ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/245

(2004/C 33 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2275/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Agriculture — drought and set-aside land

Some parts of France are currently suffering from serious drought, and grass for use as cattle fodder is becoming scarce. Would it be possible in such cases for derogations to be granted so that set-aside land might be used for the growing of animal fodder crops, with a view not only to coping with the current crisis but also to combating the droughts which are likely to occur in the future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that the drought became worse in several regions of the Community in June 2003 and, following a favourable opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals delivered on 3 July 2003, has decided to authorise the use of set-aside land for fodder in the regions concerned in Germany, France, Italy and Austria in the 2003/04 marketing year. This measure applies from 4 July 2003.

The use of set-aside land for animal feed must remain an exceptional measure to be adopted only where specific regional circumstances so require.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/126

(2004/C 33 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: European Year of Remembrance and Reconciliation

Given that the year 2005 will have special significance as the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, what plans does the Commission have to further the theme of reconciliation and remembrance and does the Commission plan to link these themes with the enlargement of the Union?

How does the Commission react to proposals for an event to be held at Cassino in Italy to mark the 60th anniversary of the infamous battle that took place there?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1954/02 by Mr Ford (1)

(1) See page 4.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/227

(2004/C 33 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2149/03

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Eurostat

The debates conducted and the statements made concerning Eurostat in recent months have highlighted a number of examples of incorrect practice: criminal proceedings are opened against individuals without their knowledge and without them first being heard by the judicial authorities, the press prints serious accusations which seem to go well beyond the information available, and the staff of Eurostat see their professional competence called into question and their work disrupted by stringent checks which are in some cases out of all proportion to the alleged actions which prompted them.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the rights of the persons involved are properly respected in the proceedings now under way?

What measures does it intend to take if departments are shown to have breached the rules on the protection of those rights, despite their obligation to observe them?

Does it take the view that the reporting of the case has blown the accusations up out of all proportion to the facts?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The intense media interest in the Eurostat investigations even before their completion does not help to provide an objective picture of the situation, particularly as some aspects have been taken out of context. To this extent, certain press articles may, regrettably, have compromised full compliance with the principle of the presumption of innocence.

At the same time, the investigations currently under way within Eurostat represent a response both to Parliament's request in the context of the follow-up to the 2001 discharge procedure and to the Commission's desire to clarify the situation completely and establish that the problems identified have been definitely addressed and that, if necessary, further action can be taken. This is not in any way to question the competence of Eurostat staff. Moreover, the rules governing investigations offer all officials or staff means of redress pursuant to the provisions of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

Lastly, with regard to recent developments relating to the situation in Eurostat and the action this calls for, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the series of measures adopted at its meetings on 9 and 23 July 2003.
5.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that, notwithstanding the considerable efforts of the national private and public sectors, there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach to the problem. Also as a result of Resolution no. C4 0455/98 of the Parliament, the Commission is taking action to increase the security of payment transactions. To prevent fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash payments, the Commission adopted in February 2001 a three-year Fraud Prevention Action Plan (2) based on a partnership among all stakeholders. It provides for five main areas and 11 main actions that the Commission and other parties should undertake. Security improvements are the main priority of the Action Plan, which supports the introduction of the highest economically viable level of security. Discussions on identity theft and security issues, including on the progress in the migration to chip cards in the Union, take place regularly at the meetings of the Union Fraud Prevention Experts Group, the steering group for the implementation of the Fraud Prevention Action Plan. The Commission will organise in 2003 a Conference on the security of payments in the Internal Market, with a view to improve information on the security of modern payment products and systems. After the end of 2003, the Commission will report to the Parliament and the Council on the progress achieved with the Fraud Prevention Action Plan and propose, if necessary, further action. The Commission also proposed a Council Framework Decision combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, that has been adopted on 28 May 2001 (3). This text aims at ensuring that fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, including credit cards and other cards issued by financial institutions, are criminal offences in all Member States, punished by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. Member States shall bring into force the measures necessary to comply with this Framework Decision by 2 June 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/260

(2004/C 33 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: Creation of workplace health promotion infrastructures

The Union's public health competences include the promotion of workplace safety. In 2002, the Commission funded a programme for the creation of workplace health promotion infrastructures, contributing the sum of EUR 985 000 to the Federal Association of Company Health Insurance Funds (Essen). The objectives of this programme include the development of support infrastructures at national level in implementation of the Union's workplace health promotion policy. Can the Commission state what structures have been created by each of the Member States involved in the programme? Has the Commission arranged for monitoring of the programme's results?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to a grant agreement within the Community Action Programme on Health Promotion, Information, Education and Training, which is currently carried out in all Member States, the three European Economic Area (EEA) countries and five candidate countries by the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion (ENWHP). The objectives of this grant agreement include the development of supportive infrastructures at national level for the dissemination and implementation of effective strategies in workplace health promotion and policies.

These supportive infrastructures, which are also, named as national forum for workplace health promotion form a platform at national level for exchange of knowledge and experiences as well as for joint actions of all stakeholders in workplace health improvement. Common goals and rules for closely working together shall be developed, in accordance with national priorities and practices. In most countries participating in this project the national forum will have an informal status and will decide through consensus building on a voluntary basis. The national forum shall involve institutional stakeholders such as governmental, regional and other competent authorities, Social Partners and representatives of social security institutions and non-institutional stakeholders such as enterprises, professional and intermediate associations and granting institutions.

The members of the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion have started to initiate the development of an informal national forum for workplace health promotion on their territory. These initiatives will use already established networks for health and safety at workplace and workplace health improvements at European and national level as far as possible or will have to create new structures in form of networks or platforms. The final results of this project, in particular, the status and working procedures of the supportive infrastructures at national level in relation to workplace health promotion will be presented at the 4th European Conference of the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion on 14-15 June 2004 in Dublin.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/172

(2004/C 33 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1803/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Large-scale hunting of migratory birds in Malta

We recently received a report that in Malta the spring migration of birds culminated in large-scale hunting of protected migratory species, even in protected areas. In its answer to Written Question E-3036/02 (1), the Commission stated that when it joins the Union Malta will be required to transpose and comply with all the provisions of the bird protection directive. The Commission also made clear that the situation in countries joining the Union with regard to compliance with and transposition of the bird protection and habitats directive will be monitored closely.

1. Can the Commission confirm that large-scale hunting of protected bird species during the spring migration did indeed take place?

2. Does the Commission share our view that such hunting runs counter to the obligations laid down in the bird protection directive?

3. Can the Commission state what if any measures it intends to take to draw Malta's attention to those obligations?

4. Does the Commission share our view that under the bird protection directive a blanket ban on the spring hunting of birds, the trapping of birds and hunting at sea is justified?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission does not have confirmation of the claims of large-scale hunting made by the Honourable Members and therefore is unable to comment as to whether these claims run counter to the obligations of the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2).

The obligations of the Birds Directive have been underlined by the Commission in its contacts with Malta on numerous occasions and the Commission will continue to monitor Malta's compliance with the commitments it has given in the run-up to accession. The Commission would also refer to its previous response to Written Question E-3036/02 by Mrs Corbey.

Under the current jurisdiction, the Birds Directive would not demand an automatic blanket ban of the activities.

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/66

(2004/C 65 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1216/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Perugia

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 Perugia, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/703

(2004/C 88 E/0722)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0669/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Professional qualifications

What reply if any has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion sent to Ireland, as announced in IP/03/1406, regarding Ireland's failure to implement by the 1 January 2003 deadline Directive 2001/19/EC (1)?

What action has the Commission taken or is it proposing to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

In the meantime, Ireland has notified measures for all the professions covered by Directive 2001/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor.

The competent Commission services will therefore soon propose the College to close the infringement procedure for non communication of national implementation measures.

(1) OJ L 206, 31.7.2001, p. 1.
1.

It is true that in some cases there have been some misunderstandings about the nature and objectives of the new instruments established under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research (FP 6). These have meant that certain expectations on the part of the participants in these projects (correct or incorrect) may not have been met in full when negotiating their projects with the Commission. For example, the Commission has an obligation to ensure that the Community financial contribution is provided in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Financial Regulation (1) and that the legal and financial interests of the Community are ensured when entering into contracts with third parties. However, it should also be said that guidance and information on the new instruments, as well as on the contractual aspects relating to the negotiation of projects have been provided both to potential contractors and to the Commission. Much of this information can be found either on the Cordis web site or on the model contract web site at (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-contract/indexen.html)
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/949

(2004/C 78 E/1004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/04

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Financing for the new Athens airport

By decision E (96) 1356 of 23 May 1996 the Commission granted the company AIA SA funding of EUR 250 million to build the new Athens airport at Spata.

The company subsequently (on 14 June 1996) signed a contract for the airport project with Hochtief AG, formerly called Gebr. Helfmann of Essen (Germany), for a sum of EUR 1,8 billion. In its turn this company set up a branch in Athens which is not entered on the register of limited companies. Hochtief has concluded a whole series of contracts with other firms in order to sub-contract the construction work.

Hochtief has a 45 % share in AIA SA, the Greek State 55 %, although Hochtief controls the board of directors with 5 out of 9 directors. The Commission's decision E (96) 1356 named AIA SA as the entity responsible for carrying out the project. According to Article 12.2.6. of Greek Law No 2338/95, AIA SA cannot be considered as a body governed by public law, and Article 10 of Regulation No 1164/94 (1) states that funding may be granted only to bodies governed by public law.

Spat airport has also set extremely high airport taxes, because of its dominant position in air traffic to and from Greece. This prompted a number of passengers to lodge complaints with the Commission in July 2002.

1. Can the Commission say how it justifies granting the funding directly to a limited company rather than to a body governed by public law.

2. Can it say why it has not yet responded to the complaints concerning the high airport taxes charged by Spata airport.

3. Can it say which of the two companies — Hochtief AG or Hellas SA — issued the invoice for the payment of EUR 1,8 billion to the company AIA, which was subsequently submitted to the Commission to justify the funding of EUR 250 million?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/930

(2004/C 84 E/1028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1024/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Olympic Airways

The Greek press has reported that, in the next few days, the Commission will bring an action against Greece before the European Court of Justice for providing unlawful State subsidies to Olympic Airways (OA). According to the reports, there are reasons to suppose that illegal subsidies were paid during the process of dividing OA into two and the attempt to privatise Olympic Airlines as well as during the process of collecting and allocating the passenger levy for the construction of the new airport at Spata.

In its answer to my question (E-2837/03 (1)) concerning the safeguarding of OA workers' rights following the creation of the new company Olympic Airlines', the Commission stated that it would investigate the matter and inform us of its findings.

In the light of the foregoing, can the Commission elaborate on its legal arguments pertaining to unlawful subsidies? What are the findings (answer to question E-2837/03) of the investigation into the safeguarding of the rights of the workers being transferred to the new company and those remaining with the old company, in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 98/50/EC (2)?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the supplementary answer given by the Commission to his written question E-2837/03 (3).

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 206.

(2) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998, p. 88.

(3) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/838

(2004/C 84 E/0931)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0664/04

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Legislation on yoghurt

The 15 Member States currently regulate the marketing of yoghurt on the sole basis of a Commission Communication of 1991, designed to interpret the Smanor ruling of the Court of Justice, which referred to a case involving the naming of the product. By virtue of this communication, the Member States are free to ban the use of the term ‘yoghurt’ on their territory for heat-treated products. The Communication makes three exceptions to the principle of freedom of movement of goods and the mutual recognition of sales terminology: caviar, vinegar and yoghurt. Various countries use the Communication to forbid the use of the term ‘yoghurt’ for pasteurised yoghurts, a practice which is a clear obstacle to the single market.

Given that the most recent scientific studies have shown that there is no evidence of the supposed benefits of yoghurt with live bacteria, what is the point of continuing this restriction on the free movement of goods, which furthermore infringes consumers' freedom of choice and their right to truthful information?

Does the Commission intend to do something to bring to an end, once and for all, all these obstacles to the completion of the Single Market, in the shape of measures to harmonise legislation on yoghurt?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission is examining the need to establish legislation on yoghurt and yoghurt-like products which includes the aspects mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Following that examination, which should be completed in the near future, where it is considered appropriate and necessary to establish additional legislation, the Commission will forward a proposal to the Parliament and to the Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/186

(2004/C 88 E/0192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0429/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: The case of Rev. Rinaldy Damanik, Indonesia

Is the Commission aware that the Rev. Rinaldy Damanik was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for possessing illegal weapons, in what is alleged to be a politically motivated trial? The Palu High Court has since upheld the verdict of the State Court and Rev. Damanik's lawyers are now preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court in Jakarta.

As the head of the Crisis Centre in Central Sulawesi, he was responsible for keeping the international community informed about human rights violations against Christian and Muslim communities and providing practical assistance to the many internally displaced persons, including the evacuation of Christians under attack from militants.

Will the Commission enquire into his welfare and the process that led to his arrest and trial?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission is closely following the case of Reverend Damanik, whose sentence to three years imprisonment for illegal possession of weapons has been confirmed by the Supreme Court at the end of 2003. Since Reverend Damanik has already spent one-and-a-half years in prison, there is a possibility of an earlier release.

The Commission Delegation in Jakarta was in contact with the association that was assisting Reverend Damanik, PBHI. This group will not be able to do so any more (after the sentence of the highest court) but another human rights non-governmental organisation, linked to the Indonesian Church, has taken over the assistance to Reverend Damanik. The Delegation has contacted them and was informed that they are assessing the feasibility of starting a new case, by bringing up new evidence/witnesses.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that, through its Delegation in Jakarta, it is closely monitoring the case. Moreover, support to organisations defending minority rights in Indonesia is part of the Community's co-operation programme with the country, in particular through projects supported under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.