ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/166

(2004/C 33 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1759/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject: Corruption in public administration

According to recent reports in the Greek press (Ta Nea of 10 May 2003 and others), driving tests to obtain licences for cars, motorcycles and heavy goods vehicles in Greece are unreliable. The same newspapers also quote the amounts of money that some civil servants receive for issuing licences to candidates regardless of the results of the driving test and, in some cases, without testing the candidate's ability to drive. Despite the fact that there have been two fatal accidents within the space of a month at Tembi and Aliakmon, claiming a total of almost 40 lives, the Greek media produce reports every day showing that Greek roads are full of dangerous and badly loaded lorries, HGVs breaking the speed limit and dilapidated school buses.

What are the Commission's views on road safety standards in Greece? What view does it take of Greek driving licences given that they are considered valid in all the Member States and are issued in the Community (pink) format? Should they not indicate the driver's blood group? Has the Commission drawn up its own study or does it have recent data concerning the level of corruption in the civil services of the 15 Member States of the EU and, if so, what are those data?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

The Commission deplores the two serious accidents which occurred recently in Greece. While it is true that Greece has made little progress with road safety over the last decade compared with the other Member States, the figures for the last two years do nonetheless appear to show a sizeable fall in the number of persons killed each year.

Greece has correctly transposed in to national law Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1). Infringement proceedings instituted by the Commission for non-conformity were terminated when Greece amended its legislation satisfactorily.

The Commission has not been informed of manifest fraud concerning driving tests. Accordingly, it has produced no studies and has no precise figures. However, the matter has occasionally been raised in expert groups, which is how the Commission has learned of isolated cases of fraud in the Member States, which are themselves responsible for stamping it out. Nonetheless, if concrete evidence of manifest and repeated fraud were brought to its attention, the Commission could envisage applying measures available to it under the Treaties to deal with improper enforcement of the Directive. In any event, it will contact the Greek authorities to obtain the requisite information.

There is currently no provision in Directive 91/439/EEC for driving licences to indicate the holder's blood group. Member States may provide at national level for such information to be entered, but only with the express and written agreement of the licence holder, in line with the obligation to protect personal data.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/230

(2004/C 33 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Trade in services

1. Will the Commission estimate the potential trade that could be done in services between the Member States and the impact that would have on growth of output and employment?

2. Will the Commission particularly take into account any evidence of service trade in more integrated areas such as Canada and the United States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission will estimate the potential for intra-Union trade in services and its impact on growth of output and employment. In preparation of its legislative response concerning the Internal Market for services, the Commission is currently drafting an impact assessment which will seek to explain the potential increase in cross-border service activities that could result from the elimination of existing Internal Market barriers.

However, given the fact that statistics in this area suffer from severe measurement problems and that there do not currently exist recognised macro-economic forecasting models for service activities, the Commission would find it difficult to provide a detailed quantitative forecast of potential intra-Union trade and investment in services and their impact on output and employment. The measurement and modelling complexity is further heightened by the fact that much trade in services is hidden in statistics on trade in goods. It should also be noted that much internationalisation of services is based on foreign direct investment so an exclusive focus on services trade could underestimate the true potential of a properly functioning Internal Market for services.

The Commission will make best efforts in its impact assessment, on the basis of existing statistics and information provided by stakeholders, to explain in more qualitative terms and on the basis of a micro-economic approach the potential impacts that could arise in the form of cost savings, growth in intra-Union services activities and growth in Union output and employment.

In his second question, the Honourable Member queries whether the Commission will take account of developments in services trade in more integrated areas such as Canada and the United States. The Commission will, subject to the statistical limitations explained above, compare the performance of Union service markets with those in North America in its impact assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/269

(2004/C 33 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2534/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Problem of ‘cross-border pupils’

For some time Netherlands municipalities in areas on the border with Germany have had to deal with the problem of children from Dutch families who live over the border in Germany and undergo primary education in the Netherlands and vice versa. At the De Biezenkamp primary school in Beek (Ubbergen), for example, the number of pupils involved is 33 out of a total of 800. In the municipality of Losser the figure is 35 pupils and in Groesbeek 19. The municipality of Maastricht has 200 pupils from Belgium.

The municipality receives no state funding for these ‘cross-border pupils’ because the resources for primary school infrastructure are allocated on the basis of the number of children aged 0 — 19 resident in the municipality.

Very recently, on 2 June 2003, the findings of a study concerning Netherlands nationals who move to live in Germany were published — that study had been commissioned by, amongst others, the provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel and Euregio. At present, some 18 500 Netherlands citizens live in areas close to the border in Germany. Over the period from 2003 to 2007, that figure is expected to increase by between 20 000 and 40 000.

Should that increase find a direct correlation in the pupils attending, for example, De Biezenkamp primary school, then the number of ‘cross-border pupils’ is set to increase by between 30 and 60 over the period to 2007 — one more reason to resolve the problem of the related infrastructure costs.

To my mind, border regions are test cases for the new Europe. It is in precisely these regions that the benefits of European integration can be enjoyed by means of cooperation in the education sphere.

Does the Commission feel that measures should be taken to compensate municipalities for the extra costs?

Does the Commission see ways of encouraging the Member States to take such measures and, more generally, to facilitate longer-term cooperation in border regions?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2003)

The Commission acknowledges the concern expressed by the Honourable Member about infrastructure costs related to pupils resident in the border region of one country attending school in a neighbouring country. The promotion of pupil and student mobility is at the heart of Community policy in the field of education.

The organisation and financing of national education systems is, however, not an area of Community competence. Article 149 of the EC Treaty clearly states that: The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States […] while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems'. The Commission is therefore not competent to address the issue of costs arising from such ‘cross-border pupils’.
3.

What amounts were made available by way of co-financing either with the Land of Niedersachsen or with the Federal Republic of Germany?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/35

(2004/C 33 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0169/03

by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Lack of democratisation in GATS negotiations

In 2000, a new round of negotiations on the liberalisation of trade in services (General Agreement on Trade in Services) began. At the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha in 2001, clear deadlines were set for initial requests for market access in other countries, and for the submission of offers to other countries. In early July 2002, the EU submitted its initial requests for improved market access in services sectors to 109 members of the WTO, and itself received numerous requests from third countries seeking further access to the EU services market. Initial offers of service sector liberalisation by individual countries are due to be published in late March 2003.

There has been widespread criticism that the negotiations, which are now at a decisive stage, continue to be insufficiently democratic. It is claimed that the negotiations are not conducted transparently or monitored democratically. Neither national parliaments nor the European Parliament are in any position to monitor the conduct of negotiations, let alone bring their influence to bear on them.

What action does the Commission intend to take to improve the democratic credentials of the GATS negotiations and give the negotiations greater transparency?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/260

(2004/C 33 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2393/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: The Commission's White Paper ‘A New Impetus for European Youth’

Hostels in the Bavarian region of Germany currently impose age limits of 26 years old on visitors in order for the hostel to be eligible for tax exemption. How will this White Paper affect the current age limit stipulated by the Bavarian region of Germany? Is it legal for them to impose age limits in the first place? It is currently the only region in Germany to allow age limits in hostels.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2003)

The White Paper on youth (1), ‘A New Impetus for European Youth’ aims at suggesting a new framework for cooperation in youth policy. This new framework, which includes the open method of cooperation, was endorsed by the Council in its Resolution of 27 June 2002 (2) and applies to the four thematic political priorities: participation, information, a greater understanding of youth and voluntary activities.

The White Paper is therefore a first step towards an enhanced cooperation in the youth field and can only deal with a certain number of thematic priorities identified by young people, thereby fully respecting the Member States' subsidiarity in this field. The White Paper aims at giving major political orientations on youth in Europe and does thus not tackle tax questions.

(1) COM(2001) 681 final.

(2) Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, Meeting within the Council of 27 June 2002 regarding the framework of European cooperation in the youth field (OJ C 168, 13.7.2002, p. 2).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/181

(2004/C 33 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1861/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Minotauro project

The Spanish ‘Minotauro’ project, which includes bull running and may possibly include bullfighting, has been proposed for financing under the Interreg IIIC South programme. Interreg IIIC is designed to strengthen the economic and social cohesion of the European Union by promoting cooperation between regions and communities in fields regarded as of common interest, whether or not the regions concerned border on one another.

Interreg EIC projects always receive national co-financing.

The national and regional authorities, as members of the steering committee, have powers to examine, evaluate and select projects.

Does the Commission have evidence suggesting that the Minotauro project might be in contravention of the Nice Treaty?

Does the Commission regard the use of animals for entertainment under the guise of cultural exchange as appropriate in this day and age?

What cities/regions are participating in the Minotauro project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Community Initiative Interreg EIC seeks to promote interregional cooperation between regional and local authorities across the whole of the EU territory. It is financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and part-financed by the national partners in each project.

An application for Community part-financing under Interreg EIC was submitted for the Minotauro project under a call for proposals, the closing date of which was 10 January 2003 and in respect of which the selection process has not yet been completed. It was presented under the Interreg EIC South programme and its lead agency is located in Spain. It involves nine partners, from four Member States (Greece, Spain, France and Portugal). The partners are local authorities (mayor's offices in Cuéllar, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Moura, Beziers, Ciudad Rodrigo, Segorbe, Ampuero, Soria and Lychnostatis).

According to information available to the Commission, the intention of the promoters of the Minotauro project is not to finance bullfighting activities directly but rather to network their towns from a cultural point of view. Moreover, no mention is made in the application file submitted of bullfighting activities.

Matters concerned with the priority to be given to concrete projects or the advisability of such projects have to be considered by the entities which, under Community law and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, are responsible for examining, assessing and selecting projects to be financed by the Structural Funds, i.e. programming committees made up of representatives from the Member States, the regions and other relevant bodies.

Moreover, the rules governing bullfighting and related activities fall within the competence of the Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/205

(2004/C 65 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2738/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Transit visas in the EU

Is the Commission aware that some Member States are adopting a new practice and requiring travellers to purchase a Transit Visa costing GBP 40 for ‘not landing’? Could the Commission indicate whether it believes that (a) this charge is wholly unjust and (b) it threatens to distort the travelling patterns of travellers as they move through the EU and try to avoid those Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the facts referred to by the Honorable Member. Since it does not have the information to carry out the necessary investigation into the problem raised, it regrets that it is at present unable to answer the question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/97

(2004/C 65 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1874/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Prospectus approval

Will the Commission estimate the current time period from submission to approval of a prospectus typically necessary both for debt and for equity prospectuses in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The Commission has not sought to estimate the current time period from submission to approval of a prospectus typically necessary for debt and for equity prospectuses in each Member State. The Commission position does not consider that such average figure, even at Member State level, would lead to any useful conclusions.

Such figures would not be comparable, because the approval process is different in each Member State (In practice, scrutiny practices will range from a simple verification that a document has been sent to the competent authority, without reading the document, to an extensive verification of the clearness, objectivity, accuracy and consistency of the prospectus on all items of information, including the financial statements). These differences arise most notably from differences in the level of civil and regulatory liability between Member States.

At national level, the time period necessary for scrutiny in order to obtain an approval will also differ on a case by case basis depending notably on the quality of the submitted draft document, on its size, on its content, on the ability of the issuer to draft such a document, on its knowledge of the necessary procedure, on the existence of a previously approved prospectus, on the type of offers (for example Initial Primary Offer or frequent issue), on the resources of the competent authority, etc.

Therefore, the Commission did not propose legislation with a one-size-fits-all approach. The Commission has favoured different maximum time limits for this scrutiny and approval process. It intends to prevent competent authorities from imposing excessive delays on issuers but it should also allow competent authorities enough time in all possible circumstances to correctly perform their tasks.

The Commission has checked the different maximum time limits for a prospectus approval before the adoption of its amended proposal and has taken into consideration the various maximum time limits existing in several Member States. The Commission has also taken into account the fact that the envisaged maximum time limits were shorter compared to the existing ones in the United States which is the world biggest capital market. The proposed time limits are also shorter compared to the existing ones in Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and the United Kingdom. However, the maximum time limits are more currently stringent in Germany, the Netherlands and Finland. In some Member States (notably Denmark, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden), the law does not provide for a defined maximum time limit.
2.

No Czech State aid measure with regard to banking was included in the list attached to the Accession Treaty. The inclusion of aid measures granted by the Czech authorities to the existing aid list consists of two phases: The first phase consisted of the establishment of a list of aid measures to be attached to the Accession Treaty. A few banking measures had been notified for this list, however they did not qualify and were therefore not included. The second phase covers measures submitted to the Commission between 1 January 2003 and the actual date of accession (the so-called ‘interim procedure’). This procedure covers aid measures which, prior to the date of accession, have been assessed by the State aid monitoring authority of the new Member State and found to be compatible with the acquis, and to which the Commission does not raise an objection on the ground of serious doubts as to the compatibility of the measure with the common market. Several aid measures to banking are currently under scrutiny of the Czech competition authorities (OPEC). Once the OPEC will have assessed the measures, and if it raises no objections, the Czech authorities may notify the granted aid to the Commission for inclusion in the existing aid list. The Commission will consequently assess the aid, and only if the Commission does not object to it on the grounds of serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market, it will be regarded as existing aid. The existing aid list exercise should be distinguished from the State Aid Scoreboard. The State Aid Scoreboard is not intended as an assessment of compatibility with the acquis, but an information tool.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/210

(2004/C 33 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2079/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject: French swimming pools reserved for Muslim women — is this discrimination?

According to press reports (see ‘Le Figaro’, 11 June 2003), some French public swimming pools have created segregated areas for men and women in an attempt to win favour with the local Muslim communities.

Does the Commission not believe that this sets a disturbing precedent and represents a surrender by public bodies to the most extreme demands of Islamic fundamentalism?

Does the Commission not consider this forced segregation to be in clear breach of the principles of gender equality and equal treatment, as well as being contrary to the general principles of Community law?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Honourable Member is referring to recent press reports according to which French public swimming pools ‘have created segregated areas for women and men in an attempt to win favour with the local Muslim communities’.

The Commission considers that such measures facilitate the daily life of both Muslim and non-Muslim women who prefer to use the facilities on a single-sex basis. Indeed, a number of French swimming pools have reserved specific times of the day when women and men can use, if they wish, the facilities separately from each other.

The Commission does not believe that this measure may be qualified as ‘a surrender by public bodies to the most extreme demands of Islamic fundamentalism’ given that women and men are free to use the swimming pools at any other time of the day as well. The Commission neither considers this measure as a breach of the principles of gender equality and equal treatment but rather as a means for ensuring the respect of both the personal preferences of certain people and the religious habits of some members of the Muslim communities.