ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/684

(2004/C 88 E/0703)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0137/04

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: The case of Mrs Siham Qandah, Jordan

Is the Commission aware of the case of Mrs Siham Qandah, a Jordanian citizen? Mrs Qandah, who is a Christian, has been facing the loss of custody of her two children, as they are not being brought up as Muslims.

Mrs Qandah was widowed in 1994 and subsequently told that she was ineligible for her army-serving husband's pension as he had, unbeknown to her and on apparently forged documentation, converted to Islam in 1991. The Jordanian courts appear to have threatened Mrs Qandah with a prison sentence, and have been attempting to have custody of the children transferred to Mrs Qandah's estranged brother, who has converted to Islam.

What is the Commission policy on such cases of apparently state-permitted involvement, which is in breach of the International Treaty of Human Rights (Article 18)?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission is closely monitoring the individual case of Mrs Siham Qandah. Mrs Qandah's situation is related to the wider problem of compatibility of the application of the Shari'ah law and the international human rights conventions that Jordan has signed but not fully transposed into national law. The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern that the application of Shari'ah law in Jordan can provoke great distress in families whose members are of mixed Christian and Muslim faith and lead to results which are incompatible with these conventions.

As the Honourable Member knows Jordan is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Commission has raised the need for Jordan to implement effectively its commitments to international human rights agreements, including those protecting the rights of women and children. The question of the defence of human rights and in particular of those of women and children is considered of prime importance by the Commission. The Commission will continue to stress their importance in its future contacts with Jordanian authorities

In the framework of the EU-Jordan Association Agreement, the Union and Jordan is establishing a continuous political dialogue at the highest level aimed inter alia at improving the human rights situation in Jordan. This includes cooperation on particular issues relating to human rights as well as working to improve the application of international conventions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/213

(2004/C 88 E/0220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0773/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in Belgium

In view of the following:

— Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

— Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

— Article 6 of the EU Treaty;

— the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

and the fact that:

— in Belgium foreign teachers belonging to the Assemblies of God (AOG) group used to obtain special visas for missionaries, which meant that they did not need work permits;

— now that special visas for missionaries no longer exist, they need a work permit, but it is not clear what specific category of work permit is needed, so the missionaries do no know which one to apply for and this constitutes an administrative obstacle for them;

— the Church of the Latter-day Saints is still trying to solve the problem of how to obtain visas for its missionaries.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these facts?

Can the Commission also say whether it considers the actions described as an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and that they therefore affect the essence of the rights, which are explicitly protected by Article 52 of the Charter?

Whether it also considers that these actions are contrary to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and therefore the principles common to all the Member States regarding respect for human and fundamental rights?

How it intends to dissuade the Kingdom of Belgium from carrying out such actions against religious freedom?

If it does not explicitly condemn these actions, on what legal principles it bases its attitude?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The matters raised by the Honourable Member have not been referred to the Commission.

As regards the granting of specific work permits for religious workers from third countries, the Commission would point out that at present there are no Community rules on entry and residence for work purposes for nationals of third countries, and that all decisions in this field are a matter for the Member States.

In addition, the Commission has no remit to intervene in the event of violations of fundamental rights, including religious freedom, unless such violations take place within the framework of Community law and its implementation.

Lastly, if an individual believes that his fundamental rights have been violated, he can take proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all domestic legal remedies.
1.

Over recent decades, the instruments of the common agricultural policy have progressively evolved away from supporting products by maintaining high internal prices and providing major protection at the border. With the 1992 reform, those prices were progressively reduced and direct aid to producers introduced to compensate farmers' income losses. The direct payments were proportional to livestock reared and areas cultivated. They were therefore indirectly linked to production. This latter component was recently radically altered by the reform adopted in June 2003 with the introduction of direct payment decoupling. Income support is now independent of the farm's production volume. At the same time, a structural rural development policy has been progressively devised to support the process of modernising European agriculture, to pay for farmers' non-commercial — environmental — activities and to support the income of farms located in areas with a natural handicap. Throughout this process the Commission has been attentive to the situation of small and medium-sized farms, which form an important part of Europe's rural fabric. The Commission can affirm that the evolution in types of support has helped to maintain the income of numerous small and medium-sized farms.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/815

(2004/C 84 E/0910)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0595/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Horse racing prizes in Greece

1. Will the Commission confirm whether it has received any complaints concerning discrimination by the Greek Jockey Club against owners whose winners are bred outside Greece, notably in Britain and Ireland?

2. Will it confirm that a proportion of the prize money is withheld by the Greek racing authorities if the horse is bred outside Greece? If so, does it agree that this represents prima facie evidence of discrimination against the nationals of another Member State?

3. Is it investigating the case? On what timescale does it expect to reach a conclusion that upholds the Treaty provisions against discrimination? Can arrangements be made for the reimbursement of prize money unfairly withheld from owners with horses bred outside Greece?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission has received a letter claiming that the Greek Jockey Club is withholding prize money from non-Greek-bred race-horses emanating from other Member States. The information provided to date is not sufficient to permit the Commission to ascertain whether, as suggested by the Honourable Member, a proportion of the prize money is indeed withheld by the Greek racing authorities if a horse is bred outside Greece. It is also not yet in a position to ascertain the compatibility with Community law of any such practice, especially since it has not yet received the relevant regulations. More particularly, it is not clear whether the Greek Jockey Club is a private body, a recognised association that has legal autonomy to act in Greece or a public organisation (e.g., whether it is governed by public law). Consequently, it is yet to be determined whether the problem raised will be analysed under competition law or under Internal Market rules.

To permit the Commission to examine the concerns raised regarding the practices of the Greek Jockey Club and to be in a position to register a formal complaint, the Commission has requested additional information from the interested party.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/563

(2004/C 84 E/0640)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0275/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Articles 10 and 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulate that the freedom of religion and expression is a human right for all EU citizens.

The French Government recently proposed to enshrine in law a ban on the physical manifestation of religious beliefs by wearing religious symbols (such as the hijab or headscarf) in state schools.

Does the Commission consider the French Government's proposal acceptable? What action does the Commission intend to take if this proposal is adopted into French law? Is the Commission currently taking any action?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the draft legislation in France that would ban the wearing of all religious symbols in state secondary schools.

Whether or not measures to ban the wearing of religious symbols are deemed to constitute unlawful discrimination under the terms of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) will depend on the concrete terms of the relevant legislation and on what justification is put forward by the Member States in question under the terms of the Directive.

The Commission is closely following the developments to which the Honourable Member refers and will consider the need for action and the form this should take in the event of violations of fundamental rights under Community law.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/170

(2004/C 84 E/0209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0179/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: National immigration plans

In its endeavour to implement the decisions taken at the Council meeting in Tampere in 1999 concerning ‘a common asylum and migration policy’, the Commission requested the Member States to draw up and submit national migration plans.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Have the Member States submitted their national migration plans?

2. Has the Greek Government submitted the Greek migration plan? If so, does the Commission have any comments to make in that respect?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

In its Communication to the Council and the Parliament on an Open Method of Co-ordination for the Community Immigration Policy (1), the Commission set out its proposals for the adaptation of the open method of co-ordination in the field of migration policy.

The Honourable Member rightly points out that the instruments and methods proposed in this Communication (section 4) include the preparation and review of national action plans on immigration, on an annual basis.

Given that the Council has not yet endorsed the Commission's proposal to set up an open method of co-ordination for the Community immigration policy the operational phase of this method has not yet been launched and Member States have not been requested so far to submit national action plans on immigration.

However, in the context of a reinforced information exchange on national integration policies, launched by the Commission in 2003, Greece has submitted a national report on the integration of immigrants. This piece of information was referred to and commented upon in the recent Commission Communication on Immigration, Integration and Employment (2).

(1) COM(2001) 387 final.

(2) COM(2003) 336 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/817

(2004/C 84 E/0912)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0602/04

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject: Global assessment of the major Ebro water transfer project

On 16 December 2003, before the Committee on the Environment, and on various later occasions, Commissioner Barnier stated that the Commission was going to carry out a global assessment of the Ebro water transfer project, since this was a ‘mega scheme’. Another project, previously assessed by the Commission was the water transfer from the Júcar to the Vinalopó, using the services of the EIB. The EIB study has been criticised for its partiality, and for the lack of involvement of all the parties involved, since the EIB merely consulted the local administrations and groups which were in favour of the transfer.

Is the Commission going to use the EIB to assess the Ebro transfer?

How does the Commission intend to rectify the omission of public participation in its assessment of the Júcar — Vinalopó transfer and in that of the Ebro transfer?

Does the Commission intend to push for consultations at local level and fresh technical meetings in Brussels?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The projects regarding the Ebro river transfer, submitted by the Spanish authorities for co-financing through Community funds, are under evaluation by the Commission. As announced, they are being evaluated as a single global project.

According to the provisions of Article26.2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), and with Article 13.2 and 13.3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (2), the Commission may consult, where necessary, the European Investment Bank (EIB) for the appraisal of projects.

The EIB works as an independent consultant. The Commission is not involved in this process.

In the light of all the relevant information and analyses, the Commission will make its own assessment of the project in the context of its responsibilities laid down in the above-mentioned regulations and in partnership with the Spanish authorities concerned. Where necessary, it may decide to convene additional technical meetings on the project.

The Commission is required to adopt each decision concerning support from the Structural Funds and Cohesion in line with the relevant Community Regulations and in full compliance with all the other applicable Community policies and legislation.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/914

(2004/C 78 E/0966)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0014/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Relationship between cancelled flights and PNR

In mid-December the US and the European Commission reached an agreement in principle on the transfer of passenger data to the US. The deal included agreement on the amount of data to be provided, the storage of data, information for passengers and legal proceedings in the US. The agreement has still to be debated by the Council and the European Parliament. In the meantime, the US, which still receives all unfiltered information concerning passengers, has blocked six Air France flights.

With a view to the debate in the European Parliament:

1. How does this action fit with the agreement and in particular the conditions agreed?

2. Can the unilateral cancelling of flights — even following consultations between Foreign Ministers — be regarded as contravening international trade agreements?

3. Does the agreement, which has not yet been submitted to Parliament, include provisions laying down conditions under which flights may be cancelled?

4. How are such decisions taken, having regard to the following aspects: — wider EU-US relations; — safety and confidence of passengers; — cost aspect for airlines?

5. How does cooperation between European and American security authorities work in this connection?

6. How are airlines informed, and what responsibility do they have?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the Declaration made by the Vice-President of the Commission who is in charge of Energy and Transport, on behalf of the Commission, on the 12 January 2004, during the debate on aviation security which took place during the plenary session of the Parliament in Strasbourg.

In particular, the Commission made it clear that there was no link between the agreement reached with United States (US) Customs and Border Protection on Passenger Name Records (PNR) in December 2003 and the actions of the US authorities over the Christmas period, which led to a number of flight cancellations. Indeed, the Commission understands that the threat alert emanated not from PNR data, but rather from information gathered by the US intelligence services.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/927

(2004/C 78 E/0981)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and blind and partially sighted registration

The Commission's proposals to update Regulation No 1408/71 (1) seek to build on health-care entitlements across the EU and improve cooperation and mutual information between authorities in Member States.

Will the proposed amendments tackle the problems caused by inconsistent criteria for registration as blind or partially sighted across Member States? Will the proposed changes ensure that when an individual is registered as blind or partially sighted and qualifies for the corresponding entitlements in one Member State, they automatically have equal status and entitlements across the EU without having to undergo additional procedures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission proposal (2) to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, must be seen in the context of the introduction of the European Health Insurance Card, and, therefore, it concerns in particular insured persons who are staying temporarily in a Member State other than the one where they are insured. First of all, the proposal aims to harmonise the entitlement to benefits in kind of all categories of insured persons in this situation. This means that all insured persons should be entitled to all benefits in kind which become medically necessary during a temporary stay in another Member State, taking into account the nature of these benefits and the expected duration of the stay. The second objective of the proposal is to provide all insured persons with direct access to the care provider during their temporary stay in another Member State by abolishing the obligation to contact in advance the sickness insurance institution of the place of stay. A third measure proposed by the Commission, concerns the effectiveness of the application of the Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 by introducing a new Article which defines on the one hand the relationship between the persons covered by the Regulation and the social security institutions and on the other hand improves the mutual cooperation between the institutions of the Member State.

With regard to blind and partially sighted persons, the proposed amendments to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will thus improve the access to benefits in kind during a temporary stay in a Member State other than the one where they are insured and registered. However, the above-mentioned proposal does not provide for harmonised criteria for registration as a blind or partially sighted person nor for mutual recognition of the registration as a blind or partially sighted person.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(2) COM(2003) 378 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/793

(2004/C 84 E/0890)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0452/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: INFO 2000 programme

The multiannual Community programme INFO 2000, covering a period of four years, aimed to encourage the development of the European multimedia content industry and to contribute to the professional, social and cultural development of European citizens.

Can the Commission indicate what actions to support the programme have been initiated, giving details of the sums allocated?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The INFO 2000 programme to stimulate the supply and use of multimedia was adopted in 1996 (1) and ended in 1999. A final evaluation of the programme and its impact assessment was carried out in the year 2000. The results were communicated to the Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in May 2001 (2). The evaluation report is available at: (http://www.cordis.lu/econtent/studies/studies.htm). In the four years of the programme implementation, 149 actions were supported for EUR 68,6 million, broken down as follows:

Expenditure under the INFO 2000 Programme (1996-1999)

(million euros) Expenditure Action line 1: Stimulating demand and raising awareness 15,6 Action line 2: Exploiting Europe's public sector information 13,8 2.1 Developing policies to access and exploit European public sector information 0,9 2.2 Linking directories to public sector information 3,2 2.3 Making use of content resources in the public sector 9,6 Action line 3: Triggering European multimedia potential 34,2 3.1 Catalysing high-quality multimedia content 31,2 3.2 Trading multimedia intellectual property rights 3,0 Action line 4: Support actions 5.0 4.1 Observing and analysing the multimedia content market 2,9 4.2 Spreading the use of multimedia content standards 0,6 4.3 Encouraging skills development at European level 1,5 Total 68,6

(1) Council Decision 96/339/EC of 20 May 1996 adopting a multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000), OJ L 129, 30.5.1996.

(2) COM(2001) 276 final.