ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/299

(2004/C 78 E/0301)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3556/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject: Projects co-funded by the ERDF in Lobios in Ourense, Spain

The ERDF provides funding for the Prisma/SP1.E76 and Miliaria/SP1.E6 projects through the Galicia-Northern Portugal subprogramme of the Community initiative Interreg III. With both projects, the Autonomous Government of Galicia, is aiming to fully restore the deserted village of Outeiro, situated in the municipality of Lobios in Ourense. The restoration will be carried out by young people with various problems and the village is intended to become a rural tourist attraction in the future.

However, local people are unhappy about the lack of information from the authorities responsible and have also expressed astonishment at the opaque way in which Community funds are managed.

Can the Commission provide detailed information about these two projects co-funded by the European Community?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The Commission can confirm that under the Interreg IIIA Community Initiative Spain/Portugal the ERDF is supporting the programmes in question.

The contribution to Miliaria/SP1.E6 is EUR 1 600 451,75 out of a total cost of EUR2 133 935,67 and that to Prisma/SP1.E76 EUR 1 767 366 out of a total cost of EUR 2 356 488.

Given the volume of the detailed information we have for the Honourable Member on the two projects we shall send it separately to her and to Parliament's Secretariat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/629

(2004/C 78 E/0663)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Florence

In its answer to question E-1006/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence 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 84/485

(2004/C 84 E/0562)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2297/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: Legal basis of the nuclear safety directive

The Commission's proposal (1) for a Council (Euratom) directive on nuclear safety proposes harmonising the administration of funds for decommissioning nuclear power stations. Is the Commission sure that there is an adequate legal basis for such a directive? Is it possible that this part of the directive could be transformed into a separate proposal for a directive?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The Honourable Member's question focuses on the legal basis of the provisions on decommissioning funds included in the proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) setting out basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear installations.

Article 2(b) of the Euratom Treaty states that the Community must ‘establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general public and ensure that they are applied.’ Title II Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty requires basic standards to be laid down to protect the health of workers and the general public against the effects of ionising radiation. On this basis, a considerable body of radiation protection legislation has been produced which, while designed to protect health, has a far wider scope than health protection in the strict sense. Radiation protection and nuclear safety have the common objective of protecting workers and the general public against the effects of ionising radiation, and both form part of the EU's health protection policy. Indeed, in its judgment of 10 December 2002 (Case C-29/99), the Court of Justice confirmed that the Euratom Treaty also covered aspects relating to nuclear safety.

The health of workers and the general public can be protected fully only by removing any potential risk, and this also entails measures to guarantee a high level of nuclear safety. Decommissioning funds should therefore be regarded not as an end in themselves but as a means of ensuring a high level of nuclear safety when decommissioning operations are being carried out. Basically, the funds are comparable to any other measures to achieve this objective, including technical ones. The fact is that financial resources are a key component of a credible nuclear facility safety policy, which has to guarantee a high level of safety not only during a facility's operating lifetime but also afterwards for as long as the facility needs to be monitored for ionising radiation protection purposes. That is why the proposal for a Directive on the safety of nuclear installations, on the legal basis of Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty, also contains provisions on decommissioning funds.

(1) COM(2003) 32 - C5-0228/2003 - 2003/0021(CNS).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/492

(2004/C 84 E/0569)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Illegal importations of bushmeat

Can the Commission report on levels of illegal importation of bushmeat into Member States, indicating recent trends in import volumes; animal meat-source composition; originating source and destination patterns; transportation routes/methods; and detection levels?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission regrets that the information requested by the Honourable Member is not available. Almost by definition, illegal imports rarely appear in the statistics.

The Commission has information on legally imported CITES (1) listed species, as importers are obliged to notify their authorities and to present permits or notifications. However, the import of specimens of CITES-listed species for use as bushmeat is illegal, and importers are not going to reveal that they are breaching the rules.

Nor is it possible to extrapolate from the number of confiscations as there is no reliable way of determining what proportion of the commodity is accounted for by confiscated material — contraband which evades the system is never recorded. In the case of bushmeat, there have only been two confiscations since 1999.

(1) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/110

(2004/C 88 E/0115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Corruption at the Bulgarian border

On 12 December 2002, I requested clarification from the Commission over reports that Bulgarian border guards had been demanding money unnecessarily from tourists to allow them to cross the border (Written Question E-3790/02 (1)). Mr Verheugen replied that ‘appropriate measures’ would be taken ‘in order to prevent incidents of the specific character described’.

An inquiry carried out by ANWB, the largest Dutch organisation active in the field of tourism, leisure and travel, shows that the situation has not improved. Tourists now even have to be vaccinated against SARS at the border, although there is in fact no vaccine against SARS!

1. Is the Commission aware of what is going on?

2. Does the Commission feel that these vaccinations are a danger to public health?

3. Has the Commission taken steps to put a stop to these practices?

4. Does the Commission feel that its monitoring of corruption by Bulgarian border authorities is effective?

5. What practical steps does the Commission plan to take to stamp out these illegal practices?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission has been informed of the complaints related to the collection of a fee of EUR 100 relating to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) at Bulgarian border checkpoints. Bulgaria was invited to explain the situation and has provided the Commission with the following information.

No fees or penalties were officially introduced at Bulgarian border checkpoints in connection with SARS. Further to the complaints, an information campaign in German, English and Turkish has been launched at all border checkpoints and Bulgarian embassies in Turkey, Germany and Austria informing that there is no official collection of fees or penalties in connection with SARS. The Turkish embassies in Germany and Austria, as well as the main Turkish tour operators in these countries, have also been informed.

Moreover, the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior has ordered its services and local directorates to collect data and information on these alleged practices. The results of the investigation will determine whether to institute penal proceedings. The investigation is complicated by the fact that the Bulgarian authorities have received no official complaints with information specifying the time and the location or describing the perpetrator.

The Honourable Member will appreciate that the Commission has no formal powers to inquire into cases of this nature. However, it does monitor Bulgaria's commitment to the rule of law through a number of mechanisms and reporting sources. Once further information is forthcoming from the Bulgarian authorities this will be transmitted to the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 24.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/817

(2004/C 78 E/0869)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3528/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Protection of the caretta — caretta turtle

Will the Commission give the results of its recent inspection of the maritime park of Zakynthos (Greece) and the protection of the caretta — caretta turtle?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/329

(2004/C 88 E/0334)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: EU/Guinea-Bissau 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to Guinea-Bissau, can the Commission provide information on the following: What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with Guinea-Bissau? What are the funds allocated? What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/82

(2004/C 78 E/0081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos

In its reply to Written Question E-1551/03 (1) the Commission stated that it intended to contact the Portuguese authorities with a view to ensuring that appropriate action is taken in order to enforce Community legislation on asbestos — thereby justifying the concern felt by the author of this question.

Would the Commission say when it intends to ‘ensure that [he Portuguese authorities] take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question’?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

In accordance with its recent reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1551/03 (2), the Commission has sent a letter dated 16 June 2003 to the Portuguese Authorities asking them to check the correct and full implementation of Community law related to Asbestos in Portugal as required by Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (3).

The Commission currently awaits the reply of the Portuguese Authorities before taking, if appropriate, any further action.

(1) See page 37.

(2) See page 37.

(3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/590

(2004/C 88 E/0603)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0242/03

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Human rights in Bangladesh

Is it correct that the Government of Bangladesh since the 2001 elections has instigated a regime of terror? It is alleged by Amnesty International amongst others that assassinations have become common, freedom of the press has been curtailed and the army has been given indemnity from prosecution for its actions during Operation Clean Heart (16 October 2002 to 9 January 2003).

What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that this indemnity is stopped and that those who are accused of gross human rights violations are brought to justice?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0170/03 and E-0242/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

In the session of the Parliament of 21 November 2002, the Commission expressed the Union's grave concern about the human rights situation in Bangladesh, the deterioration of law and order in the country and the continued reports about torture and deaths in custody, following the launch of the Operation Clean Heart. Only recently, the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations has conveyed to the Minister of Finance of the Government of Bangladesh his regret about the Government's decision to grant immunity to the joint law enforcement agencies for acts committed during the operation. He urged the Government of Bangladesh to launch a fully transparent investigation into the custodial deaths, as previously promised by Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, and to ensure that legal action is taken against any law enforcement personnel found responsible for breaches of human rights.

Article 1 of the Cooperation Agreement between the Community and the People's Republic of Bangladesh on partnership and development (1), states that respect for human rights and democratic principles as laid down in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights underpins the domestic and international policies of the Union and Bangladesh. It constitutes an essential element of the Agreement. On this basis, the Union offers the Government of Bangladesh and Bangladesh civil society a constructive and comprehensive dialogue on human rights, democracy, and governance issues. One element in this process of engaging with the Government of Bangladesh is the upcoming first meeting of the Joint Commission's Specialized Sub-group on Human Rights and Governance.

Furthermore, the National Indicative Programme 2003-2005 for Bangladesh, which the Government of Bangladesh has subscribed to, foresees an amount of EUR 9 million for the promotion of democracy and human rights.

Finally, the Commission would like to point out that it actively participates in the Local Consultation Group in Dhaka, as well as in the Bangladesh Development Forum, both of which are platforms for conveying Community concerns on Human Rights and Democracy to the Government of Bangladesh and for engaging with it on these issues.

(1) OJ L 118, 27.4.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/302

(2004/C 78 E/0304)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3610/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Circumvention of sugar import tariffs

It was recently reported (in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, 30 September 2003) that, by importing the semi-finished product tomato sugar (consisting of sugar, vinegar and tomato extract) from Switzerland, companies based in the EU are taking advantage of the low world market price of sugar. Producers in Switzerland import European ‘C sugar’ for this purpose, thereby avoiding high sugar prices. The same process is used in the production of soft drinks.

1. Does the Commission view this as an unwanted development? If so, what does the Commission intend to do about it?

2. Is the Commission aware of situations involving other third countries or other products where the same problem exists or could arise?

3. Does the Commission feel that such imports, which from 1 May 2004 will be directed principally towards the new Member States, are desirable?

4. Does the Commission share the view that the problem outlined above could be solved by setting import quotas on such products?

5. Does the Commission share the view that the problem of the circumvention of rules of origin, which has occured with regard to the Balkans and which, it is feared, may occur in the case of the ‘Everything But Arms’ group of countries, could also be solved by setting import quotas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Under the 1972 Agreement the preferential treatment granted to Switzerland includes customs duty exemption for her exports to the Community of certain processed products, such as soft drinks, that may contain sugar.

Whether European sugar or sugar bought on the world market is used when these products are made in Switzerland is of no real importance. This is so for both the cost price of the sugar used and the origin of the finished product.

We are well aware of the impact on the Community sugar market that can be made by imports from various countries of sugar and products containing relatively high proportions of sugar.

Importation taking advantage of preferential rights granted by the Community is of course encouraged by the existence of a Community sugar price that is generally three times higher than the world price.

These issues are one aspect of a situation that has resulted in a Commission Communication to the Council and Parliament (1) setting out three policy options for the sugar organisation. The first is retention of quotas, the second achievement of market balance through lower prices and the third liberalisation of the market. Once discussion of the Communication is over the Commission will submit a proposal on the future organisation for sugar.

(1) COM(2003) 554 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/569

(2004/C 78 E/0604)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3516/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject: Commission staffing

What is the total number of permanent staff employed by the European Commission and how many staff work in each Directorate-General?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission interprets the question from the Honourable Member as referring to officials in active employment (Staff Regulations Article 36).

The permanent staff employed by the Commission on 1 December 2003 was 18 670 officials. The number of officials per Directorate-General was as follows:

Directorate-General (DG) Number of officials Cabinets (20) 265 Secretariat general 420 Legal Service 277 Press and Communication DG 372 Group of policy advisers 19 Economic and Financial Affairs DG 379 Entreprise DG 577 Competition DG 469 Employment and Social Affairs DG 447 Agriculture DG 756 Transport and Energy DG 715 Environment DG 389 Research DG 616 Joint Research Centre 1 025 Information Society DG 546 Fisheries DG 202 Internal Market DG 311 Regional Policy DG 417 Taxation and Customs Union DG 309 Education and Culture DG 504 Health and Consumer Protection DG 499 Justice and Home Affairs DG 197 External Relations DG 1 385 Trade DG 352 Development DG 264 Enlargement DG 244 EuropeAid Co-operation Office 797 Humanitarian Aid Office 134 Eurostat 534 Personnel and Administration DG 946 Budget DG 359 Internal Audit Service 64 European Anti-Fraud Office (1) 141 DG for Interpretation 562 DG for Translation 1 685 Publications Office (1) 436 Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels 501 PayMaster Office 276 Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg 195 European Personnel Selection Office (1) 84 Total 18 670

(1) These are inter-Institutional bodies whose staff are permanent officials of the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/465

(2004/C 88 E/0478)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3500/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Accession of Croatia to the EU

In June 2004 ten new countries will join the EU, and in 2007 the candidate countries Bulgaria and Romania will also join, provided they meet the EU's requirements.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that Croatia is ready to join the EU together with Bulgaria and Romania?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Croatia applied for Union Membership in February 2003 and in April 2003 the Council requested the Commission to prepare an Opinion on this Membership Application. The Commission is planning to deliver its Opinion in spring 2004 and it is currently working to assess Croatia's fulfilment of the three Copenhagen criteria. It is, therefore, premature to say what will be the results of the Opinion and what will be the consequent decision of the Council.

The European Council of 12 December 2003 concluded ‘that the accession negotiations’ for Romania and Bulgaria ‘can be brought to a successful conclusion in 2004 on the basis of own merits, and the Accession Treaty can be signed as soon as possible in 2005’. These two countries therefore are already very advanced in the accession negotiations.

Croatia will enter into the Union as soon as it is ready, i.e. when it has successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria, and completed the accession negotiations. The pace of reforms in Croatia will determine the speed of negotiations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/363

(2004/C 78 E/0382)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1232/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Member States' policies on airport expansion

Could the Commission provide a summary of the principal airport expansion plans in Member States of which it is aware, and give its opinion on whether it considers that the plans are:

1. sufficiently co-ordinated across the EU;

2. adequate to deal with the projected increase in air passenger demand over the next 40 years?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission does not systematically compile or administer information on expansion of Union airports and, as a result, does not have a comprehensive overview of such current or planned expansion as the subject of airport management and planning falls under the responsibility of Member States.

The Commission recognises that the long term growth of air transport has important implications for the provision of air transport infrastructure. The Commission White Paper of September 2001 (1) identified capacity constraints in the air and on the ground as key obstacles to economic growth. In its work programme for 2003, the Commission has included the publication of a Communication on airport capacity. In this context, preparations for the definition of a Community policy on airport capacity and airport efficiency are in progress. As indicated in the White Paper, and in the light of reactions to it, the Commission examines whether the revision of the existing guidelines on the Trans-European Network for Transport aiming at concentrating on the most important infrastructure for international traffic and cohesion on the European continent, may be part of this policy.

(1) ‘White Paper — European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide’, European Communities September 2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/94

(2004/C 84 E/0122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3730/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

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

With reference to question E-0972/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Siena (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.