ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/162

(2004/C 70 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2906/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 2001/97/EC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering

Directive 2001/97/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC (2) on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering came into force on 4 December 2001. The deadline for transposition by Member States was 15 June 2003.

I understand that the directive has not yet been transposed in the United Kingdom.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. On what grounds the United Kingdom has not yet transposed the directive?

2. What other Member States have not yet transposed the directive?

3. What prospective Member States have not yet transposed the directive?

4. What it intends to do about this, especially in the case of the United Kingdom?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

With regard to the first question, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that on 16 July 2003 a letter of formal notice was sent to the United Kingdom on grounds that the United Kingdom had failed to transpose the provisions of Directive 2001/97/EC (‘the Directive’) by 15 June 2003, the deadline for compliance set out in Article 3 of the Directive. No response to the letter of formal notice has so far been received.

Regarding the second question, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that (besides the United Kingdom) Belgium, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal have not communicated implementing measures to the Commission and — as far as the Commission is aware — have not yet transposed the Directive into national law. Austria has communicated measures which constitute a partial implementation of the Directive.

Regarding the third question, it should be noted that the accession countries have until the date of accession to complete their implementation.

Regarding the fourth question, the Commission can ensure the Honourable Member that if the United Kingdom or any other Member States should persist in delaying implementation of the Directive; the Commission will pursue the infringement proceedings commenced. This being said, however, the Commission will take into consideration any information transmitted in the meantime by the Member States which have failed to transpose the Directive.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76.

(2) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/147

(2004/C 70 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2844/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject: Aid for low-cost airlines

Bearing in mind the various forms of aid received by low-cost airlines (reductions, rebates and other subsidies), can the Commission outline its position and say what stage has been reached in its investigation into management practices at Charleroi airport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The investigation launched by the Commission on 11 December 2002 is intended to determine whether or not the benefits granted by the Walloon Region and the airport managing company (BSCA) to Ryanair when it set up at Charleroi in April 2001 (reductions on landing charges, coverage of costs of Ryanair's staff, coverage of marketing expenses, financial incentives whenever a new route is opened, etc.) can be considered to be State aid and, if they are, whether or not these benefits are compatible with the common market.

The numerous comments received from interested parties (a dozen in total mainly from airlines and private airport operators), Ryanair and the Belgian authorities are being considered by the Commission.
2.

The Commission supplied no publicity material to the Swedish Government or to any other body in connection with the Swedish referendum on the euro. It is possible that insignificant amounts of information material designed to inform citizens about the introduction of euro notes and coins in the Euro Area in 2002, was still in circulation in 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/62

(2004/C 70 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1755/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject: Taxation on European pension contributions

A British national, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, has taken out a private pension through the Medical Council in Germany which presently offers a guaranteed minimum pension. He is, therefore, not contributing to a UK pension scheme.

He now finds that he is expected to pay tax to the British authorities on his German pension contributions.

Does this comply with EU law? What is the Commission's view of the possibility of creating a flexible pensions market within the EU if national authorities are allowed to act in this way?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The conditions for tax deductibility of non-obligatory pension contributions are set by each Member State under its respective tax and pensions policy. While such matters fall within the competence of the Member States, they must nevertheless exercise that competence consistently with Community law. Thus the conditions for tax deductibility may not place restrictions on the free movement of persons or the free provision of services, in particular by discriminating on grounds of nationality.

The Commission has serious doubts about the compatibility with the EC Treaty of the United Kingdom rules as far as they limit tax deductibility of contributions to domestic occupational pension schemes. The Commission will take appropriate action following up its Communication on the elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions (1). Infringement proceedings have already been initiated in relation to other Member States (2). Moreover, the Commission has made contact with the surgeon in question to assess the details of his case.

(1) OJ C 165, 8.6.2001.

(2) See press release IP/03/179.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/182

(2004/C 70 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2976/03

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Export refunds for ovalbumin — my question P-2696/03

My question P-2696/03 (1) raised two issues concerning export refunds for ovalbumin. In its answer, the Commission addressed the first of these but not the second more important aspect.

In addition to the assessment of the effects on the ovalbumin sector of the measures decided, provided in the answer, I should appreciate a reply to the following questions:

— Is the Commission prepared to change the tariff classification of ovalbumin by reclassifying it under agricultural products, thus placing it on the same footing as other egg products such as eggs in shell, egg yolk and whole egg (CN Code 0408)?

— If so, what timescale does it have in mind? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

The Commission considers that a change in the tariff classification of ovalbumin from CN Code 3502 to CN Code 0408 by the Community alone would not be possible, as the present classification is based on the Harmonized System Convention.

Moreover, the possibility to take up ovalbumin as a product covered by the common organisation of market in the eggs sector could possibly be envisaged, but the Community could not grant any refunds under its World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitment on eggs, because the position 35 02 ovalbumin is not in the Annex to the EC-WTO export subsidies commitments under this product group.

(1) See page 129.
3.

In accordance with its commitment to react proportionately to developments in Burma/Myanmar and in light of the serious deterioration of the situation in the country, the Council decided on 16 June 2003 to implement without delay the extended sanctions mentioned by the Honourable Member of Parliament. Originally it had been envisaged to put them into force by October 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/69

(2004/C 70 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1962/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject: Future accounting standards in the insurance sector

For several months, banking and insurance professionals have been exposing the dangers of across-the-board application of the future IAS accounting standards to their professions. While financing practices involve the pooling of risks, the use of standard IAS 39 may very well produce an untrue picture of the actual position of firms on the date of closure of accounts because it takes market value as the basis for valuing assets and liabilities.

My Written Question P-2507/02 (1) drew the Commission's attention to the risks posed by this method. In a detailed reply dated 15 October 2002, Commissioner Bolkestein stated that the Commission was expecting fresh proposals from the IAS Board in this connection and that at all events, in its view, ‘any apparent reduction in the degree of prudence in the financial statements should not lead to less prudence in the prudential regulation of relevant entities’.

IAS is reported to have rejected, after all, the proposals submitted to it on amending IAS 39. What action does the Commission intend to take to avoid what are ever more worrying risks?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39 is being revised. Bilateral technical meetings are taking place between the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the European banking industry on how this standard should be applied to operations relating to rate risk cover. This dialogue is on track. The Commission would like insurance professionals to become involved quickly. It should also be pointed out that the IASB will present its draft interim standard for insurance for public consultation in July 2003. The purpose of the standard is to facilitate the transition by insurance companies to IAS on 1 January 2005 by granting them a number of exemptions.

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 9.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/217

(2004/C 70 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3103/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

The recruitment of child soldiers in the course of the seven-year war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has had tragic consequences, resulting in the mistreatment and death of thousands of these children, some of them less than 12 years of age.

According to the Amnesty International report published on 9 October 2003 in Brussels concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo and child soldiers, the forcible recruitment of children, who are then put through punishing training sessions, assigned to arduous and highly dangerous duties and suffer sexual abuse by fellow soldiers and their officers, is standard practice.

What measures will the Commission take to ensure respect for human rights, international agreements on the protection of children's rights and compliance with the 1999 Lusaka Agreement on the cessation of hostilities and to oblige the transitional government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to end the recruitment of child soldiers and take the necessary measures to ensure the full reintegration into society of those who have undergone this traumatic experience?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission is concerned by the phenomenon of recruitment of child soldiers during the seven year war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and its tragic consequences for the children.

This is one of the reasons why the Commission is participating in the regional ‘Multi-Country Demobilization and Reintegration Programme’ (MDRP) administered by the World Bank with a contribution of EUR 20 million. The purpose of this programme is to demobilize and reintegrate ex-combatants of the greater Great Lakes Region, including the DRC. Child soldiers are included in the programme. Special measures will be taken to ensure their proper reintegration into society.

MDRP special projects have been developed which particularly relate to the needs of child ex-combatants. It is also expected that the National Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme for the DRC will include a specific focus on children.

More broadly, the Commission promotes respect of human rights and international agreements on the protection of children's rights through its on going project of support to the justice sector in the DRC for EUR 28 million. This programme is being reoriented in the framework of the new Congolese Transitional process to respond to the problem of impunity and non respect of human rights, especially in the East part of the country.
2.

With regard to arrangements in dependent or associated territories, at the Council meeting on 3 June 2003 the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, stated in their resolution on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments that ‘the United Kingdom and the Netherlands will do their utmost, within the framework of their constitutional arrangements, to ensure that appropriate measures in respect of the relevant dependent or associated territories (the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the dependent or associated territories in the Caribbean) are in place in sufficient time to enable the provisions of Directive 2003/…/EC to be applied from 1 January 2005 in accordance with Article 17 thereof, and for the application of automatic exchange of information (or, during the transitional period defined in Article 10, the application of a withholding tax) not later than 1 January 2005.’ The Council is not in a position to inform the Honourable Member about the positions of Liechtenstein, Andorra, San Maríno and Monaco concerning exchange of information on the basis of the OECD's 2002 parameters as the Commission is conducting negotiations with those countries on the subject. With regard to the United States of America, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, at its meeting on 21 January 2003, it considered on the basis of a Commission report submitted to the Ecofin Council on 3 December 2002 that sufficient assurances had been obtained from the United States concerning the application of ‘equivalent measures’ to those provided for in the draft Directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/140

(2004/C 70 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2774/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Classification of Hamas as a terrorist organisation

1. Does the European Commission classify Hamas as a terrorist organisation?

2. If it does not, how does the Commission justify its stance on this?

3. Does the Commission believe that refusal to label Hamas as a terrorist oganisation would constitute a dangerous obstacle to peace in the Middle East at what is a crucial stage of the peace process?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Union has, further to Resolution 1373(2001) of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1). The Common Position provides that these specific measures apply to persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts and listed in the annex to that Common Position. That list is established and updated by Council.

In December 2001, the Council listed Izz al-Din al-Qassem, the terrorist wing of Hamas. On 12 September 2003, it decided to list Hamas in its entirety (2).

Listing essentially means that Member States offer each other the widest possible assistance in preventing and combating terrorist acts through police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (3), and that the financial restrictions set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (4) apply.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2) Common Position 2003/651/CFSP, OJ L 229, 13.9.2003.

(3) See for modalities of this co-operation Council Decision 2003/48/JHA, OJ L 16, 22.1.2003, p. 68.

(4) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001. See also Council Decision 2003/646/EC of 12 September 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/480/EC, OJ L 229, 13.9.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/237

(2004/C 70 E/255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3209/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject: Clinical Trials Directive

Is the Commission aware that the implementation of the Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC (1)) will force the abandonment of life-saving research by charitable institutions, such as Leukaemia Busters? Will the Commission exempt non-commercial clinical trials from the Directive to stop this happening?

(1) OJ L 121, 1.5.2001, p. 34.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/183

(2004/C 70 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2978/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Structural Funds in Brittany

Following the French Government's recent budgetary decisions, Brittany will be hard hit by the withdrawal of government funding, which is jeopardising the payment of EU appropriations. It would appear that part of the Structural Funds allocated to Brittany for the period 2000-2006 will be blocked owing to the fact that the French Government is no longer willing to disburse the amounts it had previously undertaken to pay under the State-Region planning contract. This situation is giving particular cause for concern in the Lorient area, which is already facing a serious economic crisis as a result of the Navy's withdrawal and the conversion of the arsenal, and in the Brest, Trégor and west central Brittany areas.

Given that the Commission has always taken pains to ensure strict observance of the additionality principle, would it not agree that the decision to withdraw funding half-way through the period is in breach of this principle, and that the government's attitude is placing a region which is in need of strong support from Europe in a position of extreme economic and financial uncertainty?

Does the Commission intend to ask the French Government for an explanation? If it has already done so, what form did this action take?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The financing plan in the single programming document for structural assistance in the Brittany region for the period 2000-2006 provides for a contribution (national, regional or local) from the Member State of EUR 583 902 092 towards the total eligible cost of EUR 1 400 926 184 (including private funding). On 1 September 2003 the level of programming was 65 % of the total amount of the national public matching funds laid down in the SPD.

The Commission has no information on any withdrawal of funding by France entailing a reduction in the national public matching funding for the 2000-2006 SPD in Brittany.

A mid-term check of the Objective 2 programmes for compliance with the principle of additionality will be carried out, covering all the French Objective 2 programmes together but not each individual programme. The French authorities must provide the Commission with the relevant information by 31 December 2003. Independently of these checks, France must inform the Commission in the course of the programming period of any threat to its ability to maintain the level of expenditure laid down.
3.

The Council recalls that at every possible occasion (EU Common Positions, Guiding Principles and different demarches carried out in third countries) it has reaffirmed its consistent and clear position on the ASPA and on the bilateral non-surrender agreements. When approached by the US with proposals for non-surrender agreements, Member States looked for a common EU approach to these proposals within the Council. Since the very start of the process, the Council identified one clear political objective for this common approach: the framework for any solution to accommodate US concerns must preserve the integrity of the Rome Statute and should not undermine the ICC. Particular reference should be made to the EU Guiding Principles annexed to the Council Conclusions of 30 September 2002. In the above Guiding Principles, the Council considered that entering into bilateral agreements — as presently drafted — would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements to which ICC States Parties are parties. Furthermore, any solution should include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court do not enjoy impunity. Such provisions should ensure appropriate investigation and — where there is sufficient evidence — prosecution by national jurisdictions concerning persons requested by the ICC. In any case, any solution should only cover persons who are not nationals of an ICC State Party. It should cover only persons present on the territory of a requested State because they have been sent by a sending State; and surrender cannot be deemed to include transit. It is recalled that the ten acceding countries supported the EU Common Position of June 2003 and that the associated countries (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) as well as the EFTA countries also aligned with it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/726

(2004/C 84 E/0816)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1510/03

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject: Direct financial assistance to the Palestine National Authority

Since June 2001 the Commission has been providing financial support for the Palestine National Authority in the form of direct payments of around 10 million euro per month. Will the Commission say if and when, and under what circumstances and on what grounds, these payments have been suspended?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2003)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to written question P-1437/03 by Mr Laschet (1).

(1) See page 723.