ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/581

(2004/C 84 E/0657)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0398/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject: Child slavery networks

Does the Commission believe that the appalling phenomenon of the enslavement of children in subSaharan African countries could be affecting the EU? Is the Commission taking any measures with regard to those African countries where, according to some NGOs, 200 000 children are engaged in slave labour?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14. April 2004)

The Commission fully supports the strong stance which the EU has taken against slavery. That stance is illustrated by the EU's statement on the rights of the child delivered to the 59th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in 2003, in which the EU expressed alarm at the increase in the worst forms of child labour, including all forms of slavery (as documented, ‘inter alia’, in the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Global Report for 2002, which estimated the number of children in the worst forms of labour at 179 million and those in slavery at 8,4 million). Moreover, the resolution tabled by the EU on the rights of the child at the 59th UNCHR also included a call to States to take action to combat child labour and to eliminate its worst forms immediately.

The EU's commitment to combating slavery is further reflected in Article 5 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights, which prohibits slavery and forced labour, and in the support articulated by the EU for international instruments to combat slavery-related activities, including the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and ILO Conventions 29, 105, 138 and 182.

In the specific context of Africa, an action plan against trafficking in human beings has been elaborated for agreement in the context of the EU-Africa Dialogue. Moreover, support has been extended through the EU budget to address the issue of child slavery. A recent example is the allocation of EUR 1 252 375 to Alisei under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) to combat child trafficking, modern forms of slavery and the exploitation of minors in Gabon, Benin, Togo and Nigeria. In addition, the EIDHR programming update for 2004 (adopted by Commission Decision of 1 December 2003) identifies support for the establishment of networks in Western Africa to fight against the trafficking of human beings, in particular women and children. Further pertinent measures taken by the Commission include a wide range of projects funded under the EU budget to address the plight of children affected by armed conflict, as set out in the recent overview prepared by the Commission, as an initial follow-up to the adoption of the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict in December 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/899

(2004/C 84 E/0993)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0879/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Romano Prodi — new centre party

The press reports that the Commission President has expressed his interest in creating a ‘pro-European’ centre party within the European Parliament, and on 3 March, met the chairman of the Union for Democracy (UDF) and MEP François Bayrou, and the chairman of the EP Liberal Group, Graham Watson, discussed this issue on 3 March. The idea was apparently initially put forward by the Secretary-General of the Democratic Union of Catalonia (UDC), Josep Antoni Duran Lleida, at a meeting with the Commission President, where he said that his party was leaving the European People's Party and creating a new ‘Europeanist-oriented’ party. Romano Prodi apparently said that he was ‘favourable’ to building a new party, whose policies would be essentially European federalist, and whose embryo could be linking the French UDF, the Italian Margarita Party led by Francesco Rutelli MEP, and the UDC.

Graham Watson, after his meeting with the Commission President, said that ‘many people’ were interested in setting up a ‘powerful centre group’ leading to ‘pro-European policies in Brussels’.

The Commission:

— can it confirm these facts;

— how does it view its President's attitude, especially in the light of previous initiatives linked to Italian politics;

— specifically, how does it view his attitude in light of the principles of the separation of powers, and the independence and general interest of the Commission;

— does it believe that this initiative is compatible with his duties, in the light of the contents of Articles 211 and following of the EC Treaty;

— how does it guarantee the independence of its political orientation and intervention, which legally, are the responsibility of its President?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

As the Commission has pointed out on several occasions in reply to written or oral questions from Members of Parliament, its members are politicians carrying out political duties who retain the freedom to express their personal opinions on a fully independent basis and on their own responsibility, and to be members of a political party, on condition that they comply with the obligations associated with their post.

Against that background, Mr Romano Prodi has called publicly for all those who share a common vision of Europe and who are prepared to work for a common programme to unite under a single list. By so doing, and at a time in which the central importance of relations between the Commission and Parliament has been enhanced, Mr Prodi is following in the steps of all former Commission Presidents, all of whom took political steps to promote an increasingly united and stronger Europe which serves European citizens.

That being understood, President Prodi has confirmed that, as in the past, he will continue to devote all his energies to his duties as President of the Commission until his term of office expires.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/868

(2004/C 84 E/0961)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Enhancing the image of the euro and the European Union in non-member countries

From reading a number of non-European newspapers, it becomes clear that there is a lack of understanding about the euro and its real economic, political and financial implications.

As part of the Euro campaign, is the Commission not envisaging measures targeted at professional circles and universities to improve the perception of the euro at international level and thus encourage its use?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission is aware that the image of the euro and the European Union in general in third countries requires a long-haul information and communication campaign. As part of its information and communication strategy ‘Framework for a Commission strategy for the euro and economic and monetary union in 2004 and beyond,’ the Commission is planning from 2004 onwards, to improve perception of the euro and its economic, political and financial implications in those countries.

In 2003 the Commission took part in the organisation of an international seminar in Santiago de Chile (‘The European experience of the euro: Building an economic and monetary union, a joint assessment by European and Latin American macroeconomists’, 20/21 October 2003) as well as consciousness-raising conferences in Athens (‘Europe, the Mediterranean and the euro’, 3/4 February 2003) and in Warsaw (‘From accession to adopting the euro’, 21 November 2003).

Via its information and communication strategy from 2004 onwards, the Commission is planning in particular to organise in third countries seminars and conferences as part of the euro campaign. Professionals and academics will be among those targeted by the strategy, which will help enhance the image of the euro and the European Union in third countries.

External information activities scheduled for 2004 include: monitoring of the media in important financial centres (United States, Japan and South-East Asia); information seminars for press and information officers in the delegations; and organisation of activities in cooperation with the Union delegations. In this connection, a cycle of five conferences is to take place in the United States at the Institute for International Economics (Washington), Harvard University, the University of California (Berkeley), the University for Chicago and the University of Texas (Austin). In South Africa two conferences will be held in Johannesburg and Cape Town. External information activities are also planned for Brazil.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/676

(2004/C 88 E/0694)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0007/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject: Accession of Cyprus, official languages

Cyprus has two official languages, Greek and Turkish. The Constitution also says that one of the two Vice-Presidents must be a Turkish Cypriot. Because of the Turkish occupation of the northern part of the island, however, these constitutional provisions are not in force. In the current circumstances, recognition of Turkish as an official language in the European Union could be interpreted as implicit recognition of the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus.

Might the accession of Cyprus on 1 May 2004 – if there is no change in the institutional and political situation – nonetheless mean that the Turkish will become an official language of the European Union? If so, on the basis of what arguments does the Commission arrive at this view?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

According to the Treaty of Accession 2003 Turkish is not an official language of the European Union, since no such request had been made.

Following a political settlement of the Cyprus problem and a re-unification of the island, the United Cyprus Republic is entitled to request that Turkish is recognised as an official Community language. The Council would then have to amend Regulations no. 1/1958/EEC and 1/1958/Euratom determining the languages to be used by the two Communities (1). The legal base for this adaptation and the modalities related to it would be Article 4 of Protocol No 10 of the Act of Accession, which stipulates that the Council shall decide, in the event of a settlement, on the adaptations to the terms concerning the accession of Cyprus with regard to the Turkish Cypriot Community.

It should be noted that the Commission decided in 1999 to dedicate EUR 3 million for the translation of the ‘acquis’ into Turkish in order to prepare and facilitate the process of bringing the northern part of Cyprus closer to the European Union.

(1) OJ B 17, 6.10.1958.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/199

(2004/C 88 E/0205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: NGO funding

Can the Commission please tell me:

— the total budget the EU allocates to fund NGOs, civil society groups and political or information movements on a one-off or revenue funding;

— which specific NGOs receive grants, funding or expenses from the EU, how much and how often?

— on what criteria NGOs are considered eligible for grants, funding and/or expenses from the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Financial Regulation (FR) and its Implementing Rules do not provide for special rules for nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), therefore they are not treated distinctly from other natural or legal persons. Thus, they have to comply with the general exclusion and selection criteria applicable to all beneficiaries. However, Part Two, Title IV of the FR contains special rules for external actions. Furthermore, specific eligibility criteria may be established in the action programmes and calls for proposals linked to the various actions.

NGOs are collaborating with the Commission in the implementation of a great number of actions both within and outside the EU. As they are normally not treated distinctly from other organisations, bodies or firms, the Commissions records do not determine the level of NGO funding. In many cases, NGOs are implementing partners and not the end beneficiaries of community actions. Hence the Commission cannot provide answers to the first two questions of the Honourable Member.

However, a lot of information on cooperation with NGOs can be found on the Europa internet site. Examples include actions within the EU on education and culture (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/educationculture/civilsociety/fr.htm) or in the area of international development (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/ongcd/indexfr.htm).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3043/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Carob growing

Can the Commissioner tell me the current estimates for the area under carobs and the number of trees in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece, what the pattern has been in the last ten years and what specific measures have been applied to the cultivation of carobs?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1998)

Around 100 000 hectares of carob trees are cultivated in the Community. However, the Commission does not have more precise details of the current situation and trends relating to areas under carobs. It will collect this information from the Member States and communicate it directly to the Honourable Member.

With respect to specific measures applied in the carob sector, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the reply given by the Commission to Written Question P-2096/98 by Mr Musumeci(1).

(1) See page 3.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3903/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Participation of Commissioner Mario Monti in Bilderberg

Concerning the Bilderberg meeting attended by Commissioner Monti in Toronto from 30 May to 2 June 1996, could the Commission state:

1. What the items were which made up the total travel and whether the costs were reimbursed at the time, or if not who paid them?

2. Since Bilderberg normally pays the lavish accommodation, should this be declared by the Commissioner?

3. Did the Commissioner receive the specified subsistence allowance for the days of the trip?

4. Did the Commissioner take leave of absence for this trip

Does the Commission feel that Commissioner Monti should have declared his membership of the Bilderberg Steering Committee, and if not, why not?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3899/98, E-3900/98, E-3901/98, E-3902/98 and E-3903/98 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

Travel and accommodation costs were covered in accordance with the provisions currently in force.

With respect to Mr Monti's participation at the Bilderberg Steering Committee meeting, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer to her oral question H-933/98 at question time at the second November part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament (November II 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3399/98

by Luciano Schifone (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Disastrous opening of Malpensa 2000

The disastrous opening of the Malpensa 2000 airport, with massive delays, disorganisation and general chaos, has caused serious inconvenience to passengers, who have frequently had to wait several hours for departures, where they have not had to abandon their travel plans altogether owing to the many flight cancellations.

This situation has confirmed the anxieties and criticisms that had been voiced in a number of quarters, including European circles, regarding the presumed inefficiency and inadequacy of the structural and managerial organisation of the new airport.

Since the inconveniences and repercussions of this confusion are likely to have a negative economic effect on the regions in the South of Italy, which are once again cut off from their connections to the North and, to a large extent, to the capitals of Europe, does the Commission not consider that there is a case for intervention to protect passengers and to combat the process of marginalisation of the South which has been carried forward by a policy of interference on the market pursued by the Government and Italy's flag carrier?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

Community law expressly recognises the right of the Member States to determine the objectives and priorities of their own airport policy. They may consequently decide to favour the development of a particular airport by adopting traffic distribution rules which have the purpose of concentrating traffic at that airport. Similarly, Member States are also legally free to pursue regional policy objectives through the imposition of public service obligations on specific routes which are considered to be vital for the economic development of a region.

On this basis, the Commission can only intervene in circumstances where measures adopted by Member States are in breach of Community law. This was the case with the traffic distribution rules initially adopted by Italy for the airport system of Milan because they did not respect the principle of non-discrimination or the principle of proportionality. The decision adopted by the Commission on 16 September 1998 reached that conclusion because the level of traffic to be handled by Malpensa aiport would have been incompatible with existing access infrastructures and because all carriers were not treated in the same way.

However, the Commission does not have the legal right to assume responsibility for the quality of airport management in the Member States, nor can it impose the operation of specific air routes to certain regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2020/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Accession negotiations with Cyprus - Environment charter

Is the Commission satisfied that Cypriot legislation requiring the safe collection and disposal of CFCs not only exists but is being put into practice?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Community environmental legislation on this issue is enforced through Regulation (EC) no 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer(1). There are provisions in this Regulation, notably Article 16, that require the Member States to promote the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) whose production, consumption and placing on the market, apart from clearly defined exceptions, are prohibited. This regulation will be in force in Cyprus from the date of accession.

Cyprus is in the process of establishing a strategy for the control of ozone depleting substances. The Commission understands that on the basis of this strategy Cyprus will take the necessary steps to ensure that the provisions of Regulation (EC) no 2037/00 are incorporated into its legislation. The Commission will monitor developments in Cyprus with respect to this issue.

(1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Interreg project and free competition

TV2, a Danish television channel which is privately owned and financed by advertising and Swedish Television's Sydnytt channel are collaborating on a project using a satellite link for the rapid transmission of television spots between Copenhagen and Malmö. The project has received SEK 12,5 million worth of EU aid (under the Interreg programme) towards a total cost of SEK 25 million.

This has aggravated TV4 Öresund, a rival company, which takes the view that it distorts competition because it improves Sydnytt's quality in terms of local material, something which is becoming increasingly important as digital technology develops.

Does the Commission consider this project to be entirely compatible with the efforts being made to create a Union where the distortion of free competition is not permitted?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Community Initiative Interreg, like all Structural Funds programmes, operates in a decentralised manner. Projects are selected for financing by a committee of representatives from the local partnership. All projects selected must conform with the provisions of the Treaty, including the rules on competition and state aids. Ensuring such conformity is the responsibility of the competent authorities in the Member States concerned.

Based on the information available, the Commission has no reason to believe a priori that the project is not in compliance with competition policy. The existence of public support to a private enterprise is not of itself an indication of an infringement provided that such aid lies within the limits laid down by Community competition rules. The Commission will examine carefully any additional information that the Honourable Member or the company concerned may wish to provide.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3265/02

by Renzo Imbeni (PSE)and Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Council

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Seat of the European Food Safety Authority

Now that the top-level managers responsible for European food safety policy have been appointed in both the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority, is the Council ready to take a decision within the next few months on the definitive seat of the European Food Safety Authority so that it can start carrying out its tasks under optimum conditions?

How does the Council intend to persuade the Heads of State or Government to comply with the functional criteria set by the Commission and the European Parliament when taking their decision?

Reply

(3 March 2003)

The European Council agreed at the Laeken Summit that the question of the definitive seat of the European Food Safety Authority would be resolved in the context of an overall agreement on the seats of the various newly-created European agencies.

Not wishing, however, to call into question the timetable requiring the Authority to commence operations as from 2002, which it had adopted at the Nice summit and confirmed at the Göteborg summit, the European Council also agreed that, pending overall agreement, the Authority could begin operations in Brussels.

This solution facilitated, in particular, the rapid establishment of the Management Board, an essential body of the Authority which has been up and running for several months.