ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/252

(2004/C 88 E/0257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Churches in Indonesia

I have received several letters from constituents regarding Reverend Rinaldy Damanik, a leader of the Protestant Christian Community in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Has the Commission any further information on his situation to add to the response that it gave to Written Question E-2815/03 (1) in October 2003?

Is the Commission also aware of the recent closure of several churches in Indonesia and the lack of resolution of the enforced conversion of thousands of Christians to Islam during the sectarian conflict in the Molucca Islands? Is the Commission making representations to encourage the Indonesian Government to put an end to these and other examples of the persecution of Christians in Indonesia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

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

The Commission Delegation in Jakarta has contacted the human rights non-governmental organisation (NGO), linked to the Indonesian Church, which has taken over the assistance to Reverend Damanik after the sentence of the highest court, and was informed that they are assessing the feasibility of starting a new case, with new evidence/witnesses.

As regards the areas with a high level of religious tensions, the Commission is encouraged by information, received from local religious groups, that inter-faith groups are set up aiming at co-operation and reciprocal protection and defence. The Commission has recently received one of these inter-faith groups active in the Maluku Province.

The Commission is closely monitoring the situation of religious freedom in Indonesia. 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.

(1) See page 117.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/844

(2004/C 84 E/0937)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0692/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Invasion of privacy at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)

According to information obtained from the Commission, it would appear that at the 10/12 December 2003 Geneva World Summit on the Information Society, badges fitted with radio-frequency microchips (RFID technology) were used in order to control access to certain restricted areas.

In its reply to question P-4002/03 (1) the Commission (in the person of Mr Liikanen, Commissioner) states that it will undertake ‘to obtain further information in order to ascertain whether (and, if so, how) RFID-based applications were used in connection with personal data transferred from the European Union, with a view to assessing the legitimacy — in the light of Community law — of the way in which the data were processed.’

Has the Commission pursued its investigations and, if so, what further information has it obtained concerning the use of RFID technology by the organisers of the WSIS and the Swiss Government?

Has the Commission launched a study into the legitimacy — in the light of Community law — of the way in which the WSIS organisers processed the data?

What information does the Commission hold concerning the transfer to third countries of the data gathered in the course of the WSIS, with particular reference to the fact that the second stage of the WSIS will be held in Tunisia in November 2005?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

As announced in the response given to the Honourable Member's written question P-4002/03 on the same subject, the Commission has enquired informally with the Swiss authorities regarding the use of RFID-based technology at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS).

The Commission was informed that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as the supporting United Nations (UN) agency for the WSIS was responsible for the organisation of security measures at the Summit.

The Commission has therefore sent a letter on 17 March 2004 to the Secretary-General of the ITU seeking further information on whether and how RFID-based applications were used in relation to personal data transferred from the EU, in order to assess the legality of the processing under EU law, and has also asked for an appreciation of such measures under Swiss law.

No reply has been received to date.

(1) See page 129.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/188

(2004/C 88 E/0194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0501/04

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Measures to tackle the Ulysses syndrome

The psychological upheavals which immigrants are more and more prone to, due to the very difficult obstacle course they have to run in their search for a better life, constitute an emergent health problem in societies where there are large numbers of immigrants.

The Ulysses syndrome, or the syndrome of immigrants suffering from chronic or multiple stress, is unleashed by a series of blows involving the individual's loss of such existentially important points of reference as family and friends, native culture and land, social position and physical safety.

Is the Commission aware of the existence of this phenomenon, its seriousness and its importance, and does it therefore intend to put forward legislative measures to tackle it?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission is aware that immigrants may suffer from health problems, from chronic or multiple stress due to loss of reference points such as family and friends, native culture and land, social position.

The Commission drew attention to this issue in its Communication on immigration, integration and employment (1) and urged Member States to develop comprehensive integration policies at national level, which take into account the integration of immigrants into all aspects of life including ensuring appropriate health care and access to social services. The Commission also highlighted the need for mainstreaming specific migration and integration concerns into all policy fields at the European level, including Community health policies. In this respect the Commission has financed a project under the former Health Monitoring Programme on ‘Monitoring and reporting of socio-economic differences in health indicators in the EU’, one of whose outcomes was a specific report on ‘Health inequalities in Europe and the situation of disadvantaged groups’. This report commented on the specific situation of migrants.

As regards the question of putting forward EU legislation to tackle this phenomenon, it should be recalled that ensuring proper health care and tackling specific health problems of immigrants, remain the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission does not, therefore, intend to propose specific legislation in this field.

(1) COM(2003) 336 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/926

(2004/C 78 E/0980)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0069/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Support for cleaning lakes in the Cantanhede municipal district

Between Cantanhede and Figueira da Foz in Portugal, the Vela, Salgueira and Mata lakes, which, with their respective drainage ditches, need to be cleaned and decontaminated and have their vegetation cut back and their sludge and mud removed, which could then be dumped and spread as fertiliser in the neighbouring woods.

What possible Community aid is available for carrying out this work as a matter of urgency, with a view to preserving the eco-system of the lakes and breed quality fish for angling purposes, as the historical right of the local people, with the creation of a normal seasonal fishing ban?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The lakes mentioned by the Honourable Member are located within a site of Community importance proposed by Portugal under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), with the name ‘Dunas de Mira, Gandara e Gafanhas’. Projects for the conservation or improvement of the conservation status of the habitats and species of Community interest present in the site are therefore eligible for Community financing under the Nature branch of the LIFE programme. Information on the programme can be found on the Internet, at (http://www.europa.eu.int/ comm/environment/life/home.htm).

The measures described by the Honourable Member cannot be seen, in themselves, as falling under the scope of LIFE-Nature. They could, however, be integrated in a more general project for improving the conservation status of the habitats and species present in the site.

As far as the structural funds are concerned, the operations mentioned by the Honourable Member could be financed either by the national environmental programme, under the measures covering the conservation of the lagoon ecosystems, or through the operational programme for the Centro region, which foresees a specific measure for environment. In both scenarios, the promoters should send their requests to the Portuguese authorities.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/840

(2004/C 84 E/0933)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/04

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

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Medical certificates

Could the Commission confirm that medical certificates issued by the Department of Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom should be valid as evidence in court cases in all Member States?

Does the Commission believe that refusal to accept these documents by a Member State would be a breach of EU laws? If so, which EU laws are applicable?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission does not possess all the information required to answer the Honourable Member's question in greater detail. The question did not state for which purposes medical certificates issued by the British authorities were submitted to a court in another Member State.

Within the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 (1), on the coordination of Member States' social security schemes and of its implementing rules (Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 (2)), the matter of the validity of medical certificates issued in another Member State has been submitted to the Court of Justice on several occasions: Cases C-22/86 Rindone (judgment of 12 March 1987), C-45/90 Paletta I (judgment of 3 June 1992), Case C-206/94 Paletta II (judgment of 2 May 1996). Accordingly, for the purpose of providing cash benefits or benefits in kind (Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72), the competent institution is bound de facto and de jure by the medical findings of the institution at the place of domicile or residence on the commencement and duration of incapacity in cases where the interested party is not examined by a doctor of its own choice, as authorised by Article 18(5) (Paletta). However, this does not imply that employers are not allowed to submit evidence pursuant to which the national courts decide that abuse or fraudulent conduct took place because the employee in question was not sick even though he/she claimed incapacity to work under aforementioned Article 18. It should also be noted that doctors based in other Member States must be regarded as providing guarantees equivalent to those provided by doctors based on the national territory (Case C-156/96 Kohll, judgment of 28 April 1998).

In order to give a more precise answer to the Honourable Member, the Commission would need further details.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/189

(2004/C 84 E/0229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Sewage treatment plants

In the sewage treatment sector, companies wishing to sell equipment to the Republic of Ireland require approval of their products by the Irish Board of Agreement. Would the Commission agree that the cost of obtaining such approval is a barrier to trade?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Honourable Member did not specify which type of sewage treatment equipment has to be approved by the Irish Board of Agreement. Therefore, it is difficult to assess whether the equipment falls within the scope of Directive 98/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 relating to machinery (1) or within the scope of any other Community Directive ensuring the free movement of the relevant equipment. It is also difficult to assess whether the equipment is covered by Article 4 (2) of Council Directive 89/106/CEE of 21 December 1988, on construction products (2). If so, the approval scheme should be examined in the light of the relevant directive. Approval by the Irish Board of Agreement of products relating to pertinent requirements already regulated at Community level is not allowed.

If, however, such equipment would fall outside the scope of the relevant directive(s) or if the pertinent requirements are not regulated in the relevant directive(s), the requirement to submit these products for approval to the Irish Board of Agreement should be assessed in the light of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty. Article 28 of the EC Treaty prohibits measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative import restrictions, and covers all commercial rules enacted by the Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade. However, these trade restrictions could be justified under Article 30 of the EC Treaty or under the mandatory requirements accepted by the Court of Justice, if these restrictions are necessary and proportionate to achieve the legitimate objectives of public interest set out in Article 30 or accepted by the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 207, 23.7.1998.

(2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/584

(2004/C 84 E/0661)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/04

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Fluoridation of drinking water

Could the Commission say why the new Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC (1)) continue to allows the addition to public water supplies of a ‘priority hazardous substance’ prohibited by the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC (2)), hexafluorosilicic acid, listed in the EC Dangerous Substances Directive, a persistent, bioaccumulative pollutant and toxic chemical, in obvious violation of its own directives, including Article 4(2) which prohibits Member States from adopting measures leading ‘to any increase in the pollution of waters used for the production of drinking water’?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Concerning dangerous substances, the Council and the Parliament have adopted a list of 33 substances or groups of substances of which 11 have been classified as ‘priority hazardous’, 14 as ‘priorit’ which are under review and eight not ‘priority hazardous’. For the moment, hexafluorosilicic acid is not covered by Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy, and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (3).

For Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, the approach followed in the Council Directive has been to set limit values, which should not be exceeded, for a series of substances including fluoride; the maximum permitted levels have been fixed on the basis of available scientific knowledge in order to protect human health. The choice of the means to bring the quality of the drinking water in line with the Community legislation is left to the Member States themselves.

The list of parameters of the Directive has been limited to those which are of most importance for the quality of drinking water in the Community. The substances on the list are not the only substances which could present a risk or even a potential threat to human health if present in drinking water. However, to include all potential contaminants without regard to how likely or unlikely their presence may be would have created an unworkable Directive. This would have implied disproportionate monitoring obligations and very little gain in safety.

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 331, 15.12.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/393

(2004/C 84 E/0456)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0428/04

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: The future of publicly-owned regional airports in the light of the recent decision on Charleroi Airport, in Belgium, and Ryanair

In light of the recent Commission decision on Charleroi Airport and Ryanair, can the Commission indicate:

1. How publicly-owned airports can now compete with large privately-owned airports in attracting traffic and new routes?

2. Has the Commission received any response from publicly-owned regional airports to this decision in regard to Charleroi and, if so, what is that response?

3. Has any economic impact assessment been done on both the fare levels that will now operate from publicly-owned airports as a result of this decision and the effect on regional development in and around this type of airport?

4. Will the Commission be considering new proposals in regard to the whole area of airport fees and charges?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

It is for every airport, whether public or private, to decide how to best pit its strengths with competing airports. In any case, such competition should not be distorted through the granting of aid by a Member State or through State resources in any form.

In order to develop a comprehensive approach to competition between airports in general and the application of State aid rules in particular, the Commission, in 2002, has had a study carried out on this subject. This study can be retrieved from the Commission's website: (www.europa.eu.int/comm/transport/ air/rules/indexen.htm). Taking into account the results of this study and recent cases, guidelines will be developed on the application of the Community rules on State aid to airports and air carriers operating at those airports.

The Commission has not received reactions in writing from any regional airport.

The decision in question was based on a complaint about the particular situation at Charleroi airport and the particular advantages granted to Ryanair which had to be examined on the basis of the relevant provisions on State aid of the EC Treaty. Therefore, the Commission has not carried out a general economic impact analysis on the level of tariffs (or airport charges) to be applied to public airports as a result of the Commission decision of 3 February 2004 on Ryanair's operations at Charleroi airport. An analysis on the effect of the decision on regional development in and around this type of airport was not necessary as the decision encourages, under certain conditions, agreements between regional airports and low-cost air carriers which lead to better use of under-used airports, help to solve problems of air transport congestion and give EU citizens more choice.

In any case, a new initiative for a Directive on airport charges is in the Commission's Work Programme for 2004. It is recalled that two previous initiatives were not adopted by the Council (1).

(1) OJ C 147, 16.6.1990 and OJ C 257, 22.8.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/322

(2004/C 84 E/0372)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0163/04

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 introduced an obligation for services to report their accounting provisions for each activity, measure or project they propose?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/912

(2004/C 84 E/1008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0912/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: Directive 2001/83/EC and Braille requirements

Has the Commission fully assessed the implications and costs involved in the requirement that all medicine packaging must include Braille, as specified in Directive 2001/83/EC (1)?

Has the Commission considered other options such as:

— the provision, at point of sale, of clear self-adhesive Braille labels;

— the availability, at point of sale, of leaflets printed in Braille, which may be retained in the home with the product in question;

— the provision, on demand, of reusable containers printed in Braille, in which a product may be kept?

Will the Commission consider convening a meeting of relevant stakeholders to ensure that this requirement is met in the most appropriate manner?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The requirement to give information on a medicinal product in Braille is included in the revision of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use as agreed by the Parliament and the Council (December 2003-March 2004).

During the discussions for the review of the above-mentioned Directive, Members of the Parliament pointed out the need to give basic information of medicinal products in Braille as well. As a consequence, the Council took on board the arguments that partially sighted or blind patients should be in a position to recognise the medicinal product.

The new provision (Article 56(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC) does not specify in which way the information must be given, if the information has to be on the container itself or for example on a ‘self-adhesive Braille label’. Different possibilities could be retained.

Different options could also be considered, in particular, concerning the availability at point of sale or by request to the distributor of a leaflet in Braille.

The Commission will discuss with the Member States in the context of the Pharmaceutical Committee how to implement this requirement in the most appropriate manner. Stakeholders will be consulted.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.