ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/953

(2004/C 78 E/1008)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0454/04

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: Unemployment benefits in Greece

The main opposition party in Greece alleges that the Greek authorities only grant unemployment benefits to those persons who remain unemployed for 12 months, and that they take benefits away from those who go over this period, even if only by one day. It also alleges that unemployment benefits in Greece amount to barely 60 % of the Community average.

Is this practice by the Greek authorities compatible with Community regulations on the unemployed and long-term unemployment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission has no direct competence in the field of unemployment insurance. It is therefore up to each Member State to organise its own unemployment benefit systems. Community legislation that applies to unemployment benefit schemes only concerns the rights of migrant workers and equal treatment of men and women. It does not harmonise benefit levels or the design of such schemes in the Member States. It should also be noted that benefit levels often reflect national earning levels.

Information on unemployment benefit schemes in other Member States is available in the Mutual Information System on Social Protection (Missoc) on the Commission's web site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employmentsocial/missoc/indexen.html).

The EU currently encourages Member States in their efforts to modernise labour markets through the European Employment Strategy, in particular by making unemployment insurance schemes more supportive of active and preventive measures for the unemployed. The aim is to prevent inflow into long-term unemployment and to promote the sustainable integration into employment of unemployed and inactive people.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/326

(2004/C 84 E/0384)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0175/04

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.

Could the Commission confirm that it will be using a balance sheet to show long-term assets available for covering a long-term debt, including the fund regarding the sickness insurance scheme?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/169

(2004/C 84 E/0208)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0160/04

by Uma Aaltonen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Use in the EU institutions of sniffer dogs trained to detect explosives

The security mechanisms employed in the EU institutions have failed to detect the letter bombs sent to senior officials over the last few weeks.

No one has yet been seriously injured by these letter bombs. The question arises, however, as to whether in future officials can go on simply trusting to their luck when mail of this kind lands on their desks. Can EU staff continue to open mail without fear of being blown up?

It is astonishing that items of mail can reach officials' desks without being inspected by a real professional in this sphere — a dog trained to sniff out explosives. No x-ray machine or other technical apparatus can beat the performance and precision of a trained dog, as exemplified by the dogs used to detect bombs and mines.

I have studied this topic in detail and have been able to offer the Labrador-retriever Amanda, who was used as a mine-detector dog in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a home in her retirement.

For that reason, I should like to put the following questions to the Commission:

— Who is responsible for the security systems and their operation in the EU institutions?

— Does the chain of security measures include the use of dogs trained to detect explosives?

— Does the Commission intend to expand its range of detection measures to include this method, in particular when it comes to checking items of mail?

— Can I be sure that I am just as safe in my office in Parliament as I am at home?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Each Institution is responsible for its own security systems and their operation. An inter Institutional working group on security ensures the exchange of relevant information.

The Commission does not offer opinions on security practices employed by other Institutions. The Honourable Member should raise the issue of her personal safety with the Parliamentary authorities if she has any reason to believe that she has cause for concern.

In the Commission, mail-handling security measures are based principally on technical detection systems because they have been shown to be more effective for this type of control. While the Commission does not make general use of dogs in its mail-checking procedures, the use of trained dogs can be helpful for other checks such as explosives detection as part of the security process in buildings and offices. This working method has periodically been used by the Commission in cooperation with Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/354

(2004/C 84 E/0411)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0290/04

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Scope of Directive 97/11/EC

Could the Commission confirm whether or not Item 7a of Directive 97/11/EC (1) covers the construction of a large-scale telecommunications network alongside an existing track?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) (Environmental Impact Assessment Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 which refers to Annex I and II of the Directive. Annex I point 7(a) refers to construction of lines for long-distance railway traffic and of airports with a basic runway length of 2 100 metres (m) or more. Annex II point 13 includes any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment.

The Honourable Member asks the Commission to confirm whether or not Annex I point 7(a) covers the construction of a large-scale telecommunications network alongside an existing track. It is to be noted that the construction of a large-scale telecommunications network is not found as a project type in the Annexes. However, the question is whether such a project may be characterised as a change or extension of the existing track, if this track falls under Annex I point 7(a) in the first place. The question of the Honourable Member does not include elements to develop this issue. In any event, if the existing project is not changed as per its own physical characteristics it could hardly fall under Annex II point 13.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/203

(2004/C 84 E/0247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Shoppers' rights in Ireland under EU law

What reply has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion it sent to Ireland in January 2003, as announced in Commission press release IP/03/3, regarding the transposition in Ireland of the Guarantees Directive (Dir 1999/44/EC (1)), which sets out certain minimum legal rights for consumers buying goods in the EU?

What action has the Commission taken or is it considering taking in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

On 19 December 2002, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Ireland over the failure to implement Directive 1999/44/EC (2).

In response to this reasoned opinion, the Irish Government notified the Commission of the ‘European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003 — (S.I. No 11 of 2003)’ on 10 February 2003, thereby implementing the Guarantees Directive.

As a consequence, the Commission closed this infringement procedure against Ireland on 9 July 2003.

(1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.

(2) Directive 1999/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, OJ L 171, 7.7.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/726

(2004/C 88 E/0747)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1203/04

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for Project 8.ACP.PNG.003

1. With regard to the contract award procedure used to select the undertaking to replace the original consultant (Studio Bichara Srl (‘SB’)) in the services contract in question, can the Commission indicate why: (a) no international restricted invitation to tender was launched, despite the contract being of a value in excess of EUR 200 000, and a local invitation to tender was opted for instead (see the Common Service for External Relations manual of procedures – paragraph 10 and Annex – applicable at the time of the events in question); (b) no suspicion was aroused by the fact that the participants in the tender procedure (which differed enormously in terms of size and financial capacity) submitted tenders in excess of the maximum available budget when some of them had also participated in the original 1999 procedure and submitted tenders below the level of available resources; (c) the contract was subsequently awarded (by direct agreement) to the companies PAC and ETS, contrary to Article 12(2) of the General Conditions for services contracts financed by the EDF, when PAC/ETS had, moreover, been declared ineligible in respect of another EU project in the Republic of Vanuatu?

2. Concerning the contracts awarded after the cancellation of the contract with SB why, following the criticisms levelled by PAC/ETS itself at the Unitech plans drawn up by SB, was management of the works originally envisaged by SB awarded to PAC/ETS for an amount of around EUR 772 000, as opposed to the EUR 660 000 originally agreed with SB for the same services, on top of around EUR 100 000 for supplementary services and a rider amounting to around EUR 420 000 relating solely to the new plans for the Unitech institute (as opposed to the EUR 600 000 agreed with SB for the plans for all 9 of the institutes covered by the project)?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2004)

Further to the additional documentation received from the Delegation in Papua New Guinea, the Commission is now in a position to formulate a reply to point 2) of the above-mentioned written question.

The two contracts mentioned cannot be completely compared in terms of scope of service since the second one, which was then awarded to PAC/ETS included additional design review which was not foreseen in the original contract. This explains the higher amount of the second contract.

Supplementary services were then requested in order to carry out additional geo-technical studies in some of the buildings.

At a later stage the Contracting Authority requested a new re-design for the Unitech building after some deficiencies were identified in the original design work. This is the reason for the rider mentioned in the written question.

The Commission has, however, launched more detailed enquiries to check that the amounts provided for in the contract are fully justified.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/696

(2004/C 84 E/0783)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0928/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Equality of treatment in the written test for competition COM/A/3/02, sector 2

With regard to written test (d) for the competition COM/A/3/02 (Sustainable developoment: Environmental, energy and transport sciences and technologies) can the Commission say:

— how many candidates chose each of the five topics and what proportion of each group were admitted to the oral test;

— whether, and by means of what procedures, equality of treatment was ensured, i.e. whether the candidates choosing each different topic had an equal chance of reaching the oral stage?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

The Competition referred to by the Honourable Member is still ongoing. The workings of the selection board are governed by the principle of confidentiality. The Commission is therefore not in a position to supply the data requested at present.

The Commission will, however, readily provide the Honourable Member with further information when the competition has been completed.

The general principle of equal treatment of candidates is ensured through application of criteria laid down in the published notice of competition COM/A/3/02 (1). There is no specific procedure to ensure an equal chance of reaching the oral stage between the candidates choosing each different topic. The Selection Board in field 2 (sustainable development) decided to offer five options in the written test, and candidates were freely able to choose one out of the five. Regardless of the option chosen, the candidates with the 195 highest scores were admitted to the oral test within the terms of the notice of competition.

(1) OJ C 177, 25.7.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/352

(2004/C 84 E/0409)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0283/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Public procurement policy in timer

Could the Commission clarify what timbers are being used in the supply of security and fire doors during refurbishment of the EU Joint Research Centre in Brussels, from which countries and by which timber companies these timbers have been supplied, and what evidence has been received to confirm that all timber used comes from legal and sustainable sources?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The refurbishment of the building occupied by the Joint Research Centre in Brussels which took place in 1995-1996 was carried out by its owner, a private company, according to a lease agreement signed with the Commission in 1994.

In 1997, the Commission revised the ‘immeuble type’ document (1) which dated from 1992, and introduced a requirement that invitations to tender should specify that aspects of sustainable forest management should be taken into account.

However, as the refurbishment of the JRC building took place before 1997, the requirements related to the timber used in the supply of security and fire doors during refurbishment of the Joint Research Centre, as defined in the lease agreement, did not include a specific requirement to provide evidence that the timber came from such sustainable sources (through, for example, forest certification labels).

The renovation contract for the building was awarded by the owner of the building. Consequently, no detailed information on the timber used for the refurbishment is available to the Commission.

As demonstrated by the revision of the ‘immeuble type’ document, the Commission attaches great to the requirement to ensure that timber is provided from environmentally sustainable sources, and now has in place arrangements to ensure that this requirement is respected.

(1) The ‘Immeuble Type’ document is the Commission's standard specification for buildings and sets out the standards for quality of space, use of materials and quality of technical installations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/554

(2004/C 88 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0955/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject: Statements by Commissioner Verheugen concerning Turkey's possible accession to the Union

According to the 24 February 2004 edition of the German newspaper ‘Die Welt’ Commissioner Günter Verheugen informed the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, two weeks before that date that in the autumn the Commission will formally recommend to the Council that accession negotiations be opened with Turkey.

Is this information correct?

If so, has the Commission made sufficient progress with its report on the issue of accession negotiations with Turkey to be able to draw conclusions of this kind?

If not, has the Commission, or the Commissioner, formally denied the report in ‘Die Welt’? Why not (if applicable)?

Does the Commission regard it as desirable that its Members or government leaders from the current Member States should make public statements concerning the conclusions of a significant report which has not yet been drawn up, let alone published?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

There is frequent speculation in the press as to whether the Commission will recommend the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey later in 2004. The information mentioned in the article which the Honourable Member refers to is inaccurate.

The task of the Commission, as set by the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002, is very clear and has been stated on many occasions. In autumn 2004, it will prepare a Regular Report and a recommendation as to whether Turkey meets the Copenhagen political criteria. This report will be based on a fair and objective analysis.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/385

(2004/C 84 E/0447)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0386/04

by Jean Saint-Josse (EDD) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Wind turbines

The construction of a large number of wind turbines is planned in France.

Has the European Commission studied the total financial cost for public authorities (Europe, national and others) of developing this type of energy in comparison with the cost of other forms of energy production?

Moreover, given the serious consequences of the building of wind turbines, in particular for migratory birds and the safety of goods and people, does the Commission still consider it appropriate to encourage this type of energy production?

Has the Commission assessed the benefits and drawbacks of wind turbines, with reference to the latest research?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The total financial cost for public authorities has not been studied as such by the Community but the Commission supports, under its programmes, studies which aim at updating data regarding the following aspects of wind energy: technology, costs, prices and values, industry and employment, environment and market development.

Given the important contribution that renewable energy sources, such as wind energy, are making to tackling climate change, including EU targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the Kyoto protocol, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to encourage this type of energy production.

Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that the achievement of this target is not to the detriment of other environmental objectives, including nature protection. The compatibility of these policy objectives is envisaged by the process of environmental assessment outlined in the Commission's answer to Written Question P-0339/04 by Mr Bernié (1).

(1) See page 365.
2.

The CAPPS II programme will involve the computerised pre-screening of passengers in advance of flights with the aim of concentrating examinations at the point of embarkation on those passengers who may present a rear risk. The US Department of Homeland Security considers this to be an important part of their efforts to ensure the safety of civil aviation and avoid any repetitions of the events of 9/11. The Commission would like to observe that it is premature to say that this programme is ‘at odds with European principles and rules on privacy protection’, first because CAPPS II is still under development in the US, and second because the Commission would start examining these questions only once the system has received all U.S. domestic clearances. Descriptions of CAPPS II published by the United States authorities, notably on 15 January 2003 and 31 July 2003, did indeed raise a number of specific concerns and any future possible use of data originating in the EU by this system would clearly have to be conditioned on adequate safeguards. Furthermore, the Commission is aware that the US General Accounting Office (GAO) has concluded in its February 2004 investigation requested by the US Congress that there were still a number of data protection concerns regarding CAPPS II.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/948

(2004/C 84 E/1047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1109/04

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Restriction on allowances in connection with foreign income

Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law (EStG), in the version published in the Austrian Federal Gazette (BGBl 818/1993), lays down that where, with regard to an assessment for the calculation of tax, an average tax rate is applicable, that average rate is to be calculated after account has been taken of the allowances granted pursuant to paragraphs 3 to 7 (except for child allowances granted pursuant to paragraph 4, third line, subparagraph (a)). Those allowances may not be deducted a second time when the average tax rate is applied. That provision guarantees that a taxpayer with an income in his country of origin will receive the full allowances, while a taxpayer with foreign income is entitled solely to allowances granted on a pro rate basis.

According to case-law of the Austrian Administrative Court with regard to the legal situation before the publication of BGBl 818/1993, the allowances were not to be taken into account before the calculation of the average tax rate but only in connection with the tax payable after application of the average tax rate to the income subject to national tax. According to the judgment handed down by the European Court of Justice on 12 December 2002 in Case C-385/00 (F.W.L. de Groot), the allowances granted in Austria, the State of residence, must be admitted as deductible if no guarantee can be given that the amounts will be deductible in the source State.

What measures is the Commission thinking of taking if the method of calculating the average tax rate, including the application of a progressivity clause and the maximum assessment amount laid down in Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law, proves to infringe Article 39 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

A first examination of Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law (EStG), in the version published in the Austrian Federal Gazette (BGBl 818/1993) led to doubts as regards its compatibility with EU law.

The Commission will therefore contact the Austrian Government for further information and, if necessary, take further steps to ensure the compliance of the Austrian tax rule with EU law.