Kyoto Protocol?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/602

(2004/C 88 E/0618)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/336

(2004/C 88 E/0343)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Internal market restrictions

1. Is the Commission aware that Italy appears to be using technical administrative procedures as a protectionist device to squeeze out trade from companies from other Member States? In particular, SKOPOS Design Ltd of Dewsbury in Yorkshire obtained, over a year ago, the ‘certificato di classificazione di reazonaone al fuoco’ necessary to sell its products in Italy, but is still waiting for the ‘homologation’ from the Ministero dell'Interno. I personally wrote to this Ministry on 20 November 2002 and as yet have had no response. I have subsequently written twice to the Ambassador of the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union in Brussels about this matter and have had no satisfactory response either.

2. Does the Commission agree that Italy has failed to respect the rules of the internal market and the obligation of loyal cooperation laid down in Art. 10 of the Treaty?

3. What action will the Commission take to rectify this situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is aware that authorisation procedures existing for a certain number of products in all the Member States risk to create problems to free movement of goods, often due to the time required by national administrations to carry the procedure out even when these procedures are lightened as much as possible.

The excessive delay for obtaining an answer to the request of authorisation in the case referred by the Honourable Member is certainly regrettable, as it is regrettable the silence of the Italian authorities to whom the Honourable Member requested clarifications twice. Therefore, the case will be registered as a complaint.

In order to reinforce the administrative co-operation and directly involve Member States in handling difficulties that their citizens and enterprises face for entering other domestic markets, a co-operation network has been created to deal with administrative problems having a cross-border impact. This network is called Solvit.

A short presentation of the mission of Solvit and some tips to contact the network are available at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/solvit/index_en.htm).

The Commission considers that Solvit can efficiently deal with the problem the Honourable Member brings to the attention of the Commission. Accordingly, the file will be transmitted to the Solvit network, that will try to solve the problem within ten weeks.

The Commission will closely follow the development of the case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/92

(2004/C 84 E/0115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3723/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Livorno

With reference to question E-0964/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Livorno (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/487

(2004/C 84 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2341/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: Letters to the Greek authorities on the proper use of Community Regional Policy funds

In his answer to my Written Question E-1830/03 (1), Commissioner Barnier made general remarks about the procedure for sending letters, but avoided answering my question. I shall therefore repeat the question: Can the Commission say how many letters it has sent to the Greek authorities since 1994 and from whom (Commissioners, directors-general or heads of division) concerning the proper use of Community funds and the transposition and proper implementation of Community regional policy legislation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

The Commission would impress on the Honourable Member the very great difficulty of determining the exact number of letters sent to the Greek authorities over the last ten years on the topic of proper use of Community funds and correct application of Structural Fund rules. One reason is the multiplicity of Commission departments involved.

The volume of these letters is certainly very large since they concern more than 100 programmes and have been sent from different levels of the Community administration to the national authorities at central, regional and local level. Dispatch of such letters is a routine matter given the Member States' accountability for utilisation of Community funds in line with the rules drawn up at Community level. By way of example, in May this year the Regional Policy Directorate-General's unit for Greece sent the Greek authorities a total of eighteen letters.

(1) See page 478.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/579

(2004/C 78 E/0612)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3542/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: GMOs

Commission document (1) — Information note concerning forthcoming decisions on GMOs and GM food, feed and seed — (Brussels, 13.10.2003), notes on page 5, paragraph 4, that: '23 GM maize varieties are inscribed in national catalogues (French, Dutch and Spanish) and are awaiting inscription into the Common Catalogue of agricultural plant species (Directive 2002/53/EC)'.

Would the Commission therefore please state:

1. the name of each variety and which GM line they are each derived from?

2. the national seed list on which each is currently inscribed?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

A table listing the information requested concerning the 23 genetically modified (GM) maize varieties inscribed in national catalogues awaiting inscription into the Common Catalogue of agricultural plant species, as mentioned in Commission document (2), is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) SEC(2003)1131.

(2) SEC(2003)1131.
TheCommissioncurrentlyawaitsthereplyofthePortugueseAuthoritiesbeforetaking,ifappropriate,any
furtheraction.
(1) Seepage37.
(2) OJL262,27.9.1976.
(2004/C78E/0082) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2176/03
byChristopherHuhne(ELDR)totheCommission
(30June2003)
Subject:Procurement
Will the Commission estimate for each of the last five years the proportion of public procurement
contractsletunderthepublicprocurementdirectives?
AnswergivenbyMrBolkesteinonbehalfoftheCommission
(28July2003)
TheCommissionhascalculatedestimatesforthevalueofcontractsadvertisedintheOfficialJournalofthe
EuropeanUnioninaccordancewiththepublicprocurementDirectives,since1998.EstimatedvaluesfortotalpublicprocurementwithintheUnionhavealsobeencalculated,fromstatisticsprovidedtoEurostatbynationalstatisticalInstitutes.
TheestimatedvalueofcontractsadvertisedintheOfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion(procurement
contractsletunderthepublicprocurementdirectives)asaproportionoftotalpublicprocurementfortheyears1998to2001aresetoutinthefollowingtableforallMemberStates.Equivalentestimatesfor2002willnotbeavailableuntillaterthisyear.
ValueofprocurementadvertisedintheOfficialJournal
as%oftotalpublicprocurement
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Belgium 10,9 13,8 15,6 15,6 18,6
Denmark 13,4 13,5 14,3 20,9 16,0
Germany 6,3 6,5 5,2 5,6 5,7Greece 42,9 45,1 39,5 32,7 35,1
Spain 11,5 11,5 16,8 25,3 23,4
France 8,4 11,0 11,7 14,6 16,6
Ireland 19,3 16,0 16,7 21,1 18,9
Italy 11,3 10,7 13,2 17,6 15,5Luxembourg 9,2 14,3 12,8 12,1 10,6
Netherlands 5,5 5,2 5,9 10,8 12,5
Austria 7,5 8,3 7,0 13,5 14,5Portugal 15,1 15,5 14,6 15,0 17,9
Finland 8,0 9,0 9,6 13,2 15,3
Sweden 12,9 12,9 14,0 20,1 26,2
UnitedKingdom 17,9 16,9 15,1 21,4 21,4
EU15 10,7 11,1 11,2 15,0 15,427.3.2004EN C78E/83 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/738

(2004/C 78 E/0787)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2429/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject: State aid to Italian farmers

Will the Council say which ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 88(2), third paragraph, ‘justify’ its decision to approve Italian State aid to Italian milk producers?

If the same ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist in other Member States or new Member States, will the Council approve corresponding State aid in those cases?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2428/03 and E-2429/03

(4 March 2004)

The Council considered, in its decision of 16 July 2003 on the compatibility of the national aid the Italian Republic intends to grant to its milk producers by pre-financing itself the sums owed by these producers to the Community Budget by virtue of the additional levy on milk for the period 1995/1996 to 2001/2002, that there are exceptional circumstances which justify this aid as compatible with the common market in derogation from Article 8 7 of the Treaty.

In this respect, the Council took into account the unique factual and legal situation relating to the operation on the additional levy system in Italy, and in particular the fact that immediate recovery in full of all amounts due would have imposed a heavy financial burden on the individual Italian producers concerned and the need to alleviate the existing social tensions in Italy by allowing them to settle their outstanding debt by means of deferred payment.

The principle of equality is therefore respected since no such exceptional circumstances exist for other Community milk producers. In this respect, both the Council and the Commission stressed in a common statement for the Council's minutes that this Council Decision was justified by an exceptional situation particular to Italy and that its objective was to definitively settle past implementation problems of the additional levy there.

Consequently, both Institutions underlined that this Decision cannot be invoked as a precedent for other possible implementation problems either in Italy or in other Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/256

(2004/C 84 E/0304)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3876/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Exceeding of the basic cultivation areas for 2003 and application of penalties

With regard to the problems of maize production and the exceeding of the basic cultivation area for 2003, with the consequent application of penalties, and also in the light of the communication by Agea (Italy) on the expected 18,6 % reduction in the CAP premium arising from the imposition of a ceiling on the area reserved for maize — even though Italy's maximum guaranteed area has not been exceeded — it is now essential, as a matter of urgency, to ask the Commission to rescind the (at all events exceptional) penalties.

The drought of 2003 has taken its toll in considerably higher production costs (as much as 32 % higher than previous years), especially for irrigation, as well as in a marked fall in average production, serving to confirm the significant reduction in maize producers' incomes.

The situation of maize producers is already highly vulnerable, and could become disastrous if further unplanned events (classifiable as force majeure) occur to compound the effects of the expected 18,6 % cut.

What action will the Commission take to restore equilibrium in the maize-producing areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Concerning the request, not to apply — as an exceptional derogation for 2003 — the aid reductions per hectare (ha) caused by an excess production of the separate base area for maize in Italy, it is to be noted that the aim of the measures established in Article 2, paragraph 4 of Council Regulation (EC) 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (1), is to ensure market balance.

The global sum of the payments distributed to farmers under the arable crop scheme is not reduced if the area payment per ha is decreased due to an excess in the separate base area for maize in Italy but the eligible area per farmer is reduced proportionately for all the payments granted.

Finally, regarding a possible action of the Commission in order to redress the balance of the situation of the maize areas, Member States determine the regional base areas (Article 2, § 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 1251/1999) and have the possibility of modifying their regionalisation plan.

Concerning the bad weather conditions of the summer of 2003, which penalised farmers in Italy, it is to be noted that the Commission urgently adopted a package of measures, in order to help farmers to overcome the exceptional drought.

Due to these considerations, a derogation to the above-mentioned Regulation, because of exceptional events like this summer's drought, is not appropriate.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.