ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/252

(2004/C 70 E/272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3307/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Free-standing ovens

Will the Commission state whether there is any EU legislation that prevents the retail and manufacture of free-standing ovens (with a shoulder height oven/grill compartment) on the grounds of safety?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Electrical equipment (e.g. electrical ovens) placed on the European market has to fulfil the essential health and safety requirements of Council Directive 73/23/EEC (1).

Article 2 of this Directive states that Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that electrical equipment may be placed on the market only if it:

— is constructed in accordance with good engineering practice in safety matters in force in the Community;

— does not endanger the safety of persons, domestic animals or property when properly installed and maintained and used in applications for which it was made.

The principal elements of the safety objectives are listed in annex I to the Directive.

In order to fulfil the obligations of the Directive a manufacturer of electrical ovens may, on a voluntary basis, apply European harmonised standards under the Directive. Having applied a harmonised standard, a manufacturer can be assured that the product fulfils the requirements of the Directive covered by such a standard.

Member States are obliged to take measures against the placing on the market of any unsafe and non-compliant product. Member States have to inform other Member States and the Commission, indicating the grounds for such a decision.

(1) Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limit, OJ L 77, 26.3.1973 amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/171

(2004/C 70 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3004/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Commission communication on immigration, integration and employment — franchise for immigrants

Communication COM(2003) 336 repeatedly calls for immigrants in Europe to be granted ‘political rights’. ‘From the point of view of integration, it is obvious that local franchise should derive from permanent residence, rather than from nationality. The Commission believes that granting long-term resident immigrants political rights is important for the integration process and that the Treaty should provide the basis for so doing’ (p. 24).

The issue of whether or not to grant immigrants the right to vote is a very controversial one for which there is virtually no democratic support in most Member States: public opinion is set against such a move.

Does the Commission take the view that the democratic legitimacy of the European Union would be strengthened by using the Treaty to impose the right to vote for immigrants in countries where there is strong public opposition to such a move?

In practical terms, what does the Commission understand by ‘political rights’: only local franchise, or franchise at other levels (district, provincial, national, European) as well?

As things stand, how does the Commission assess the likelihood that the Treaty will provide a legal basis for granting immigrants the right to vote?

What is the basis for the suggestion that granting immigrants the right to vote will foster integration? In fact, the reverse is likely to be true if certain rights (right to vote, nationality) are granted automatically, or quasi-automatically, to the individuals concerned with no reciprocal concessions required. A practical incentive to integrate will disappear if the willingness to integrate no longer has any bearing on the award of such rights.
—

at midnight on 21 August 2003, some 30 soldiers and 10 policemen surrounded the house of Y-Pho Eban in the village of Buon Cuoi and arrested and imprisoned him for having allegedly fed Montagnard refugees who were hiding in the area;
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/71

(2004/C 70 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2000/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) and Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(16 June 2003)

Subject: Radioactive discharges from Sellafield

The ‘Fisheries Section Committee’ of the International Transport Federation (ITF) has called on North Sea states to demand that the UK stop radioactive discharges from Sellafield. Several national transport unions have adopted this request. The problem is not limited to the UK; Cogéma in La Hague causes widespread radioactive pollution of the local environment.

One of the isotopes that concerns the ITF the most is Technetium-99 (Tc99). This isotope is discharged into the Irish Sea, although it is technically possible for it to be filtered out and collected before the waste water is discharged in to the sea.

1. Is the Council aware of the threat to the maritime environment connected with the discharge of radioactive waste from plants such as Sellafield and, in particular, to fish and shellfish and the consumers thereof.

2. Is the Council aware of the impact on fishermen and other crew on board vessels which frequently fish these areas close to the pollution source (Sellafield and La Hague)?

3. What is the Council's view of the ITF proposal that the Technetium-99 should be filtered out of the waste water from Sellafield and La Hague?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

The Council is in a general way concerned about nuclear safety and radiation protection.

As the Honourable Member will know, Sellafield is supposed to operate in accordance with Community law, in particular:

— Articles 33, 35 and 37 of the Euratom Treaty;

— Commission Recommendation 1999/829/Euratom of 6 December 1999 on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty;

— Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiations, which provides the basic obligations to be complied with;

— Euratom Regulation 3227/76 concerning the application of the provisions on Euratom safeguards, which requires inter alia that regular reports are sent to the Commission on the activities of a nuclear site.

It is for the Commission to ensure proper application of this legislation, including inspections on the site. The Community, as a contracting party to the Ospar Convention, has endorsed the Ospar Strategy with regard to radioactive substances, the objective of which is the prevention of pollution of the maritime area from ionizing radiation. Furthermore, the Community's Sixth Environmental Action Programme provides for the development of a thematic strategy for the protection and the preservation of the marine environment.

Regarding in particular nuclear waste, a Commission proposal for a Directive on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste is being discussed in the Council bodies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/198

(2004/C 70 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3019/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Community funding and maintaining jobs

Soflusa is a river transport company operating between Lisbon and Barreiro/Moita, and is proceeding to modernise its fleet with an eligible global investment of Euro 9 819 608, for which joint funding of 50 % from the ERDF was scheduled, and partially paid in 2002.

In the project submitted with the purpose of obtaining the funding, the undertakings given by Soflusa included maintaining their 254 existing jobs and creating a further 50.

Now, according to a statement issued by the company's workers' trade unions, Soflusa's administration has stated that this undertaking to maintain the jobs and create new ones is not going to be met, claiming in the media that this undertaking was an oversight, and thus rubbishing the social undertakings given in order to obtain Community funds, which is simply inadmissible.

What measures is the Commission going to take to ensure that Soflusa's administration meets its social commitments, and specifically those concerning job creation, which were taken as read when the Community funding was awarded?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the President of the Commission is already aware of the problem, following a letter dated 6 October 2003 from the employees' trade union representatives. As mentioned in the reply to the trade unions, the Commission requested further information from the national authorities on 3 November 2003.

In addition, the Commission can confirm that no European Social Fund assistance was granted to the firm Soflusa.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/222

(2004/C 70 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3118/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Relaxing restrictions on paraquat

The international food and farming union, IUF, is concerned about the relaxing of current restrictions on the toxic herbicide paraquat. It is estimated that paraquat, for which there is no known antidote, accounts for a substantial number of the 40 000 global pesticide-related deaths every year. Relaxing restrictions on paraquat would encourage greater use of this toxic substance and would make it available on the market in the EU where it is currently banned. It would also undermine efforts to establish higher standards of health and safety in agriculture and to encourage agricultural production methods which are socially and environmentally sustainable.

What was the outcome of the meeting of the EU's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health at the beginning of October regarding the use of paraquat? Can the Commission provide official clarification regarding its views on the substance paraquat?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3093/03 by Mr Ettl (1).

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 266.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/736

(2004/C 84 E/0829)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3470/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: Health risk reports relating to Tetrapol use

Could the Commission inform us whether there have been reports in any European countries of health risks and illnesses as the result of the use of Tetrapol in relation to the use of handsets and/or from people working or living near the masts?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3464/03 and E-3470/03

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

GSM, TETRA, Tetrapol (and UMTS) technologies are used by networks providing mobile communications services.

Tetrapol is a technology, which competes in the market for private mobile communications services, for instance with the TETRA technology. Information on the roll-out of Tetrapol is published on the Tetrapol Forum website. Information on the networks in Europe is found under: (http://www.tetrapol.com/www/corp/references.php?id_zone=4&id_industrie=0&x= 10&y=13).

The Commission is not aware of any reports of health risks and illnesses relating to the use of Tetrapol handsets and/or from people working or living near the Tetrapol masts. The existing regulatory framework in the Union and in Member States, such as applied for GSM and TETRA masts and handsets, is technology neutral and also appropriate for the Tetrapol technology. It provides for a high protection of health for our citizens. The Honourable Member is further referred to the response of the Commission to the large number of questions on this matter, recently to written questions E-3076/03 by Mr Meijer (1), E-3042/02 by Mr Miller (2) and H-0594/03 by Mr Papayannakis during question time at Parliament's October 2003 session (3).

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 211.

(2) See page 499.

(3) Written reply, 21.10.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/174

(2004/C 78 E/0179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Revision of the Directive on driving licences — eyesight requirements

A revision of the Directive on driving licences is included in the Commission's Work Programme for 2003.

Will uniform rules on eyesight requirements be introduced as part of this revision?

Will it be possible for the visually impaired to use bioptics so that they too can meet the eyesight requirements?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The Commission does not intend to propose any amendments in relation to eyesight requirements and would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E-1231/03 (1), E-2568/03 (2) and E-2569/03 (3) by Mr Christopher Huhne.

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 52.

(2) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 181.

(3) See page 129.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/725

(2004/C 84 E/0815)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1509/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject: Sacking of Iraq's cultural and artistic heritage — the role of the European Union

The sacking of the National Archaeological Museum in Baghdad and other museum buildings in Iraq as well as the devastation of the country's libraries and historical archives by vandals, but also and above all by professional thieves clearly in the pay of Western antique dealers, began in Baghdad on the night of 10 April 2003 and after a pause started again on a vast scale in other cities and at archaeological sites in Iraq between 14/15 April 2003.

As is reported in the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph (20 April 2003), many of the artefacts taken (around 179 thousand in Baghdad alone) are already being offered for sale on various Internet sites. This is a terrible tragedy for the whole of mankind and one compared by the leading US archaeologist Paul Zimansky to the fire that destroyed the library in Alexandria.

1. Will the Commission condemn these events as a flagrant violation, by the coalition forces on the ground in Iraq, of the Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and of the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property?

2. What concrete support will the Commission provide to the call issued on 17 April 2003 by Dr Koïchiro Matsuura, the Director-General of Unesco, to the international community, the UN Security Council and the governments of the states bordering Iraq for all states to adopt the requisite ‘emergency legal and administrative measures’ to prevent the importation, trafficking or passage through their territory of any cultural, archaeological or bibliographical object from Iraq, and to enforce the confiscation and restitution of stolen artefacts to Iraq, not least through criminal penalties under the laws of individual countries?

3. Will the Commission ask the EU Member States to prohibit the legal and illegal trade in any artefacts originating from the area that was once Mesopotamia for a minimum period of at least five years?

4. Will the President of the Commission and Commissioners Lamy, Patten, Vitorino and Bolkestein, in the areas for which they are competent, report to the European Parliament at its plenary sitting of 12 to 15 May 2003 on the measures adopted to end this destruction?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1500/03 and P-1509/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies it gave to Oral Questions H-0264/03 by Mr Manisco and H-0274/03 by Mrs Zorba during question time at Parliament's May 2003 part session (1).

(1) Written answer of 13.5.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/23

(2004/C 84 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject: US naval base in Guantanamo Bay

With reference to Oral Question H-0036/02 (1) regarding the conditions under which prisoners taken during the Afghanistan war are being held by the USA in Guantanamo Bay, will the Council please list all citizens of Member States being held there? Will the Council please clarify whether the conditions under which those prisoners are being held, and the duration of their incarceration, comply with the terms of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war? Will the Council please outline the basis on which the military tribunals proposed by the USA comply with internationally accepted standards of a fair trial? Will the Council please indicate what action it is taking to ensure that the US is in full compliance with Geneva Conventions and what response it is receiving from US authorities in this regard?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council is not in a position to provide details of the names, conditions of detention or duration of detention of Member States' citizens being held in Guantanamo Bay. As the Council has stated in its reply to Written Question E-1420/03, the protection of the rights and interests of Member States' nationals abroad pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is a matter for the individual Member States concerned. It is accordingly for those Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary to ensure that their citizens' rights are respected. It is for the government of the USA to ensure that the detainees are held under conditions which do not violate international law and that any tribunal established by it complies with internationally accepted standards of a fair trial and with international law.

(1) Written answer, 6.2.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/411

(2004/C 88 E/0417)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2471/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject: Italy and compliance with animal welfare regulation

The Independent recently reported that police in Italy say anglers are using live kittens as bait, while fishing for the gigantic sheat-fish.

Giuseppe Lagana, a police officer in Mantua in the Po valley, says the first case of kittens being used in the Po river was detected in May. But Mr Lagana, who doubles as a commander with Ampana, Italy's voluntary nature protection force, said the incident was not isolated.

Could the Commission confirm whether Italy is in full compliance with general EU animal welfare legislation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission is on record as deploring animal cruelty in all its forms and would be horrified if live kittens were used as fishing bait as alleged by the Honourable Member.

However, Community law in relation to animal welfare is limited in scope and covers essentially only the rearing of animals on farms and the slaughter or killing of those animals, transport of all species and the treatment of laboratory animals.

Prevention of cruelty to domestic cats for example, falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States and it is therefore, for the Italian authorities to investigate the allegations referred to by the Honourable Member.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/832

(2004/C 78 E/0885)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3593/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Cost of passports across the European Union Member States

The cost of an adult passport in the United Kingdom has increased greatly since 1997, and today costs over GBP 40 to purchase.

Can the Commission detail the cost of an adult passport in the 14 other Member States, given that a passport serves as both a national and an EU document?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Fixing the cost of passports is a competence which belongs to Member States.

The cost of obtaining a passport within each Member State may vary according to several factors, notably the duration of its validity.

A comparative analysis shows that the cost of the British passport is very close to the average of the other Member States, which is around EUR 50.

The Commission will provide the Honourable Member and the Parliament's Secretariat with a table detailing the cost of passports in all Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/127

(2004/C 84 E/0163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3986/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject: Radioactive waste dumps in Sicily

It is feared that radioactive waste dumps are being located in the mines of Pasquasia (Enna) and Realmonte (Agrigento) in Sicily.

It seems that ENEA considered these sites to be suitable and that they are on a specific list drawn up by the European Union.

As well as being subject to earthquakes, the areas concerned have development potential for agriculture and tourism and are therefore totally unsuitable for accommodating highly toxic waste.

Can the Commission say:

1. what preliminary scientific research was carried out in order to choose the storage sites;

2. whether it does not consider in any event that the island of Sicily which by its very nature should be exploited for quite different purposes, is an unsuitable location for storing radioactive waste, in view of the fact that it has already paid a very high price in environmental terms as the location of the largest petrochemical plant in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Commission would recall to mind that each Member State is responsible for the management of all spent fuel and radioactive waste under its jurisdiction.

Concerning the identification of a radioactive waste repository in Italy, the Commission notes that the Italian Government has entrusted a commission of experts with the task of identifying and assessing potential sites.

The Commission has not been involved in drawing up a specific list of sites for the disposal of radioactive waste in Italy. Therefore, the Commission cannot say what scientific research was carried out in relation to the sites mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would also like to refer the Honourable Member to the replies it gave to written questions P-3519/03 by Mr Turco (1) and P-3657/03 by Mr Procacci (2).

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 570.

(2) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 846.