ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/671

(2004/C 84 E/0757)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0770/04

by Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN) to the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Subject: EU citizenship

By 1 May 2004, a number of urgent cases relating to EU citizenship will need to have been clarified. Will the Commission therefore state what are the EU citizenship rights after 1 May 2004 in the following two cases: first, a lady who was born in Russia, moved to Latvia and chose to stay there without citizenship and later married an EU citizen and moved to Ireland where she now has residency rights but requires a visa to travel outside Ireland and, second, Latvian citizens living in Ireland or in any other EU Member State, and their EU citizenship status?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

According to article 17 of the EC Treaty, every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.

In his first example, the Honourable Member seems to refer to the particular situation of stateless persons in Latvia. The Commission is fully aware of this situation. A woman born in Russia and residing in Latvia without citizenship who later marries an EU citizen and moves with him to Ireland, will only benefit from EU citizenship rights, in her own right, if she acquires EU citizenship herself either by marriage or by any other means laid down in the Member State's legislation on acquisition of citizenship. If she remains stateless or retains a third country nationality, she will still be a beneficiary of Community law on the right of free movement and residence and is entitled to reside in Ireland by virtue of being the spouse of an EU citizen.

If she wants to travel to another Member State from Ireland she will effectively require a visa, since Ireland does not apply, by its own choice, the Community legislation on uniform short-stay visas, external border controls and circulation within an area where internal border controls on persons have been abolished (‘Schengen acquis’). However, it should be stressed that, due to her status as the spouse of an EU citizen, she should be granted every facility for obtaining any necessary visas, which shall also be issued free of charge.

In the second example, the Latvian citizen living in Ireland or in any other Member State shall become an EU citizen as from accession of Latvia to the European Union on 1 May 2004 and shall benefit directly from the rights attached to EU citizenship as laid down in Part Two of the EC Treaty and, in particular, from the right to free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States (subject, where relevant, to applicable transitional measures for workers) and the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal and European Parliament elections in the Member State where he resides.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/507

(2004/C 88 E/0519)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0518/04

by Elena Paciotti (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Violation of the fundamental rights of an EU citizen by the USA

Marco Fornari, an Italian citizen, son of career diplomats and therefore born in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia where his father was posted, has studied at Suffolk University in Boston and is currently enrolled at Lubbock University in Texas. Following the attacks of 11 September, his name was placed on the blacklist of persons under suspicion because of their place of birth. After repeated questioning, the Dallas authorities informed him that his case had been resolved. He went back to Italy for the Christmas holidays and on his return to Dallas Airport he was detained, handcuffed, chained to other detainees, locked in a cold cell without being allowed to contact anyone and placed on the first flight back to Europe the following morning, bound for Stuttgart. A similar fate befell a Swedish businessman held in the same cell. Marco Fornari, refused re-entry into the USA, has missed a semester of studies but has to continue to pay the rent on his apartment, which still contains his books and personal belongings.

This is an absurd, humiliating and flagrant violation of the most basic rights of European citizens.

What does the Commission intend to do to protect the rights of our citizens infringed by the USA?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

EU statements following the events of 11 September 2001, notably in the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly Third Committee, have constantly highlighted that the fight against terrorism must be conditioned on maintaining respect for human rights, and not the other way around.

The Commission, therefore, thanks the Honourable Member for bringing the circumstances of the detention of this Italian citizen in the United States to its attention. While the Commission does not have any competence to intervene in this case, it is of course of fundamental importance that international commitments to ensure legal safeguards are honoured by all countries.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/685

(2004/C 84 E/0771)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0857/04

by Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 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 84/428

(2004/C 84 E/0498)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Ireland and Nitrates Directive

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC (1)) was adopted by the Council on 12 December 1991 and should have been implemented in full by all Member States by 1995 at the latest.

In October 2001, the Commission referred Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to comply with the Directive. On 26 June 2003, Advocate-General Geelhoed of the ECJ delivered an opinion to the effect that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive and ordered Ireland to pay the costs of the case.

Could the Commission therefore clarify the claim made by the Irish Minister for Agriculture at the Annual General Meeting of the Irish Farmers' Association on 14 January 2004 that Ireland has negotiated a derogation from the Nitrates Directive?

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/378

(2004/C 84 E/0439)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0367/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Animal experiments in Ireland

What reply did the Commission receive from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland in June 2002, as announced in Commission press release IP/02/946, regarding Ireland's failure to comply with the 2001 European Court of Justice ruling on Ireland's compliance with the Animal Experiments Directive (Council Directive 86/609/EEC (1))?

What action has it taken or is it proposing to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

On 27 June 2002, the Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland under Article 228 of the EC Treaty with regard to Ireland's failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, dated 18 October 2001, in case C-354/99 Commission v Ireland concerning the application of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 (2) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, and Article 10 of the EC Treaty establishing the European Community. In December 2002, Ireland notified new legislation to comply with the judgement. The infringement procedure was subsequently terminated.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/703

(2004/C 88 E/0723)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0676/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Bushmeat – resource allocation

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, what funding has been released or is planned to be made available to improve wildlife management? And what resources are planned to support the incorporation of wildlife/bushmeat criteria into poverty assessments?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/548

(2004/C 88 E/0558)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0889/04

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Elections in Iran

The recent elections in Iran were a travesty of democracy. Most of the independent candidates were disqualified by the religious council, demonstrating once again that it is all-powerful. Despite this intervention, the elections nonetheless went ahead. This shows that the so-called reformists in Iran have achieved nothing.

The European Commission has defended dialogue with Iran as a means of promoting human rights and democracy.

What conclusions does the Commission draw from recent events as far as dialogue with the Iranian authorities is concerned?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

In its February 2004 conclusions, the Council expressed its deep regret and disappointment that large numbers of candidates were discriminated against in their prevention from standing in the 20 February 2004 parliamentary elections in Iran. The Council expressed the hope that Iran would return to the path of reform and de]mocratisation.

The Commission shares the above sentiment and believes that the flawed elections had a negative impact on the overall climate in the EU's relations with Iran. Further reflection and analysis is needed to calibrate the precise approach towards Iran against the background of this setback in the democratic process. The Commission nevertheless continues to believe that a re-establishment of the Comprehensive Dialogue is in the EU's interest. It notes, inter alia, that the specific Human Rights dialogue launched in December 2002 has yielded some small yet tangible results and believes that — despite its difficulties — it should be given a further opportunity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/259

(2004/C 88 E/0264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0977/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject: Health insurance in the Czech Republic

Is the Commission aware that, in the Czech Republic, there is one large and several smaller health insurance companies? Is it also aware that the large company has experienced financial problems? Is it further aware that the Czech Government has authorised the redistribution of premiums from the smaller companies to the large company, without the approval of the policyholders involved? Does the Commission agree that this would appear to be in the interests neither of competition nor of policyholders, and will it raise this issue with the Czech authorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the organisation of the health insurance system in the Czech Republic. There is currently one general health insurance company, covering the majority of the population, and eight branch health insurance companies which were originally foreseen for employees of particular sectors (banking, mining), but are now open to all. All permanent residents are covered by an obligatory health care insurance managed by these funds.

According to the information available to the Commission, an amendment to the legal acts governing the operation of the health insurance companies is currently being debated in the Czech Parliament, including provisions on the redistribution of collected funds.

The organisation and financing of healthcare and social protection systems is the responsibility of Member States. However, Member States must exercise their responsibilities in this area in accordance with Community law. In order to assess whether a health insurance provider is subject to EU competition rules, it is necessary to assess whether the provider performs an economic activity or manages a social security scheme. It follows from the case law of the European Court of Justice that bodies entrusted with the management of certain compulsory social security schemes are not subject to competition rules.

According to the information available to the Commission, health care in the Czech Republic is paid by obligatory health insurance covering all permanent residents. The insurance providers therefore appear to primarily manage a social security scheme, which is not subject to competition rules. On the basis of the information available, the Commission does not intend at present to raise this issue with the Czech authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/922

(2004/C 78 E/0975)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0058/04

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Funding by the Italian State and the Region of Campania for the programme contract submitted by Agrifuturo S.c.a.r.l.

With reference to the questioner's numerous previous questions on the subject, none of which has received a proper answer, the Commission has now had more than a year to examine the documents concerning the programme agreement with Agrifuturo. It is hard to believe that it has been impossible to decipher these documents after such a long time and, on the basis of this examination, to take some decision which could be communicated to the questioner before the end of the parliamentary term. Can the Commission please give a swift and comprehensive answer regarding the compatibility of the programme with point 4.9 of the 2000-2006 regional operational programme for Campania?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

We have not had the documents on financing of the programme contract with Agrofuturo S.c.a.r.l. for more than a year. The Italian authorities sent them to us through the Permanent Representation under cover of a letter dated 15 May 2003.

On the basis of the information transmitted the Agrofuturo dossier has been transferred to the register of unnotified (illegal) aids.

A new request for information is at present in preparation.

We can assure the Honourable Member that a decision, whatever it turns out to be, will be adopted as soon as possible after the Italian authorities' reply is received.

It should be remembered that under Article 13(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty (1) in cases of possible unlawful State aid the Commission is not bound by the normal two month time limit for examination of the case.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/265

(2004/C 88 E/0270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0994/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Subject: Child protection and future EU programmes aimed at young people

In view of its publication on 9 March 2004 of the two communications on future education and citizenship policies after 2006, ‘The new generation of education and training programmes’ and ‘Making citizenship work’, how will the Commission ensure that the issue of child protection is comprehensively addressed in the legislative programmes on future EU education and citizenship programmes due to be issued later this year?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Honourable Member raises the issue of child protection in the new generation of education, training and citizenship programmes planned by the Commission (1). The Commission is fully aware of the need to ensure maximum protection for young people, while respecting the different areas of competence. It has already taken a number of initiatives in the areas in which it is competent to act. Examples are Council Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work (2), the Recommendation on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity (3) and the multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies by combating illegal and harmful content, primarily in the area of the protection of children and minors (4).

However, child protection remains an essentially national matter and it is up to the Member States to take initiatives in this field.

In its proposals for a new generation of education, training and citizenship programmes, the Commission envisages two types of measures:

— ‘centralised’ activities, managed directly by the Commission;

— ‘decentralised’ activities, for which national agencies appointed by the authorities in the participating countries are responsible.

These ‘decentralised’ activities should account for most of the budget, and it is essentially in this area that activities involving young people, e.g. mobility projects, will be supported.

In the Commission's view it is up to the authorities of the participating countries, in collaboration with the National Agencies, to take the necessary steps to ensure the protection of minors, in line with the legislation in force and with national cultural sensitivities.

In general, the Commission will ensure, in view of the criteria set out in the calls for proposals, that the projects selected are of unquestionable educational value, taking full account of the interests of participants, and in particular of minors.

(1) COM(2004) 154 final and COM(2004) 156 final.

(2) Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.

(3) Council Recommendation 98/560/EC of 24 September 1998, OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(4) OJ L 162, 1.7.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/176

(2004/C 88 E/0185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Latvian passport names

Could the Commission please tell me why it is necessary under Latvian legislation to demand that individuals passport names comply with the dictates of the Latvian language? For example, if a woman marries, her name cannot be changed on her passport to Smith, it must be written Smite as this is the nearest Latvian version.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission has always addressed the issue of ‘latvianisation’ of names in passports in its annual Regular Reports under the heading of the so-called Copenhagen political criteria, i.e. the respect for democracy the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. It is certainly an individual right derived from dignity and liberty of a person that his/her name be respected by the State authorities. Moreover, in the case of spouses, they are able to invoke the obligation of the State to respect family life, as for instance, enshrined in Article 7 of the European Charter of Fundamental rights.

In its 2002 Regular Report (1), the Commission noted the changes made by Latvia, following a ruling of its own Constitutional Court. These changes led to a more visible placement of the original name in the passport. However, the Commission also noted the limitation of these changes, in particular that the latvianised form is kept most prominently on the data page. It therefore concluded that the legislation might still be open to challenge from a human rights point of view. But it is for the Courts and not for the Commission to decide about the legality of the Latvian legislation, unless a formal complaint is submitted to the Commission after accession for non-compliance with certain provisions of EU law.

(1) COM(2002) 700 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/679

(2004/C 88 E/0697)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0085/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Missing NGO legal framework in Malta

Malta, which will become a member of the EU on 1 May next, has no legal framework for the regulation of non-governmental organisations. This is hindering established NGOs, including non-governmental development organisations with an excellent track record, from developing their full capacities. Such a framework would enable them to participate meaningfully in partnerships with other European NGOs.

Should not the Commission put pressure on the Maltese government to set up the necessary legal framework without further delay? This would be a step in the right direction in recognising the expertise and mandate of all established NGOs, including NGDOs working in the international development field, and offering all the necessary support for NGOs and NGDOs to continue and further their global solidarity work.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Community legislation does not oblige Member States to set up a legal framework for Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). This is left to the discretion of Member States. This is, therefore, not an issue where the Commission is entitled to ‘put pressure on the Maltese Government’.

The Commission has, throughout the pre-accession period, and whenever relevant and possible insisted that Community-funded projects include participation from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In the framework of its support for NGOs, the Commission is prepared to consider specific projects related to the implementation of Community legislation and policies in Malta.