ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/142

(2004/C 70 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2824/03

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject: A28 motorway and the Habitats directive

It is quite obvious from the information available that construction of the A28 motorway has resumed — in particular, the excavation work being carried out over a 40-kilometre stretch running from north of Tours to the Loire valley in the Sarthe.

This clearly demonstrates the French authorities' intention to continue working in the area located between Montabon and Ecommoy without waiting for the Commission to analyse the replies which it has received from France concerning the Commission's reasoned opinion of 21 December 2001 on the destruction of the habitats and the breeding grounds of a priority species listed in Annex IV of Directive 92/43 — namely, the Osmoderma eremita.

In view of the urgency of the matter, would the Commission state what action it intends to take before the motorway construction work reaches the point of no return?

Can the Commission provide assurances that it was not pressurised by the French Government into ‘freezing’ the disputes relating to the Birds and Habitats directives until the next European elections?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

The Commission sent the French authorities a reasoned opinion for non-compliance with Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3) in respect of reparcelling operations associated with the construction of the Le Mans-Tours section of the A28 motorway.

The French authorities sent several replies to the Commission's reasoned opinion. In particular, the dossier was discussed at a meeting between the Commission and the French authorities in February 2003 in Brussels, at which the French authorities undertook to provide the Commission with further information regarding compliance with Articles 12(1)(d) and 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC, a local and national management plan for Osmoderma eremita, further proposals for sites of Community importance, and guarantees regarding monitoring of the reparcelling work on the ground. The French authorities formally sent the Commission this information under cover of a letter of April 2003 from the Permanent Representation of France to the European Union. That letter included voluminous annexes. The Commission is currently examining the official response from the French authorities in order to decide, as soon as possible, what further action to take in this matter.

In handling this matter, as in handling any infringement it deals with as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission works in complete independence and observes Community law scrupulously.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
1.

Whether a failure of a public undertaking, such as the Greek Railways Organisation (OSE), to claim compensation for breach of contractual obligations might constitute a measure which amounts to State aid under Article 87 of the EC Treaty would depend on a number of factors such as the exact terms of the agreement; regarding inter alia the deadline for delivery of the rolling stock, the penalty clauses for late delivery or for non-delivery etc. The Commission does not, at this stage, have sufficient information on these elements to answer the Honourable Member's question. Furthermore, it should be underlined that measures taken by public undertakings which result in the granting of a financial advantage, must be imputable to the State to be considered as State aid. The fact that OSE is an undertaking under State control is not, by itself, sufficient for measures taken by that undertaking to be imputed to the State. While the information provided by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to conclude on the State aid relevance of his question, the Commission takes note of the concerns raised therein.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/178

(2004/C 70 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2958/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Price rises in the eurozone countries

On 16 September 2003, a consumer boycott was held in Italy in protest against the continual and uncontrolled rise in consumer prices. The Italian consumers' association Adiconsum estimates that the average household has lost EUR 1 000 in purchasing power in 2003. The average inflation rate in the eurozone is 2,1 %, with the highest rate (3,9 %) in Ireland. The rates for Italy, Greece and Portugal have risen to 2,9 %, 3,5 % and 3,7 % respectively.

Italy's inflation rate has returned to the level of last January, and the general trend clearly implies a constant rise in consumer prices.

1. What detailed information does the Commission intend to provide on the plans for action on the matter of the governments concerned, especially the Italian government?

2. What action will the Commission take, as a matter of urgency, to protect consumers' purchasing power?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission would like to point out that the responsibility for price stability in the euro area as a whole lies with the European Central Bank and that, as the single monetary policy is not in a position to address country-specific inflation developments, it is up to the Member States concerned to address national inflation developments that are deemed to be unwarranted.

The latest data available for the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) shows that consumer prices have risen by 2,1 % for the euro area as a whole between September 2002 and September 2003, 3,8 % for Ireland, 3,3 % for Greece (August to August), 3,2 % for Portugal, 3,0 % for Spain and 3,0 % for Italy. These are the five Member States with the highest annual rates.

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the section on the euro area in the 2003-2005 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG) adopted by the Council in June 2003. In that section, it is recognised that inflation differences in a monetary union are a matter of fact and that the inflation differences observed between euro area Member States largely reflect differences in economic structures and growth performance. The BEPG recommends policy actors at the national level to ‘analyse the causes of inflation differences to identify instances when they are undesirable, with a view to Member States addressing them through using the levers available to them’. As usual, the Commission will continue to closely monitor the macroeconomic situation in all the Member States and report on the implementation of the BEPG.
1.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern regarding the number of fatal accidents at work. The Commission's objective, as described in its communication Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006' (1), is a continual reduction in the number of accidents at work, including fatal accidents. The new strategy is based on consolidating a culture of risk prevention, on combining a variety of political instruments — legislation, social dialogue, innovative approaches and identifying best practice, corporate social responsibility, economic incentives — and on building partnerships between all players in the field of health and safety. The Commission has had harmonised figures relating to accidents at work in the Member States since 1994, and would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that Eurostat receives data from the Greek National Statistical Institute produced on the basis of the ESAW (2) harmonisation methodology. Since ESAW data on Greece covers only salaried workers, accidents among self-employed workers are not included in these statistics. Furthermore, in view of the need to harmonise sources from different countries, the ESAW data cover only accidents that happen at work and not those that occur during the return journey between home and work. The latest ESAW figures, from 2000, show that there has been an improvement in Greece, both in the number of accidents in absolute terms and in the standardised incidence rate of fatal accidents at work per 100 000 persons in employment. To be precise, 83 workers died in 1994 and the incidence rate was 4,3, whereas 57 workers died in 2000 and the incidence rate was 2,7. The situation for accidents at work that result in more than three days' absence has also improved in Greece since 1994, both in absolute terms (39 098 accidents in 2000 compared with 53 829 in 1994) and in terms of the standardised incidence rate (2 595 in 2000 compared with 3 702 in 2000). However, although the ESAW methodology produces harmonised statistical data, differences in the proportion of accidents declared in each country mean that it remains difficult to make comparisons between the Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/140

(2004/C 70 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2783/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Antonio Mussa (UEN) and Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Council

(17 September 2003)

Subject: Elections in Albania

The people of Albania are to elect new members of the National Assembly 10 October 2003. The OSCE, in an attempt to make the election process more transparent and devise an effective reform, has explicitly requested that the national electoral committee should reflect the political situation in the country and be composed of members of the current majority and opposition, in equal proportions (3 + 3).

Can the Council say:

1. whether it is aware that the electoral committee now consists of five members of the present socialist majority and only two members of the democratic opposition;

2. whether it does not consider that the present composition of the electoral committee is unjust and may arouse serious suspicions of partiality;

3. whether it does not consider it appropriate at this point to set up a body to monitor all the operations involved in the election to be held on 10 October?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

The Council is fully aware of the importance of the local elections in Albania which took place on 12 October 2003. In its Conclusions of 29 September 2003 the Council (External Relations) ‘emphasized that the orderly conduct of fair local elections in October is part of the process to bring Albania closer to the EU’.

The local elections in Albania on 12 October 2003, including the implementation of the new Electoral Code and the performance of the Electoral Committee, were monitored by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission to which many EU Member States have already contributed monitors. An international assessment on the conduct of the local elections in Albania will be provided shortly after the elections.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/191

(2004/C 70 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3007/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Role of the European Rural Carrefours in CAP information campaigns

The ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy’ (1) expresses satisfaction at the results achieved by the information campaigns conducted in 2000, 2001 and 2002, but also stresses that their impact on the public and their cost-effectiveness could be improved. The Commission states, on the basis of data obtained from ‘flash’ Eurobarometers, that the general public's lack of knowledge about the CAP, WTO, food safety and other issues linked to agricultural policy confirms more than ever the need to step up information measures and improve their impact.

For some years now the European network of Rural Carrefours has been playing a role in informing the public about the common agricultural policy, thanks to the existence of about 140 European rural information and promotion centres supplied with publications, newsletters and websites and staffed by people competent to deal with CAP issues. The European network of Rural Carrefours can make a worthwhile contribution to achieving the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 (2), as regards improving both the impact on the general public and cost-effectiveness. In order to achieve this result, the Commission's Agriculture DG should ensure structured involvement of the ‘Carrefours’, in the interests of running information campaigns more efficiently and making the information measures carried out by the Commission more coherent.

One of the measures undertaken by the Commission was, precisely, to train those working in the Rural Carrefours in a number of specific CAP-related subjects, under the auspices of the Agriculture DG, which demonstrated the need for functional links with these centres. The Rural Carrefour network has accompanied Commission staff on information stands at agricultural fairs.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether it intends to broaden its collaboration with the European network of Rural Carrefours in order to carry out activities relating to measures taken on the Commission's initiative;

2. what role the European network of Rural Carrefours will play in the measures taken on the Commission's initiative to implement the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 814/2000?

(1) COM(2003) 235 final.

(2) OJ L 100, 20.4.2000, p. 7.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/64

(2004/C 70 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1786/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Contact with Roma NGOs and governmental agencies

What contact has the European Commission had recently with Roma NGOs and governmental agencies in the accession countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

The Commission is — in Brussels as well as through its Delegations in the Candidate Countries — in contact with a number of Roma non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as e.g. the ‘International Romani Union’, the ‘Roma National Congress’, the ‘European Roma Rights Centre’, the ‘Pakiv European Roma Fund’ and the ‘European Roma Information Office’ in Brussels. In addition, the Commission has contacts with NGOs in the field of human rights, that also cover Roma issues, such as ‘Amnesty International’, the ‘Open Society Institute’ or ‘Project for Ethnic Relations’. In a number of cases, NGOs working on Roma projects are funded in the framework of PHARE, such as e.g. in the Czech Republic ‘Romodrom’ or Athinganoi', or in Romania ‘Romani Criss’, the ‘Resource Centre for Roma Communities in Romania’ and others.

In the context of preparing the Regular Reports on the candidate countries' progress towards accession, the Commission has also been regularly contacting NGOs dealing with Roma issues, as well as other intergovernmental organisations such as the Council of Europe or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

In the framework of the accession preparations, discussions with representatives of the governments from Candidate Countries and the Commission are regularly taking place on various levels. In addition, regular meetings in the context of the Europe Agreements provide for the possibility to raise Roma issues with representatives from the governments of the Candidate Countries. For example, meetings of the Association Committees with Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which are chaired by the Commission, will take place in June and July 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/163

(2004/C 70 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2915/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Prodi's partiality during the referendum campaign in Sweden

Why, in the course of the recent referendum campaign in Sweden, did Romano Prodi, the President of the Commission, come down clearly in favour of that country's accession to the euro, adopting a partial stance with scant regard for the sovereign will of the Swedish people, whose task it was to choose between two alternatives which were both compatible with Union law?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

At Parliament's part session on 16 January, the President of the Commission stated that ‘for millions of European citizens, the euro notes and coins in their pockets are a tangible sign of the great political project of building a united Europe. As a symbol of that unity, the euro is having an even greater psychological impact than the abolition of passport controls at Europe's internal borders. The euro is thus becoming a key element in people's sense of a shared European identity and a common destiny, just as it is tangible evidence that European integration is now irreversible. (…) We must take this as a valuable lesson and apply it in the preparations for all stages in the process of integration’.

There was no reason to change this well-known position of the entire Commission during the referendum campaign for the adoption of the euro in Sweden.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/191

(2004/C 70 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3005/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Classification of albumin

At present in the EU albumin from hens' eggs is classified in the ‘non-Annex I’ product group (CN 3502/1190/1990/2091/2099). This has given rise to the following anomalous situation: when an egg is separated, the yolk remains an agricultural product, but the albumin is classified as an industrial product. Although albumin was used for industrial purposes in the past, the situation has now changed completely and it is used in the food sector.

This inappropriate classification is placing egg producers who export albumin at a serious disadvantage, given that they are forfeiting substantial volumes of export refunds.

Can the Commission state how and when it intends to deal with this ‘anomaly’, which has a serious adverse impact on European egg producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions P-2696/03 (1) and P-2976/03 from Mr Kindermann (2).

(1) See page 129.

(2) See page 182.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/136

(2004/C 70 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2757/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Nuclear crisis in North Korea

With a view to resolving the nuclear crisis in North Korea, negotiations attended by representatives of North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the USA have recently been held in Beijing.

As is stated in the most recent Commission report on the Humanitarian Aid Office (1), the EU is the main donor of humanitarian aid to North Korea, to which country it allocates much of the humanitarian aid which it assigns to Asia.

In the conclusions issued at the recent Thessaloniki Summit the European Council Presidency emphasised its ‘readiness to contribute to a multilateral diplomatic solution to the crisis’.

Can the Council explain why the European Union was not represented at the Beijing negotiations?

What action does the Council intend to take in order to ensure that EU representatives are involved in future political and diplomatic negotiations on the delicate issue of nuclear disarmament in North Korea?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

The EU strongly supports the diplomatic efforts undertaken by the six parties to achieve a solution to the North Korean proliferation issue. The EU hopes that the process will soon lead to concrete steps to lower tension in the region, including progress towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, a matter of fundamental interest to the whole international community.

The EU remains willing to contribute to international efforts to move matters forward, and acts in close consultation with the main players. It is considering how it could give support to the multilateral talks in due course and in co-ordination with the capitals of the six countries involved.

(1) COM(2003) 430.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/180

(2004/C 70 E/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 2003

Subject: Eurojust

Can the Commission state:

— which Member States amended their national law before 6 September 2003, the deadline laid down in Article42 of Decision 2002/187/JHA (1)? What are the terms of these laws and the main differences between them?

— What national rules have defined the status and the powers of national members of Eurojust since the entry into force of the decision? What are the terms of these rules and the main differences between them?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

By letter of 23 June 2003 the Commission asked the Member States to provide information on their measures to implement the Council Decision setting up Eurojust of 28 February 2002. On the basis of the information provided, the Commission will draw up a report.

Up to now (13 October 2003), eight Member States have sent a written reply.

The following preliminary conclusions can be drawn from the information available:

— Three Member States replied that they have fully implemented the Council Decision and that there is no need for national legislation (although they plan to adopt additional measures, these are not expressly required by the Council Decision). One Member State has adopted a law in order to implement the Council Decision. One Member State has adopted a government regulation on the legal personality of Eurojust and the privileges and immunity of its national members, while a law implementing the Council Decision is still being discussed by the national Parliament. The remaining answers refer to drafts in the legislative pipeline.

— As concerns the status and powers of the national members, almost all members have the formal status of a national prosecutor (two rather have the status of a judge, one is a deputy chief of police). However, only a few of them can exert judicial and/or prosecutorial powers. Most of the national members work under the authority of the Ministry of Justice, some under the authority of a General Prosecutor. This situation may change with the adoption of further national implementation laws.

— For more detailed information the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the coming implementation report. The Commission aims to issue this report by end of 2003.

(1) OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1.