ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/537

(2004/C 88 E/0549)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0810/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Mozambique — Nampula — murder of a missionary

On 24 February Doraci Edinger, a 53-year-old Brazilian Lutheran Church missionary (for the Igreja Evangélica de Confissão Luterano no Brasil), who was involved in school- and hospital-building projects and in well-sinking projects to supply water to the region, was found dead in the flat where she had been living, in Nampula.

Given that the motive does not appear to have been robbery, rumours have emerged that this brutal crime was linked to the organ-trafficking apparently taking place in the region.

The autopsy has shown that the missionary was killed by blows from a hammer. Five suspects have already been detained in connection with her death.

Within the religious community, and especially among the Catholic nuns who have spoken out against the organ-trafficking, the fear of reprisals is mounting.

The Commission:

— what information does it have about these matters;

— what measures has it taken or will it take to guarantee the security of the religious and missionaries working in Nampula, especially those who are Union citizens?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the murder of the Brazilian nun Doraci Edinger and contacted the Embassy of Brazil in this respect, which, on the basis of the available information, considers that there is no connection with alleged organ trafficking cases.

Regarding the nuns' safety, although this matter falls outside the Commission's competence and can be best addressed through interventions from the respective Member State Embassies, the Commission will examine within the framework of the EU co-ordination and EU-Mozambique political dialogue the most appropriate way to raise this issue with the government.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission, within the limits of its competence, will maintain contact with the Attorney's General office and the Human Rights League and follow the progress of the investigation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/653

(2004/C 84 E/0737)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0680/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Bushmeat — disease transmission

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, what action has the Commission taken to conduct a risk assessment of the potential for disease transmission to humans from illegal bushmeat imports into the European Union?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0679/04 and E-0680/04

given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Member States are required to maintain and enforce strict controls on imports of animal products, including personal imports, to avert both animal health and public health risks. The Commission recognises that a big risk factor is the importation of bush meat carried by passengers for their personal consumption.

To strengthen controls for animal products carried by passengers for their personal consumption including for all illegal importations, the Commission recently adopted Commission Decision 2002/995/EC (1). This lays down rules which prevent, with limited exemptions, the import of all personal consignments of meat and milk into the EU, and includes the provision for Member States to implement controls on passengers at all EU passenger entry points from third countries.

A free multi-language poster was also developed and distributed for use in airports to improve awareness of the public to the tightened rules for products of animal origin accompanying passengers in their personal luggage. The Commission has also prepared and sent out a follow-up questionnaire to Member States on the results of these new controls in order to gain feed-back from the Member States on this problem.

Building on the information gained from the questionnaire and also from working groups with Member States experts, the Commission intends to adopt shortly a Regulation to replace Commission Decision 2002/995/EC with the aim to improve and tighten controls.

The Regulation will not only strengthen existing rules but give the Member States greater scope to improve enforcement, and explicitly penalise those passengers that are found to be in breach of the rules.

To complement these actions, the Food and Veterinary Office are also proposing to carry out a mission to several Member States soon to look at the effectiveness of the application by the Member States of the controls laid down in Community legislation, including the problem of illegal imports.

(1) Commission Decision 2002/995/EC of 9 December 2002 laying down interim safeguard measures with regard to imports of products of animal origin for personal consumption, OJ L 353, 30.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/704

(2004/C 84 E/0790)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1222/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2004)

Subject: River access

Is the Commission aware of the diversity across the EU in terms of rights of passage along national rivers? Some countries appear to have almost completely free access for the public, and others, including England and Wales, are highly restricted.

Is the Commisison aware of studies or indeed has it conducted studies into this matter? Does it have any plans to suggest a more unified approach to river access?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/591

(2004/C 84 E/0667)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0457/04

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Strain on main roads

Local organisations and associations in the municipality of Voula are complaining that the Greek Parliament has adopted an amendment relating to the use of the land along sections of major roads, such as the avenues Vouliagmenis, Varis and Karamanli, in order to allow commercial activities in an area which has been designated ‘purely residential’ since 1926. The status of the land is defined in Presidential Decrees of 1926, 1934, 1940 and 1952 and is confirmed by the Council of State in its decisions 554/2000, 2314 and 2315/2002 as well as Law 3044/2002.

Furthermore, recent research carried out by the National Technical University of Athens shows that commercial activity along main roads such as Vouliagmenis creates serious problems for the operation of the network and has a detrimental impact on the environment and the rest of the residential fabric of the area. Moreover, according to the fundamental principles of the EU's operational programme, the construction of roads is subsidised with a view to improving the quality of life in large cities, and reducing traffic congestion and air pollution.

Will the Commission intervene to prevent the deterioration of the urban environment in the area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Under Article 211 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that Member States properly apply Community law. In matters which are not covered by Community law the Commission is unable to intervene.

The situation described by the Honourable Member does not appear to be covered by Community law. So the Commission would have no basis for intervening. The matter would have to be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities in Greece.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/673

(2004/C 84 E/0760)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/04

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Unfair competition as a result of major differences in charges made for rendering

The Netherlands Agriculture Minister recently sent an overview of rendering charges to the Netherlands Second Chamber (23 February 2004). The overview shows that there are substantial differences between the Member States as regards the charges made for rendering and associated costs.

1. Is the Commission aware of the great differences between the Member States as regards the rendering charges which are paid by farmers?

2. Do the Member States follow the guidelines laid down by the Commission on 24 December 2002, including the amendments included as of 1 January 2004? If not, what does the Commission plan to do to ensure that these guidelines are followed? If so, does the Commission not take the view that, given the major differences, it is time to work towards further harmonisation of these charges in the short term?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission does not have an overview of charges made for rendering and associated costs, in the different Member States. If the Honourable Member has such information, would he please forward it to the Commission.

All Member States except Luxembourg have accepted in writing to respect the guidelines referred to by the Honourable Member. As to Luxembourg, the Commission has just proposed appropriate measures.

It would not seem that differences in the costs charged by renderers in various Member States could properly be dealt with through State aid provisions. The play of competition forces should ensure that comparable prices are charged in comparable situations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/823

(2004/C 84 E/0918)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Schedules of airlines from third countries

Following the recent tragic crash of the Flash Airlines plane from Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt, the United Kingdom published a list of third countries airlines which are banned from using its airspace since they fail to comply with the international safety rules laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization. One of the airlines blacklisted in this way is Albanian Airlines, which operates a flight three or four times a week between Athens and Tirana.

Will the Commission say:

1. Why has the United Kingdom included Albanian Airlines on its blacklist? Have the services of a Member State to which this airline flies verified the reliability of this airline? If so, what are the findings? Have the competent authorities carried out a runway inspection, as provided for under the Chicago Convention?

2. Are such inspections covered by the recent agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on a system of controls and verification of the safety of aircraft of third countries airlines using Community airports?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

At present there are no provisions obliging the Member States to give the Commission the information requested by the Honourable Member. The Commission is not therefore in possession of the information and would invite the Honourable Member to contact the competent national authorities directly. In contrast, as the Honourable Member will be able to confirm, the Directive mentioned below will give the Commission access to such information.

The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council due to be adopted in April 2004 on third countries' aircraft calling at Community airports (1) provides scope for national authorities to check the conformity of third countries' aircraft with international safety standards. It also provides for an exchange of information on this subject between the Member States and the Commission, the possibility of grounding dangerous aircraft and a procedure whereby a decision by one Member State to ban an airline from using its airspace can be extended throughout the Community.

(1) Not yet published.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/679

(2004/C 84 E/0765)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0836/04

by Regina Bastos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

— the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

— Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

— both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

— the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

— in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

— these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

— the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

— in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

1. Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

2. What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/199

(2004/C 84 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0317/04

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Pork by-products

Is it correct that the EU plans to ban the sale of all pork by-products unless cooked? Is the Commission aware that raw pork products contain digestive enzymes which provide relief to enzyme-deficient animals who might otherwise suffer? What assurances can the Commission give that raw pork products will be available for animal consumption for medicinal purposes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (1) requires that any protein, except some such as milk or colostrum, is heat treated before being given to farm animals.

Furthermore, Article 22 of the same Regulation prohibits intra-species recycling. In accordance with this prohibition, the feeding of processed animal proteins derived from one species to animals of the same species, including the case of pigs, is banned.

However, without prejudice of the above mentioned Regulation, enzymes and micro-organisms may be authorized in accordance with Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedstuffs (2).

The purpose of these rules is to minimize the risk to public and animal health from material derived from animals.

(1) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

(2) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/518

(2004/C 88 E/0530)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0626/04

by Juan Ferrández Lezaun (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: The Spanish NHP alternatives

The Spanish Government has submitted its request for European funding for transferring water from the River Ebro, as part of the Spanish NHP. As the Commission has already stated on several occasions, the vast scale of the water transfer means that a global assessment of the scheme will be carried out.

If the Commission finds against this global assessment, is it correct to state that the earmarked Community funding will not be allocated to this scheme?

Does the Commission know whether the Spanish Government has alternative schemes ready, should Community funding be refused for the Ebro water transfer scheme submitted?

What will happen to the funds earmarked for Spain?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The financing of major projects through the two main Community financial instruments available to Spain, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund, is subject to the respect for the regulations on these funds and the programming documents adopted for their implementation.

The Commission adopts its co-financing decisions on major projects in line with the relevant Community Regulations on these funds and in full compliance with all applicable Community legislation and policies.

At present, the Commission is in the process of analysing the submitted projects. A decision concerning the possible allocation of Community funds for these projects can only be taken once all the information has been carefully analysed. Therefore, it is too early to speculate on the outcome of this evaluation.

The Commission is not aware whether the Spanish authorities have alternative projects to the ones submitted for financing in case these are not accepted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/242

(2004/C 88 E/0244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0902/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject: Talks for a settlement in Cyprus

At its meeting of 23 February 2004, the Council ‘welcomed the preparedness of the European Commission to fulfil its supportive role, acknowledged by successive European Councils, by providing the assistance requested by the United Nations Secretary-General.’

In the light of the role which the UN Secretary-General has called upon the Commission to play, will the Commission say whether it can confirm that the talks held to date have taken account of the need to implement the ‘acquis communautaire’ throughout the island, and the need for an operational State capable of meeting the requirements of participation in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission can confirm that the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem put forward to the Secretary General of the United Nations takes account of the need to implement the ‘acquis’ throughout the island. One of the United Nations (UN) subcommittees is dealing exclusively with the harmonisation of future federal and constituent state laws with Community legislation. The meetings of this subcommittee are chaired by UN experts with EU background. These experts also take account of the capability of the reunited Cyprus to fulfil its obligations under EU law and to fully participate in the EU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/560

(2004/C 88 E/0571)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1012/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject: Who is trying to block the investigations into fraud in Euroland?

The blitz by the Belgian police, who raided the offices of Hans Martin Tillack, the Brussels correspondent of the German weekly Stern and author of a series of investigative articles on the Eurostat scandal and other delicate issues connected with corruption in the European Union institutions, is a serious and unprecedented act, which constitutes a violation of the principle of press freedom.

Does the Commission consider that this police initiative, probably prompted by OLAF and targeting not those guilty of corruption but someone reporting on corruption, shows that there are people at the highest levels of the European institutions who fear light being shed by serious investigative journalists on confidential and ignominious aspects of fraud and corruption in Euroland?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

On the basis of the information supplied by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Commission can tell the Honourable Member that in February 2004 the Office sent the relevant judicial authorities a file relating to suspected criminal offences.

Article 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1) provides for information about matters liable to result in criminal proceedings to be forwarded to the judicial authorities of the Member State concerned.

The national judicial authorities are then fully independent in their handling of the files sent.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/482

(2004/C 88 E/0495)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0008/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject: Accession of Cyprus, immigration

Following the recent elections in the Turkish part of Cyprus, opposition parties are expressing concern about the massive registration of Turkey citizens on electoral rolls. There are very close links between ‘President’ Rauf Denktash (and his political supporters) and Turkey. This may lead to a whole range of problems after Cyprus's accession. For instance, there is a very real danger that the part of Cyprus occupied by Turkey will be exploited as a transit zone to allow Turks to emigrate to other EU Member States, circumventing the immigration ban applied by most Member States of the European Union. The government of Cyprus is, after all, encouraging the free movement of people throughout the whole island.

What measures is the Commission considering to tackle this potential problem? Have discussions already taken place with the authorities in Cyprus on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Cyprus is de facto divided by a United Nations (UN) buffer zone. This dividing line between the Northern part and the Government Controlled Areas can be crossed only at four crossing points.

The policy of the Republic of Cyprus only allows the crossing of the line by all citizens of the Republic, EU citizens and third country nationals who are legally residing in the northern part, and EU citizens and third country nationals who entered the island through the Government Controlled Areas. Thus third country nationals who entered through the northern part are not allowed to cross to the Government Controlled Areas.

In the case of a solution before 1 May 2004, the issue would be addressed in the Annan plan which would serve as a basis for more detailed rules to be established by the European Union.

In the case of no solution by 1 May 2004, Article 2 of Protocol No 10 of the Act of Accession foresees that the Council shall decide on the terms under which persons will be able to cross the line. On the basis of this Article, the Commission shall prepare a proposal for a Council Regulation.

There is no risk of illegal immigration via Cyprus into the other Member States, because the new Member States will be only gradually integrated into the Schengen area.