ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/325

(2004/C 84 E/0380)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission sought additional legal assurance and professional advice on the nature of the pension receivable or contingent claim, with regard to the Member States, from an accounting perspective, as recommended by the IAS?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/400

(2004/C 84 E/0466)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0440/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE)to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject: Particulate emission limits

In the answer to my Written Questions E-3639/03 (1) and E-3502/03 (1) on pollution in the Wipp and Eisack valleys and air quality standards in areas of heavy traffic, I was referred to Directive 1999/96/EC (2), under which stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, particulate emissions will be reduced by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

In the light of the danger to the health of residents in areas of heavy traffic, would it not be useful to bring this phase forward, perhaps to 2005, and eliminate particulate emissions entirely?

What is the Commission's view on this?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2) OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/842

(2004/C 84 E/0935)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0689/04

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 2003/41/EC — competence of Member States to define occupational retirement provision

In my opinion the above Directive is unclear with regard to the definition of benefits and the issue of biometric risk coverage.

Under Article 9(2) of Directive 2003/41/EC (1), Member States may provide that institutions can cover biometric risks and offer the option of repayment of contributions if employers and employees, or their respective representatives, so agree.

Article 20 of the same Directive (cross-border activities) states that institutions offering services in a host Member State must comply with its labour and social law requirements.

If the labour and social law requirements in a Member State currently provide for payment of lifelong pensions and biometrie risk coverage by institutions for occupational retirement provision, does this mean that the same must apply to all institutions offering services in this (host) Member State, i.e. also institutions from other home Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that Article 9.2 of Directive 2003/41/EC (2) provides that: in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and taking due account of the scale of pension benefits offered by the social-security regimes, Member States may provide that the option of longevity and disability cover, provision for surviving dependants and a guarantee of repayment of contributions as additional benefits be offered to members, if employers and employees, or their respective representatives so agree.

In the case where a Member State would require this option to be offered in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and taking due account of the scale of pension benefits offered by the social-security regimes, an institution for occupational retirement provision may provide services in that Member State in accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2003/41/EC, provided it respects this provision.

(1) OJ L 235, 23.9.2003, p. 10.

(2) Directive 2003/41/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, OJ L 235, 23.9.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/194

(2004/C 84 E/0235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0294/04

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Disclosure of the rate structure for the Central European Pipeline System

Is the Commission aware of the existence of the Central European Pipeline System (CEPS)? The system was built up by the NATO allies between 1950 and 1989, during the Cold War, in order to transport fuel during wartime. This military infrastructure is now being used on a commercial basis to cover a proportion of the maintenance costs. The rates charged by NATO are anything but transparent for the system's various customers, however. Does the Commission believe that the CEPS' maintenance costs ought to be disclosed and linked to a transparent transport rating structure? In the final analysis, this system is offering a service on the European internal transport market, and its rivals would willingly take a look at the rates applied on the European transport market by what is a transport system funded by public monies. Would the Commission be willing to make arrangements with NATO's logistics arm in the near future in order to establish a transparent system of rates? I myself would advocate a system of annual reporting of the CEPS' maintenance costs, with a minimum and a maximum rate to cover as large a proportion of them as possible. In addition, not all routes within the system are equally commercially attractive. Are the maintenance costs for those routes also charged for, however?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the existence of the NATO Pipeline System (NPS). It consists of nine separate military storage and distribution systems for fuels and lubricants. The largest of these networks, the Central European Pipeline System (CEPS) covers Belgium, Germany, France, Luxemburg and the Netherlands. The system links storage deposits, air bases, civil airports, pumping stations and entry points. It is designed to ensure that NATO's requirements for petroleum products and their distribution can be met at all times. According to NATO figures, CEPS represents some 2 to 3 % of petroleum products transported in these Member States.

The system serves primarily military purposes but is open in part to commercial transactions as well. The tariffs are published as in France or negotiated on a case by case basis under the supervision of a committee where all members of the system are represented.

There is no specific Community legislation regarding tariffs and third party access to oil pipelines. The Commission does, therefore, not intend to enter into negotiations with NATO as an international organisation in order to establish such rules for this specific case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/659

(2004/C 84 E/0743)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0703/04

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject: Member State contributions to the Community Budget

The contributions made by each Member State to the EU budget are either less than 1 % of their national income, or very slightly more.

Given that the Community Budget is essential for the EU to achieve balanced development and cohesion, and to pursue the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, why do these contributions have to go on counting towards each Member State's deficit?

If they did not, is it not the case that the need to plug the national budgetary deficit by cutting contributions to the Community Budget would cease to be a pretext for preventing an increase in revenue for the new EU financial prospective for 2007-2013?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

The EC Treaty obliges Member States to avoid excessive deficit positions (defined as general government deficit below a reference value of 3 % of gross domestic product (GDP)). The concept of ‘general government’ is defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts (1) in the Community (2), and the corresponding statistical data requirements are the ones in ESA95. All the expenditures included within the ‘general government’ definition do have a bearing on the excessive deficit. Member States' contributions to the EU budget are part of the expenditure of ‘general government’.

The Commission does not support any proposals to exclude specific spending items from the calculation of expenditures of ‘general government’. However, in order to achieve the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, it is important to increase the quality of public expenditures by redirecting public spending towards growth-enhancing cost-effective public spending. The Commission has regularly recommended in the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines to redirect public spending along these lines and this has indeed always been supported by the Parliament and the Council. Redirecting public expenditure would, therefore, enhance the contribution of both national and EU budgets to the achievement of Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives.

(1) ESA95.

(2) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/182

(2004/C 84 E/0222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Retirement age of football referees

Pierluigi Collina is the best football referee in the world and has been voted the game's best official six times. Yet in 2005 he will no longer be able to referee, as 45 is the official retirement age for his profession in Italy. Other Member States also have a retirement age of 45 for football referees.

Would the Commission agree that this rule constitutes age discrimination under EU law?

Would the Commission also agree that this rule is in breach of EU employment laws?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

According to the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to give an opinion on this particular case since:

— The rule seems to be applied to all categories of referees and it is necessary to know whether it is a genuine sport rule. This economic impact is indeed required to justify the applicability of Community rules (1);

— There is no evidence about the possible arguments used by sports organizations to justify the establishment of such an age limit.

The Commission can therefore only recall that Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2) prohibits discrimination in employment on grounds of, ‘inter alia’, age and must be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003. In addition, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have informed the Commission that they will use this additional three years, and Denmark one extra year. Italy has transposed Directive 2000/78/EC by Decree No 216 of 13 August 2003, which entered into force on 28 August 2003. As Italy has transposed the Directive, individual complaints of discrimination should be made under the national law before the national courts.

Furthermore, the Commission recalls that Article 6 of the Directive allows for the justification of differences of treatment on the grounds of age in certain circumstances, as long as this is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are proportionate and necessary. The use of fixed age limits could only be used where they were objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim.

(1) Joint cases ‘Deliège’ C-51/96 and C-191/97.

(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/724

(2004/C 88 E/0744)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1125/04

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: EU programmes with Turkey – potential consequences of full membership

Before the European Council takes a decision in December 2004 on the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey the following questions need to be answered:

— Under what programmes have EU funds already been made available to Turkey?

— What level of funding has been made available?

— What financial consequences and/or obligations would the EU face in the event of Turkey becoming a full EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Until 2002, Turkey had received support under the MEDA programme and through two regulations to support the customs union (1) and economic and social development (2). The Council adopted on 17 December 2001 a regulation concerning pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey. This came into effect in January 2002 and continues to provide the legal base for our financial cooperation with Turkey.

Over the period 2000-2003 annual financial assistance to Turkey averaged EUR 177 million. In April 2003 agreement was reached between the Parliament, Council and Commission to include Turkey in the pre-accession heading of the financial perspectives and to provide substantially increased financial assistance for the period 2004-2006, amounting to EUR 1050 million over the three years (EUR 250 million in 2004, EUR 300 million in 2005 and EUR 500 million in 2006).

It should be recalled that the decision to be taken by the European Council in December 2004 will be based on an assessment of whether Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria. It is clear that the accession of a country with the size and population of Turkey would have a major impact on the EU, its policies and institutions. The concrete financial consequences and/or obligations for the EU would depend on the outcome of the negotiations.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2000 of 10 April 2000 regarding the implementation of measures to intensify the EC-Turkey customs union, OJ L 94, 14.4.2000.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 257/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 January 2001 regarding the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey, OJ L 39, 9.2.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/431

(2004/C 84 E/0502)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0569/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Leonardo da Vinci programme

The Commission's Leonardo da Vinci programme is intended to help implement EU vocational training policy. The European Union needs to ensure its citizens are better prepared for entry into the job market and, in doing so, reduce the number of unemployed. The economy is also in need of a skilled workforce in order to keep up with the rapid scientific and technological developments. Against this backdrop, the Leonardo da Vinci programme serves as a laboratory of innovation in the field of lifelong learning.

Can the Commission provide a list of the projects that have been approved under the Leonardo programme over the last three years, including details of the promoters and the level of funding, stating how much has been paid out and how much is outstanding?

Are there any noticeable differences in outlook between the countries and the project managers with regard to various criteria, such as budget, share of funding and the actual results?

How does the Commission ensure that an audit of the funded projects is carried out quickly and efficiently, and how much time elapses on average between a project's completion and the audit?

In which countries do difficulties frequently arise when it comes to the audit?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission would like to reiterate the important role played by the Leonardo da Vinci programme in the field of vocational training and lifelong learning.

It would remind the Honourable Member that Parliament has lists of Leonardo da Vinci projects selected at Community level over the last three years. Under the committee procedures, once the programme committee has expressed its opinion, these lists are forwarded to Parliament for scrutiny. They include project titles, promoters' names, project durations and the amounts of financial assistance envisaged for each project.

Most of the projects financed last for a maximum of three years, which means the first significant results were not available until the end of 2003. The Commission is analysing the assessments already undertaken with regard to the final reports and results of projects, including the final subsidy allocations and payment periods. It will inform the Honourable Member of the results of this analysis in due course.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/360

(2004/C 84 E/0418)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0324/04

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: New Belgian levy on Netherlands and German electricity distribution companies for use of the Belgian high-voltage grid when importing electricity from France

According to an article published in the Financieel Dagblad of 20 January 2004, Belgium is imposing a new levy on Netherlands and German electricity distribution companies for use of the Belgian high-voltage grid when importing electricity from France.

1. Is the Commission aware of this report, and is the substance of the Financieel Dagblad article correct?

2. Does the Commission consider that Belgium is permitted to impose a new levy for the use of the Belgian high-voltage grid by Netherlands and Germany? If so, on the basis of what article?

3. If not, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Having looked into this matter, it would seem that the Belgian Federal Government does intend to impose specific charges on cross-border transits of electricity.

At this point in time, it is therefore merely an intention.

If this were to materialise, and the system operator was obliged to levy this type of charge, it goes without saying that the Commission would initiate the usual action to verify the compatibility of such a measure with the internal market and the inter-TSO (Transmission System Operator) compensation mechanism recently introduced which makes it possible for the first time to eliminate in the EU any charge on individual transactions and, as from 1 July 2004, with Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (1).

Pursuant to Article 4(5) of that regulation, ‘there shall be no specific network charge on individual transactions for declared transits of electricity’.

The Commission will keep an eye on this matter and will do everything in its power to prevent the establishment of national mechanisms which might adversely affect intra-Community trade.

(1) OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.
1.

In accordance with Article 58(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, the Member States may decide to apply the single payment scheme (SPS) at a regional level until 1 August of the year preceding the first year of application of the SPS. At the present stage, the Commission does not know exactly under what conditions the Member States will apply the single payment scheme on a regional level. Nor can the Commission indicate the expected per hectare premiums for the new Member States at the present stage. The transitional Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) payments are defined as the total budget for direct payments in a year divided by the eligible area. Neither the national envelopes nor the eligible areas under SAPS have been established yet.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/420

(2004/C 84 E/0490)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0507/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Outermost regions

According to media reports the European Commissioner responsible for regional policy, speaking at a conference of EU officials from the outermost regions which took place on 28 January 2004 in Brussels, issued a warning that those regions were likely to lose influence once the Union was enlarged to take in a further 10 members.

This is a highly disturbing view and it must be taken as a basis for adopting more intensive and more effective compensatory measures.

According to the same source the Commission is to respond by proposing the establishment of a ‘specific competitiveness programme’ worth EUR 1 billion to be added to the existing structural funds. This will enable regional policy to be implemented consistently with a view to fostering sustainable development in the outermost regions, depending on each region's shortcomings and degree of economic backwardness.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

— What action does the Commission think should be taken by and within each region in order to prevent or reduce a region's loss of influence?

— Can it say which sectors will mainly be involved in the programme?

— How does it intend to apportion the available funding in both percentage and absolute terms?

— Does it consider that, in view of the repeatedly stated intention to give priority to achieving genuine convergence between the regions, the programme in question is sufficient not only to prevent divergence but also to ensure that the outermost regions are brought up to the EU average in terms of living standards and quality of life?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2004)

On 18 February the Commission adopted the Third report on economic and social cohesion. This specifically indicates the strategy for the outermost regions:

The Commission intends, within the convergence objective, to set up a specific programme to compensate for the specific constraints of the outermost regions, as recognised by Article 299.2 of the Treaty and requested by the European Council of 21/22 June 2002 in Seville. In addition, an action ‘Grand Voisinage’ aimed at facilitating cooperation with the neighbouring countries would be included under the new ‘European territorial cooperation’ programmes. In accordance with the request of the Council, the Commission will shortly present a report on an overall strategy for the outermost regions.

The outermost regions as defined under Article 299 of the Treaty that would not be covered by the new convergence objective would also benefit from a specific transitional State aid regime setting limits on aid that would be comparable, initially, to those defined under Article 87.3(a), followed by a gradual reduction.

We are now preparing the report on an overall strategy mentioned above.

Due for adoption in the immediate future, it sets out to reply to the very questions the Honourable Member puts.