ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/391

(2004/C 78 E/0414)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1869/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Pension losses

Is the Commission able to estimate the number of contributors to funded pension schemes who have been adversely affected by employer decisions either to terminate such schemes entirely, or to fail to make up the necessary level of contributions to assure defined benefits? Does the Commission believe that additional measures to safeguard pension provision are necessary, and does the extension of the single market mean that these should be at European level?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

As this is a matter that falls within the responsibilities of the Member States and the two sides of industry, the Commission does not have estimates of the number of contributors to funded pension schemes who have been adversely affected by employer decisions either to terminate such schemes entirely, or to fail to make up the necessary level of contributions to assure defined benefits. Such data is also likely to be difficult to obtain at the national level.

The Union has no powers that would allow it to restrict the freedom of employers and workers to change occupational pension arrangements. Community legislation only requires Member States: ‘to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees and of persons having already left the employer's undertaking or business at the date of the onset of the employer's insolvency in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits, including survivors’ benefits, under supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the national statutory social security schemes.' (Article 8 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1)). This does not prevent employers and workers to renegotiate pension entitlements and their accrual.

As to the recently adopted Council Directive 2003/41/EC of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (2), it requires institutions to have sufficient and appropriate assets to cover their technical provisions. The minimum amount of technical provisions must be sufficient both for pensions and benefits already in payments and to reflect the commitments which arise out of members' accrued pension rights. The Directive, nevertheless, authorises Member States to allow institutions to operate with some underfunding provided they adopt a concrete and reasonable recovery plan to return to a level of full funding.

Member States will have 24 months after the publication in the Official Journal to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.

(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980.

(2) OJ L 235, 23.9.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/224

(2004/C 84 E/0269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3206/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Search made of the offices of the newspaper ‘Il Giornale’: violation of press freedom in Italy

On Friday, 17 October 2003 the main office of ‘Il Giornale’, the major Italian daily which is currently investigating the takeover of Telekom Serbia by Telecom Italia, was searched by decision of the Perugia Public Prosecutor's Office. The search by the police forces lasted 13 hours, at the end of which a considerable amount of material belonging to journalist Gian Marco Chiocci was confiscated. It is believed that the only charge against the journalist is that of defamation of a Rome magistrate via the press.

Does the Council consider that these decisions represent a blatant violation of freedom of the press and freedom of expression?

Does the Council consider that these decisions violate the EU Council of Ministers recommendations of 8 March 2000 to the Member States, under which no interceptions, inspections or searches may be carried out where such measures tend to infringe a journalist's right not to reveal his sources?

Does the Council not consider the decisions of the Perugia Public Prosecutor's Office to be contrary to the European Court of Human Rights' famous Goodwin ruling, which acknowledged the right of journalists to professional secrecy?

Does the Council not also consider that the decisions of the Perugia Public Prosecutor's Office are contrary to the European Court of Human Rights ruling No 33400/96 of 15 July 2003, which clearly stated that searches of newspaper offices to ascertain the sources of articles are a serious violation of the freedom of expression?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council does not comment on cases under jurisdictional procedure nor does it interpret rulings of the European Court of Human Rights with respect to individual cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/57

(2004/C 84 E/0063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3214/03

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: North Korean refugees

The enforced repatriation of North Korean refugees in China has been brought to my attention. Some of the individuals who are being repatriated face the real risk of detention and torture in North Korea.

This is concerning in view of Article 33 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention which says that a state shall not return a refugee to a situation of serious risk.

What is the Commission's policy with regard to relations with North Korea and what can the Commission do to ensure that North Korean refugees in China are not forced to return to North Korea when it might be unsafe for them to do so?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/669

(2004/C 78 E/0712)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3894/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Objective One status — Highlands and Islands of Scotland

With reference to Oral Question and Answer H-0809/02 (1), has the Commission been informed by the UK Office of National Statistics, or by the UK Government, that the data compiled in preparation for the 1999 funding bid for Objective One status for the Scottish Highlands and Islands may have been inaccurate?

What is the view of the Commission should the data prove to have been inaccurate?

What is the view of the Commission on the interpretation of Regulation 1260/1999 (2) should data used in the consideration of eligibility for Objective One funding prove to have been inaccurate, as opposed to unavailable, at the requisite time?

Is the Commission aware of any Community law provision which would prevent a Member State Government from compensating a region of that state for the loss of Objective One funding, should the Member State Government have submitted a defective funding bid?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission confirms that it has received no communication from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) or the United Kingdom Government on the accuracy of data relating to the Highlands and Islands.

On the question of the possible revision of the list of areas eligible under Objective 1, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the response it gave to his oral question H-0809/02 (3) during Parliament's plenary session of December II 2002.

(1) Written answer of 17.12.2002.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(3) Written answer of 17.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/788

(2004/C 78 E/0838)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3195/03

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Recognition of the profession of (clinical) optometrist

Does the fact that that the profession of (clinical) optometrist, which is already well established in EU territory, particularly in the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands, does not exist in Austria and that EU citizens who have gained licences to practise their profession of (clinical) optometry in other EU Member States are barred from doing so in Austria represent a violation of European law, particularly with regard to freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services?

Under European law, should Member States where the profession of (clinical) optometrist is not regulated by law not recognise this profession, enabling EU citizens to practise their profession under the same conditions in any EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Under the settled case law of the Court of Justice, in the absence of harmonisation of a particular professional activity Member States are in principle entitled to regulate the exercise of that activity, provided they respect the basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty (Judgment of 11 July 2002, Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v. Kurt Gräbner).

According to the information available to the Commission, there is no exact Austrian equivalent of the profession of clinical optometrist as it exists in other Member States. In Austria this activity appears to be reserved for doctors.

In its Bouchoucha and Mac Quen judgments (Judgments of 3 October 1990, Case C-61/89, and 1 February 2001, Case C-l08/96), the Court of Justice stated that a Member State was not in breach of Article 43 of the EC Treaty if it introduced such a restriction on grounds of the general interest in the protection of public health.

In this connection, it should also be pointed out that according to Article 46(1) of the EC Treaty the protection of public health is one of the grounds which can justify restrictions on the freedom of establishment. Under Article 55 of the Treaty, the provisions of Article 46(1) also apply to the freedom to provide services.

The Commission is not in possession of any further information which would establish an infringement of Community law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/84

(2004/C 84 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Massa

In its answer to question E-1109/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/487

(2004/C 78 E/0508)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3200/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Racial appearance as a criterion for police or customs checks on individuals crossing an internal EU border

As a result of work in the tunnel between Monaco railway station and the temporary Monte Carlo Country Club station on French territory, through traffic on the route from Genoa (in Italy) and Nice (in France) is barred between September and December 2003 and train passengers are transported by bus. On the evening of Thursday 16 October 2003, between 07.15 and 07.45 p.m., I personally observed how passengers who had taken the IC 346 ‘Riviera dei Fiori’ Basle-Genoa-Nice train were detained for half an hour in the replacement bus on the station square in the Italian border town of Ventimiglia for checks which might normally have taken place on a through train crossing into France. The Italian police's selection process was manifestly racially based, with individuals of African or Asiatic appearance being required to show their travel documents and take their luggage from the baggage compartment, whereas individuals predominantly Caucasian in appearance were left completely alone.

1. Can the Commission say whether this is a customary course of events in line with the intended procedure for random checks at or near the internal EU borders of EU Member States which are parties to the Schengen Agreement?

2. Does this mean that non-residents who are not nationals of an EU Member State, but whose skin colour is white, can cross internal EU borders much more easily than residents who are nationals of a Member State, but whose ancestors manifestly came from another part of the world?

3. With regard to this appearance-based selection practice which has apparently arisen, what is it that the Commission would seek to change? What encouragement is being given to ensure that that change actually takes place in the EU? Is it possible for the Commission to bring this about on the basis of the existing Treaty, or does it require further action by the Council?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2003)

The Commission has asked the Italian authorities for the information it requires to answer the Honourable Member's question.

It will send him its findings as soon as possible.
1. and 2.

The role of the social partners in implementing the programmes supported by the Structural Funds is clearly recognised in the relevant legislation. In accordance with Article 8 of the general regulation on the Structural Funds (1), the social partners feature among authorities and bodies designated by the Member States for the ‘preparation, financing monitoring and evaluation of assistance’. Article 8 also provides for the annual consultation of ‘the European-level organisations representing the social partners about the structural policy of the Community’. Social partner organisations may also act as project promoters, either alone or with other partners. In addition, the Member State may sub-delegate responsibility to such organisations for the implementation of (parts of) programmes, subject to national and Community rules, where this helps to realise the objectives of the programmes concerned. For actions in the field of human resource development supported by the European Social Fund (ESF) the social partners can and should play a key role, in particular, in developing lifelong learning policies and strategies to increase adaptability of companies and their workers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/356

(2004/C 88 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1580/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Data analyses of illegal drugs in the EU

Further to the answer given to my written question E-0315/03 (1), is the Commission now satisfied that it has common definitions concerning data collection and analyses on illegal drug use?

If not, what actions are being undertaken to bring this about and when will they be complete?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

The nature of data collection calls for continous efforts at the Community level as well as at Member State level in order to improve comparability and reliability. Work has been done in this regard under the public health programmes and by the Emcdda (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction), in cooperation with the European Statistical System (ESS). These efforts will continue.

In addition the Council Recommendation on the prevention and reduction of risks associated with drug dependence, which is ready for adoption by the Council includes a range of measures which are relevant:

— developing and implementing adequate evaluation protocols for all drug prevention and risk reduction programmes;

— establishing and implementing evaluation quality criteria, taking into account the Recommendations of the Emcdda;

— organising standardised data-collection and information dissemination according to the Emcdda recommendations through the Reitox National Focal Points (2).

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 18.

(2) The European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (Reitox) consists of one national focal point (NFP) set up in each of the 15 EU Member States and in Norway, and one at the European Commission. The role of a Focal point involves co-ordinating its national information centres to meet the EMCDDA's requirements for a set of core data, annual National Reports on the drug situation in each Member State and a national information network (http://www.emcdda.org/partners/nfp.shtml).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/720

(2004/C 84 E/0809)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1163/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use European funds for the processing and marketing of agricultural products and for rural development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the EAGGF?

2. whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the use of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund by the municipality of Terni.

In Umbria, the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) provides part-financing for the Leader+ programme, which was covered in the reply to Written Question No 1046/03 asked by Ms Angelilli (1).

The Guarantee Section of the EAGGF provides part-financing for the Rural Development Plan for the region of Umbria for 2000/06, which the Commission approved by Decision C(2000) 2158 of 20 July 2000.

Here it should be noted that implementation of the aid part-financed at Community level under this programme is a matter for the Italian national and regional authorities. The Commission is responsible for monitoring and inspecting the programme, but it is not responsible for on-the-spot management of the various measures. In the context of this monitoring, the annual reports made under Regulations (EC) Nos 1257/1999 (2) and 445/2002 (3) do not show whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects under the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

As a result, the Assessorato all'Agricoltura' of the Umbria region, which is the authority responsible for managing the programme, could provide specific details of the various beneficiaries and the deadlines for the calls issued by the region, including those specifically for the municipality of Terni.

(1) See page 719.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 74, 15.3.2002.
4.

Have there been cases of Roma organisations which have enquired about the possibilities for EU co-financing being asked first of all to repair cars for or supply cheap cars to private individuals, creating the impression that they must first bribe the officials responsible, and even then not receiving the funding in question?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/501

(2004/C 84 E/0579)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3170/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Problems regarding the Attica suburban railway project

Great concern is being expressed in Greece regarding progress made by the suburban railway project with numerous reports recently appearing in the Greek press describing the situation as extremely serious. It is regarded as unlikely that the project will be completed in time for the Olympic Games. In particular, the Doukissi Plakentia — Olympic Stadium section is a very long way behind schedule because of work being carried out simultaneously on the Attica Highway and the metro. Serious problems are arising regarding the Neratziotissa station where the suburban line will meet the HSAP electric line, designs having failed to take account of the Attica Highway running below the station, which is now creating major construction problems.

In view of the fact that funding under the third CFS has been earmarked for the suburban rail project, is the Commission aware of the problems arising and the fact that the project is behind schedule? What is its general assessment regarding progress made?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/334

(2004/C 78 E/0352)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3901/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: President Prodi's involvement in Italian politics

On 12 November 2003 the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, published a long letter under the title ‘Europe: the dream; the options’, which he sent to the parties in the Italian centre-left coalition. The letter contains a fully-fledged political manifesto, touching upon issues such as justice, peace, the environment, economic growth, education, the welfare state and immigration and putting forward proposals to be taken up by reformist parties with a view to offering solutions at European level.

The ‘letter’ is thus, in all senses of the term, a manifesto for the forthcoming European elections, as can be seen from statements such as ‘we can put forward a strong political programme’ (paragraph 4 of the document) or ‘looking to Italy and the forthcoming spring elections to the European Parliament, I have suggest to all reformists that they join together on a single list’ (paragraph 4), or again ‘however, the underlying ideas remain those which first gave birth to the Ulivo’ (paragraph 5). The arguments used in connection with all the issues covered are based on Mr Prodi's experience as President of the Commission, his intention being, it would appear, to make use of the authority conferred on him by his position to support the electoral campaign of the coalition to which he belongs in Italy. The letter gave rise to serious concern among Members of the European Parliament, including those belonging to the PSE Group, of which the Italian parties Mr Prodi was addressing are members.

Given the above, would the Commission:

1. not agree that its President should remain neutral, should abstain from taking an active part in national political activities, should not express any preference and should stay as far away as possible from internal issues?

2. take the view that it forms part of the President's remit to take part in the political debate in a Member State on major EU issues, or that in this instance Romano Prodi has misused the position he holds within the EU institutions?

3. state whether Mr Prodi's behaviour is in keeping with Article 213 of the Treaty, which reads: The Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties. In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body'?

4. consider, given that the President of the Commission is elected by the European Parliament as a whole, irrespective of its Members' political affiliations, that he is entitled to take part in an electoral campaign as the leading candidate of a political movement, or, conversely, that he should resign before doing so?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3492/03 by Mr Ribeiro e Castro (1)

(1) See page 292.