ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/870

(2004/C 84 E/0963)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0754/04

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

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Establishment of a European legal framework for hedge funds

How does the Commission plan to follow up the report by Mr Purvis (A5-0476/2003) on hedge funds, and in particular the possibility of establishing a European legal framework to regulate them?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

Regarding Parliament's vote on the report by Mr Purvis on hedge funds, Mr Margallo would like to know what follow-up action the Commission is planning, particularly on the possibility of establishing a European legal framework to regulate such funds.

The Commission would first remind the Honourable Member that, at their informal meeting in Oviedo in April 2002, the Economics and Finance Ministers undertook to examine the role played by hedge funds. This undertaking formed part of a raft of measures taken in the wake of the Enron scandal.

At the same time, several initiatives were launched at international level in this connection, including by the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and national regulators such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

The report by Mr Purvis represents a major contribution in this respect. It should also be borne in mind that the Commission's Internal Market Directorate-General set up in October 2003 four professional expert working groups to examine, among other things, the strategic priorities for the work to be undertaken by the Commission in the years ahead. One of the groups has been charged with examining asset management while another will look into securities issues. The Commission will, of course, take into account the groups' conclusions, which will be published by the end of April and then opened for public consultation between May and July. A high-level conference will be held on 22/23 June. It is only after the results of the public consultation and the conclusions of the high-level conference have been analysed that the Commission will take an official position on the subject of derivatives and alternative investment funds.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/911

(2004/C 84 E/1007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0910/04

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: Aid for olive production; common organisation of the market in olives

The common organisation of the market in olives provides for olive production to receive aid as a matter of course. In what form is it provided: per tree, hectare or litre?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

Under the common market organisation for olive oil production aid is granted to growers for the oil actually produced. The rate for the 1998/99 to 2003/04 marketing years has been EUR 132,25/100 kg. The maximum quantity of oil on which it can be granted is 1777261 tonnes per marketing year. This guaranteed maximum is split between the producing Member States (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain) and if a Member's State guaranteed national quantity is exceeded the aid rate is reduced in proportion.

Member States can allocate part of their guaranteed national quantity and of the production aid to support for table olives.

The legal provisions on applications for, payment of, and checks on olive oil and table olive production aid are set by Regulation (EC) No 2366/1998 (1). The national provisions on granting of aid for table olives are to be found in Decisions 2001/670/EC (2) (Portugal), 2001/658/EC (3) (Italy), 2001/650/EC (4) (Spain) and 2001/649/EC (5) (Greece).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 of 30 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/01 marketing years, OJ L 293, 31.10.1998.

(2) 2001/670/EC: Commission Decision of 10 August 2001 on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Portugal, OJ L 235, 4.9.2001.

(3) 2001/658/EC: Commission Decision of 10 August 2001 on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Italy, OJ L 231, 29.8.2001.

(4) 2001/650/EC: Commission Decision of 9 August 2001 on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Spain, OJ L 229, 25.8.2001.

(5) 2001/650/EC: Commission Decision of 9 August 2001 on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Greece, OJ L 229, 25.8.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/251

(2004/C 88 E/0256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Religious minorities in Gujarat

Following the Commission's answer of 15 May 2003 to question E-1417/03 (1) tabled by myself and other MEPs on 9 April 2003, there has been scarcely any improvement in the situation in Gujarat with regard to bringing to justice the perpetrators of the February 2002 massacre and rehabilitation of the victims and/or their relatives. In November 2003 Amnesty International again reported the illegal detention of Moslems in Gujarat. Before this there was a Human Rights Watch report on threats to human rights activists in Gujarat. AWAAZ South Asia Watch recently concluded in its report ‘In Bad Faith? British Charity and Hindu Extremism’ that umbrella organisations of the Hindu extremist RSS had raised millions of pounds from the British public under false pretences and was channelling it to organisations involved in large-scale violence and incitement to hatred against minorities. Finally, there have been various reports of discrimination against Muslims in employment.

1. Is the Commission aware of these reports by Amnesty International, Human Right Watch and AWAAZ?

2. Has the Commission taken any action in response to the reports?

3. If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not?

4. Does the current situation in Gujarat have implications for the ability of European firms effectively to apply the principle of non-discrimination in their personnel policy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the reports mentioned by the Honourable Member and continues to follow closely the developments in Gujarat. The Commission fully agrees that the perpetrators of the crimes should be brought to justice, the victims rehabilitated, and the rights of religious minorities protected.

The Commission has responded to the Gujarat violence by providing a relief package for the victims through its Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO).

Furthermore, the EU has agreed to deal with all matters concerning democracy and human rights in India through its regular, on-going constructive dialogue with the Indian Government.

India and the EU have recently engaged in the Athens process' – regular human rights consultations with the Indian authorities – to exchange views on issues of concern. EU Heads of Mission in New Delhi (including the Commission's Head of Delegation) are closely monitoring human rights issues, with a particular emphasis on Gujarat and questions of religious freedom.

It is not within the purview of the Commission to give explicit recommendations to private companies on how they should operate in third countries. However, the Commission is committed to encouraging companies to act according to United Nations (UN) and EU guidelines on Corporate Social Responsibility. These guidelines notably make clear reference to the need to protect and promote the human rights of employees, and to avoid discrimination against minority groups.

(1) See page 30.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/946

(2004/C 84 E/1045)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1107/04

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Administrative work involved in preparing a subsidy application

It is said that if an organisation wishes to submit a project under the Media Programme TAO — Audiovisual Festivals, it has to spend around EUR 4 000 on preparing its subsidy application. If the application is accepted, the organisation receives barely EUR 10 000.

Is it not regrettable that the cost of submitting a project application amounts to 40 % of the sum which an organisation ultimately receives?

Is there not an urgent need to simplify the preparation of subsidy applications, and ought not the costs to applicants and the administrative costs to the Commission to be reduced in this way?

Has the Commission already taken any steps to achieve this?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

Each Programme managed and implemented by the Commission is subject to the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. The procedures laid down by the Regulation are aimed at ensuring sound financial management of Community resources. These provisions may impose burdens on beneficiaries in terms of procedures and ultimately in terms of the cost effectiveness of Community support. The mid term evaluation of the MEDIA programmes and the public consultation on the new generation of programmes have confirmed the need to simplify procedures for implementation of the programmes. This will be taken into account in the preparation of the new programme for Community action for the audiovisual industry.

The contributions for festivals are relatively small in order to reach the largest number of beneficiaries possible and the largest audience for European works. The Commission does not accept that the application costs would be EUR 4 000 to receive EUR 10 000 or 40 % of the subsidy received, as the Honourable Member states in his question.

It should be noted that a minimum of 40 % of the cost of a project should be funded by sources other than Community support. The co-financing clause does not have any impact on the costs of the application, but is a requirement established by the financial regulations in the implementation of Community programmes.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/913

(2004/C 84 E/1009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Directive 2001/83/EC and ‘borderline products’

Will the Commission clarify what steps it has taken to address the issue of ‘borderline products’, such as foods, cosmetics and medical devices, within Directive 2001/83/EC (1)?

When will the Commission hold the stakeholders' meeting announced during the second reading debate and will a list of invitees be announced before the event?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Honourable Member wonders what steps the Commission has taken to address the implications of the new Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (‘borderline products’) and when the Commission will hold a stakeholders' meeting as announced during the second reading debate in the Parliament.

The Commission's opinion is that this provision will clarify, from a legal point of view, the situation of certain borderline products for which there is currently uncertainty regarding which regulatory system should be applied. This opinion has been shared by the Parliament and the Council.

The Commission has already started to prepare the organisation of a meeting with all interested parties in order to discuss practical implementation issues linked to this new provision.

The meeting will take place presumably in June 2004. Stakeholders will be invited to the meeting (different trade associations) as well as representatives of all Member States.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/665

(2004/C 84 E/0749)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Aid for producer organisations in the fisheries sector

For some time, Italian fisheries associations have been striving to save their trade, not least through a correct and precise interpretation of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1). This Article lays down certain parameters under which aid may be granted by Member States for three years following the recognition of the producer organisation.

According to the consistent interpretation of the relevant Commissioner, Fischler, this aid must be considered cumulative, as evidenced by the decision of the European Commission of 11 July 2001 SG (2001) D/289689 (State aid No 768/2000 - España (Baleares)); the decision of 20 February 2001 (State aid No 529/2000 - Ireland); the decision of 3 April 2002 (State aid No 803/2001 - España (Andalucía)); and the decision of 3 April 2002 (State aid No 820/2001 - Portugal).

However, the associations mentioned above learnt from the note of 5 February 2004 No 017040 that the Director of DG Fisheries Verstraete, in the interpretation of Article 15 of the above Regulation, intends to restrict the field of application to the more restrictive of the two parameters in question, clearly contrasting with the amount indicated by Commissioner Fischler.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is the correct interpretation and application of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999?

2. Which of the two interpretations provided by Commissioner Fischler and by the Director of DG Fisheries respectively should be taken into consideration?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

We can inform the Honourable Member that:

— the interpretation to be given to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 (2)) was sent above Mrs Verstraete's signature to the Italian authorities on 5 February (under the reference 17040) and to Legapesca on 16 February (under the reference 017049);

— there is no contradiction between these replies and the Commission Decisions to which the Honourable Member refers.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/421

(2004/C 84 E/0492)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0524/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: The Constitution

Can the Commission confirm that, if a Member State were to divide as a result of a region democratically gaining independence, that the precedent set by Algeria would apply?

Can the Commission explain what exactly happened in the Algeria case?

Could the Commission confirm whether a newly independent region would have to leave the EU and then apply for accession afresh?

Would an application of this type require a renegotiation of the treaties at an IGC and the unanimous agreement of the 25 Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The European Communities and the European Union have been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The treaties apply to the Member States (Article 299 of the EC Treaty). When a part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.

Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the Union. An application of this type requires, if the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously, a negotiation on an agreement between the Applicant State and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the Applicant State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/197

(2004/C 84 E/0240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Language programme for minority languages

In July 2003 the Commission published a call for proposals (DG EAC/45/03) to prepare the ground for the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity (1).

One of the goals explicitly referred to in the call for proposals was to prepare information and to raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages. Following the closing date for the submission of project proposals at the end of September, seven of the 33 project proposals submitted were approved.

Does the Commission believe that the selection of projects corresponds to the goals of the Action Plan?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

In answer to the Honourable Member's question, which refers to the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity, the Commission would like to announce that, under Call for proposals EAC/45/03, the best seven projects were selected in accordance with the two objectives in point 2:

1. to disseminate information and to raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages, and

2. to set up networks to prepare the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity.

The Commission takes the view that the projects selected meet the objectives of the Action Plan and will help to prepare the ground for its implementation. As it specified in its answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-4031/03 (2), three of the seven projects are directly concerned with regional and minority languages.

(1) OJ C 180, 31.7.2003, p. 34.

(2) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 681.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/645

(2004/C 84 E/0726)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0642/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Threat to survival of Italian small communes

Italy has 5 868‘piccoli comuni’, small communes with a population of less than 5 000, which constitute a precious cultural and historical heritage.

These communes, though they lack any economic weight of their own, have behind them a deep-rooted history and long-standing tradition and, as the first expression of organised civil society in Italy, have accumulated the heritage of the thousand-year history of the country to a greater extent than any other territorial unit, such as provinces and regions.

Nevertheless, due to their small size and in order to simplify and modernise administrative procedures, many of these small communes are under threat of being incorporated into other municipalities and thus disappearing.

However, it would seem necessary to protect and guarantee the identity, existence and full autonomy of small communes and of their local communities in order to conserve the country's rich cultural heritage, to facilitate administrative decentralisation and to ensure that democratic principles are applied and represented at local level.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Are there EU programmes to support communes of less than 5 000 inhabitants, providing for practical steps to help economic, agricultural, trade and crafts activities and to contribute to enhancing their natural and historical-cultural heritage?

2. Are there any incentives to maintain the dwelling density of these communes, such as measures in support of people moving house or their place of business for at least ten years to one of these communes, or reimbursing families who have to pay school fees for their children?

3. Is it possible to receive EU funding to set up innovative arrangements for the provision and management of services that cannot necessarily be located in urban areas, such as small universities, laboratories, museums, healthcare and sporting infrastructure and health services?

4. Can the Commission provide an opinion on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20. April 2004)

The EU supports socio-economic development programmes under the Structural Funds and rural development programmes under the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). These programmes provide the possibilities for among other things, financial support for local development activities in small communes and villages. The purpose of local development activities is to maintain or create economic activities linked to the agricultural sector, local industry and handicraft, service sector, tourism, protection of the landscape and of natural and cultural resources, in order to provide training and employment opportunities.

The programmes concerned exist in the different Italian regions. The responsibility for the day-to-day management of the programmes including the selection of projects for financial support lies with the central and regional authorities in the Member States.