ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/846

(2004/C 84 E/0940)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: State aid to credit unions

Can the Commission confirm what are the State aid regulations for small credit unions serving identified local areas?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

State aid to credit unions serving identified local areas is subject to the general State Aid regulatory framework and case law, if the conditions set out in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are fulfilled. As the features of credit unions differ in terms of their membership, activities, products, scale and purpose, it is important to assess the schemes on a case by case basis.

Aid granted to credit unions would have to be examined under the relevant State aid rules, for example Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1) or the Commission Guidelines on national regional aid. It should also be reminded that, according to Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (1), financial support granted to an undertaking up to an amount of EUR 100 000 over a period of three years is not considered to be state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

Where it is found that Credit Unions are deemed to provide a service of general economic interest and receive State aid for the compensation of the net extra costs of such services, an assessment for compatibility would be carried out to assess whether the derogation provided for under Article 86(2) may be applied.

The above is intended to provide an overview of the process that may be applied to credit unions in so far as an examination for State Aid is concerned.

(1) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/208

(2004/C 88 E/0216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0762/04

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

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Commission proposals for follow-up to the financial services action plan

During 2004 the Commission intends to launch a broad consultation exercise on the possible follow-up to its financial services action plan from the end of the 1990s. Is it not astonishing that, when it comes to European economic strategy, the Commission is not first drafting a White Paper, for example, setting out the developments it envisages in terms of policy strategy for Europe before embarking on this consultation exercise?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The wide-ranging consultation exercise that the Commission has launched in respect of financial integration will take stock of progress made as the legislative phase of the Financial Services Action Plan draws to a close. It is intended to assess the contribution made to the policy objectives defined at the outset of the process — namely, the effective operation of European financial markets, investor protection and financial stability. The Commission believes that these fundamental policy objectives are likely to remain the key concepts for evaluating EU policy in this sphere over the long-term.

The work of the Commission in respect of its policy on financial integration forms part of the overarching Lisbon strategy for global competitiveness. It is informed by the ongoing discussions on structural reform in the context of the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines — including the views expressed by the Parliament on the latter. It takes full account of additional long-term policy reflections such as the report of the independent high level group on ‘an agenda for a growing Europe’ (Sapir report). Therefore, the Commission believes that its efforts in this field form an integral part of a broader and well-orchestrated economic strategy.

The consultation process on financial integration will provide ‘bottom-up’ feedback on an important area of structural reform policy. This will allow the EU institutions to fine-tune further work in this area and maximise the contribution to overarching economic policy objectives. Any policy orientations to be drawn from this stock-taking process will also be the subject of open debate and consultation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/435

(2004/C 84 E/0506)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/04

by Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject: Marking down foodstuffs for quick sale

Foodstuffs whose sell-by date is approaching are sold off cheaply by a number of stores. The Belgian consumer association Test-Achat bought 31 highly perishable items such as mince and chicken salad that were being marked down for a quick sale. Tests showed that seven of the samples were unfit for human consumption.

Does the Commission intend to introduce a ban on the marking down of highly perishable foodstuffs for quick sales?

If so, when will it be able to provide more information about this?

If not, why not?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/175

(2004/C 84 E/0215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/04

by Ioannis Marinos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: The ‘Bob Programme’ and road accidents

According to the Community's Financial Report for 2002, the foreword to which was written by the Commissioner responsible for the budget, Michaele Schreyer, 40 000 people died and 1,7 million were injured in road accidents in the European Union in the year 2000 (pages 57 and 58 of the document). The Commission supports the ‘Bob Programme’, the aim of which is to encourage car users to designate a person among their group who will not consume alcoholic drinks during their outing so as to be able to drive the others back safely after the event. On page 58 of the document it is stated that the ‘Bob programme’ was first implemented in Belgium in 1995, to be copied subsequently by other Member States adopting different names (e.g. ‘Lince’ in Spain, ‘Joker’ in Portugal etc.), while in Greece and the Netherlands the programme was introduced under the name of ‘Bob’.

What data does the Commission have on the results of implementing the programme in Greece? Has there been a decrease, and by what percentage, in road accidents in Greece, the country with the most fatal accidents in proportion to its population in the whole of the Union? What funding did the Greek authorities receive to implement the programme and how was that funding used?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Between 2001 and 2003, the Commission supported ‘designated driver’ road-safety campaigns in Greece and several other Member States, encouraging people not to drink and drive.

The maximum grants allocated to Greece were EUR 174 000, EUR 163 000 and EUR 72 000 respectively, which is between 22 % and 7 % of total grants.

This funding was used to adapt the Belgian ‘BOB’ campaign to Greek culture. Specifically, this involved producing posters, TV and radio spots, advertising inserts in the press, and an educational video, developing a website, and, in collaboration with driving schools, organising a training course for young drivers.

One of the objectives of the Greek campaign was to reduce the number of alcohol-related road accidents by 15 % in three years. The provisional statistics for 2003 show that the total number of fatalities fell by 22 percentage points between 2000 and 2003.

On 27 May 2003, the Commission held a public seminar in Brussels to assess the effectiveness of these campaigns with all the organisers. Information on the presentations that were made, including the presentation of the Greek campaign, can be found on the website for the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport (1).

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/road/roadsafety/behaviour/alcohol/conf_designated_drivers_en.htm
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/248

(2004/C 88 E/0252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0920/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Treatment of waste oils in Ireland

What reply, if any, did the Commission receive from Ireland in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland in July 2001 (as announced in press release IP/01/1144) regarding Ireland's failure to give priority to the regeneration of waste oils over their disposal in accordance with the Waste Oils Directive 75/439/EEC (1)? What subsequent action did the Commission take, or is still considering taking, with regard to this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Reasoned Opinion to which the Honourable Member refers related to Ireland's implementation of a provision of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 July 1975 that requires Member States to give priority to the regeneration of waste oils over their disposal. The Commission took similar action against several other Member States. On 14 November 2001, the Irish authorities responded, explaining that the amount of waste oil arising in Ireland made waste oil regeneration uneconomic. On 25 April 2002, they provided copies of two studies which they contended supported this conclusion. An examination of the studies disclosed wider problems of compliance with the Directive, in particular a high level of unrecorded disposal of waste oils in Ireland. In order to address the wider issues, the Commission notified an additional Letter of Formal Notice on 11 July 2003, to which Ireland responded on 27 November 2003. The Commission will make a further decision on the matter later in 2004.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3883/98

by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Council

(4 January 1999)

Subject: European Civilian Service

Most Member States of the Union acknowledge civilian service, but some, like Greece, do not. Accordingly, in the latter instance, people who refuse to undertake military service on religious or conscientious grounds are persecuted by national authorities.

On 22 September 1995, the European Parliament adopted a resolution (B4-1127/95)(1) on the establishment of a European Civilian Service in which it called on the Commission to submit a proposal for the establishment of a European Civilian Service.

Does the Council intend:

- as part of the process for the harmonisation of the legal system in the European Union, to put in hand an approximation of the relevant laws of the various Member States, and

- does it intend, in connection with the mobility of the inhabitants of the European Union, to devise a system which would permit the establishment of a genuine European Civilian Service or enable individuals to serve in a Civilian Service in a Member State of the Union other their own?

Reply

(9 March 1999)

The Honourable Member suggests devising a system that would permit the establishment of a European Civilian Service; however, the Treaties do not give the European Union any powers to harmonise Member States' legal systems in this regard.

(1) OJ C 269, 16.10.1995, p. 232.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3457/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: EU aid to the nuclear sector in the CIS and CEEC

In its communication to the Council and the European Parliament on nuclear sector related activities for the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States (COM(98) 134), the Commission provides a 25 page overview of its activities to date and of its objectives. However, nowhere in this document does the Commission provide references to the scientific sources on which it is based.

1. Has the Commission commissioned any studies in past years with regard to nuclear safety in the CIS and CEEC or any studies which seek to shed light on the success/failure of EU aid in this sector and on any obstacles encountered? If so, can the Commission answer the following questions:

2. How many studies have been commissioned and what are their titles?

3. Who received the contracts to carry out the studies and at what cost?

4. When will the Commission submit these documents to the European Parliament and where can they be consulted by third parties?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1998)

Over the last years, the Commission has concluded a number of study contracts with European companies on safety issues, in particular in the framework of the Phare and Tacis programmes. There have also been several contracts which were more particularly related to the evaluation of the Community programmes.

In 1996, the Commission requested three independent nuclear safety experts to perform an "assessment of the current status of Eastern nuclear power plants and some proposals for the future policy directions of the Community action in support of safety improvement". The Tacis interim evaluation, published by the Commission in 1997 sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament, includes an assessment of the nuclear safety programme. More recently, an independent panel of high level experts, headed by a former director general of the Joint research centre, prepared a report entitled "Nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe and in the New Independent States, a strategic view for the future of the European Union's Phare and Tacis programmes"(1). This gives a comprehensive view of the programme and proposals for the future. It does not necessarily reflect in all cases the Commission's point of view. The report has been forwarded to the Parliament.

Reference is also made to the communication(2) on nuclear activities in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and in the New Independent States forwarded by the Commission to the Parliament. This communication contains more detailed information on the Commission's activities.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg1a/nss/index.htm.

(2) COM(98) 134.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Delays on the part of the Italian Government in setting up a guarantee fund for SMEs

The Ecofin Council has approved the allocation of EUR 420 million to various measures aimed at SMEs, including a loan-guarantee fund requiring a financial contribution from the Member States.

The Italian Minister for Industry has initiated a yet to be concluded legislative procedure for the adoption of a decree establishing a national guarantee fund to match the European fund. The Italian fund should have been available by mid-September, but the decree is not expected to be issued in the near future.

Owing to the failure to issue the necessary decree, Italian SMEs are once again unable to take advantage of European aid, which will instead go to Member States quicker to react in introducing the instruments required to be able to benefit from the opportunities provided by the Community. The delays on the part of the Italian Government thus penalise only the potential beneficiaries of Community aid - in this case SMEs.

How does the Commission intend to protect the interests of SMEs placed at a disadvantage by their government's failure to take the necessary legislative action in good time?

What action does it intend to take vis-à-vis those governments which fail to adopt appropriate measures, thus penalising businesses in their own countries?

Answer by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1998)

In adopting Decision 98/343/EC of 19 May 1998 on measures of financial assistance for innovative and job-creating small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)(1), the Council approved funding of ECU 420 million to finance three facilities: a risk-capital scheme, a support scheme for the creation of trans-national joint ventures and a guarantee scheme. A sum of ECU 150-190 million was set aside for the guarantee scheme. The Commmission subsequently signed an agreement with the European Investment Fund (EIF) for the implementation of the first and third schemes.

On 1 October 1998 the Commission published(2) the implementing measures and selection criteria of Member State guarantee systems in the public and private sectors, including mutual guarantee arrangements. Intermediaries will be able to submit proposals on the basis of this publication. The EIF will consult with the authorities in each Member State, including Italy, before finalising its selection of intermediaries.

(1) OJ L 155, 29.5.1998.

(2) OJ C 302, 1.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2920/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Statements made by Louis Michel against the Italian Prime Minister

Is the Commission aware of the statements made by Louis Michel, the Belgian Foreign Minister, (broadcast on the RTL-TV1 channel and reported by the Wall Street Journal Europe on 9 October 2001), in which he gave marks to the main world leaders?

Does the Commission know that Mr Michel, incredibly, gave the same valuation for the Italian Prime Minister as for the Taleban regime and is it aware of the repeated attacks made by Mr Michel, the President-in-Office of the EU, against the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi?

What steps will the Commission take with regard to Mr Michel, who is arbitrarily and wrongfully exploiting his official position to attack the leader of the government of one of the founding countries of the European Union, making statements which deeply offend not only the Prime Minister, but also the Italian State and its citizens?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

It is Commission policy not to comment on public statements by politicians in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1839/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Harmful effects of animal fat consumption

The EU is moving towards abolishing aid to tobacco growing in an attempt to restrict smoking, which is actually seriously harmful to health.

Given scientific proof that certain food products, principally animals fats, are also seriously harmful to health, will the Commission say:

1. Whether it considers it acceptable that no measures are taken to restrict the consumption of animal fats when they are responsible for heart disease, a range of other serious diseases and a large number of victims, and

2. Whether it intends to propose measures to reduce the production and consumption of animal fats (butter) in line with the measures proposed for tobacco growing?

3. Does it intend to redirect aid towards olive growing and the consumption of olive oil, which demonstrably have positive effects on health, and to reduce support for the production of animal fats accordingly?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of the fact that a high intake of saturated fatty acids is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, whereas a lower intake of saturated and a higher intake of monounsaturated fatty acids is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease.

However, the comparison between the health effects of tobacco smoking and the consumption of animal fat is not justified. For tobacco consumption and lung cancer for example, there is an established dose-response relationship (with smoking responsible for around 80 % of all deaths from lung cancer), whereas the relation between animal fat and coronary heart disease is far more complex. This is not to say that an excessive intake of fat should not be addressed in health education campaigns, and the activities of the Commission in the framework of its health promotion programme do underline the importance of a balanced and varied diet.

Regarding olive oil, the Commission does not envisage a reorientation of aid towards olive growing, given the fact that there already exist numerous measures in favour of the consumption and promotion of olive oil, either within the Community market or in third country markets. While emphasising the particular nutritional characteristics of the product, all promotion campaigns for olive oil are run without devaluating other products which could be considered as competitors on the consumer markets.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3417/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)and Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Impact on the Natura 2000 network of extending San Sebastián airport

In its answer to Question E-1701/02(1) the Commission said it would be investigating the possible adverse effects of work for the extension of San Sebastián airport on the Natura 2000 network, specifically on Site of Community Importance SCI ES-2120015 (Terrazas y Marismas del Bidasoa) and Important Bird Area IBA 37 (Estuario del Bidasoa Txingudi).

Bearing in mind that four months have gone by since the criticism was made, can the Commission say if it has had a reply from the Spanish authorities, and if so, what it contains?

Could the Commission give details of the current state of processing of Complaint 2002/4893, SG(2002), A/7230/2 submitted by the Coordinadora Contra la Ampliación del Aeropuerto?

What further action will the Commission be taking to safeguard protection of the above IBA and SCI?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 213.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

In response to the Honourable Member's written question, the Commission has approached the Spanish authorities with a view to obtaining information on the reported project.

In their reply, the Spanish authorities stated that so far neither the Ministry of Public Works nor the airport authorities had submitted a plan to extend the airport.

At the same time, however, they made it clear that, were such a plan to be submitted, it would be the subject of an impact assessment study to be forwarded to the Commission.

Meanwhile, on 26 September 2002, the Commission received a complaint concerning the master plan for the extension of San Sebastián airport (Complaint 2002/4893, as indicated by the Honourable Member).

In the course of examining this new complaint, the Commission recently made fresh representations to the Spanish authorities in order to check that the plan has been subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives, as required in accordance with the obligations laid down in Article 6 (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

The Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary action to ensure that Community legislation is respected in the case in point.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2660/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Council

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett and Reza Pankhurst held captive in Egypt

Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett and Reza Pankhurst are three young British Muslim men who have been detained in Egypt for five months. There have been concerns raised about their treatment, including allegations of torture and breaches of the Geneva Convention. The British Government has issued a formal complaint to the Egyptian Government concerning their treatment.

What action is the Council taking to support the UK Government in this case and end the abuses of these men's human rights?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

The British Government did not request the Council's assistance on this matter. Should such a request be made, it will be examined in a manner that takes due account of the spirit of cooperation, consular and otherwise, between the Member States in respect of EU citizens.

The human rights situation in Egypt is in general closely monitored by the Council. An Association Agreement making respect for human rights an essential element of Egyptian and EU internal and external policy was signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2001. It also establishes a regular political dialogue which will enable cooperation between the EU and the Egyptian authorities to be further strengthened, notably in the field of human rights. However, that Agreement must be ratified by all the EU Member States before it can enter into force. This has not taken place so far.