ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/105

(2004/C 84 E/0142)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3831/03

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject: Current European-American negotiations on the use of Galileo

With reference to press reports (see for example the Frankfurter Rundschau of 3 December 2003) according to which the US armed forces are to be permitted not only to switch off the Galileo satellite-based system in the event of crisis and conflicts, but also to weaken and reduce the quality of the Galileo signal, can the Commission say whether this information is accurate?

At the same time, I would remind the Commission of the European Parliament resolution on the ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency (15 May 2003), which stressed the need for Europe to have independent access to space and highlighted Europe's common interest in this regard.

Europe's independence from America was one of the main arguments used to justify the immense costs involved in developing this satellite navigation system, at least half of which are to be borne by the taxpayer.

Can the Commission say whether (and how) it will act to ensure that European interests are not sacrificed either to those of the US military or to those of certain sectors of (US) industry at the next round of negotiations in Washington in January 2004?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The agreement being negotiated with the United States is intended to ensure that the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Galileo are compatible and interoperable, to the mutual benefit of all users, who will gain in terms of accuracy and reliability.

To that end, a structure for the signals emitted by the Galileo system needs to be established which will meet the essential national security requirements of both the United States and Europe.

Agreement has just been reached regarding Galileo's governmental signal (commonly known as the Public Regulated Service — PRS) without calling into question either its quality or Europe's authority regarding continuity of service.

Discussions are continuing regarding the other services for which the European side's objective is again to retain full control and optimum performance.

It should be added that Europe has refused to grant the United States a right of veto over any improvements to be made to the structure of Galileo's signals.

The Commission and the Member States are thus aiming to preserve Europe's independence while providing users with the benefits of GPS/Galileo interoperability.

Against this background, the costs of Galileo — equivalent to the cost of 150 kilometres of urban motorway — are in no way exorbitant given the economic, social and societal benefits Galileo will bring.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/719

(2004/C 78 E/0768)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/03

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Basic nuclear safety standards

Will the Commission set out the means by which it is able to guarantee that the Basic Safety Standards on radiological protection are respected concerning the La Hague and Sellafield facilities?
1.

The Commission is aware that Public Citizen has made a number of sensational and misleading claims about the Community's request to the United States. The critique is based on two misperceptions about the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), namely that it promotes privatisation and that the agreement is a threat to governments' ability to regulate in the public interest. Neither the GATS nor the Union's requests are aimed at forcing the privatisation of public undertakings, whether or not they are entrusted with the provision of services of general interest. The Union is seeking commitments that will allow EU service providers access to third country markets in a number of sectors where the government has either already decided to open a particular sector to private domestic suppliers or where experience has shown that competition can be a tool in improving performance without endangering equitable access to public services. For example, current United States commitments in waste water services only cover ‘services contracted by private industry’. The Union has asked for an extension of this commitment to allow Union service providers to bid when municipalities contract these services out to private companies. This does not mean privatisation of municipal services, as it has been suggested, but if a municipality already uses or intends to use private contractors, there seems to be little reason to exclude Union service suppliers. Furthermore, the Union is not calling for nor does its requests imply the abolition of rules protecting consumers, the environment or democratic decision-making by elected representatives. Many services are strictly regulated for good reason and the GATS explicitly recognises World Trade Organisation (WTO) members' sovereign right to regulate economic and non-economic activities within their territory in pursuance of public policy objectives. To capture its full gains, market opening must be accompanied by an appropriate institutional and regulatory framework to encourage competition and to help ensure equitable access to essential services. The Union has no intention of seeking the deregulation of services.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/149

(2004/C 88 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3484/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Follow-up to Written Question E-2055/03 on the Latvian Police Law prohibiting police officers from forming trade unions

In response to my Written Question E-2055/03 (1) on trade union rights for police officers in Latvia, the Commission states that certain articles of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention allow for such restrictions.

1. Is this not an incomplete response given that it does not indicate in which ILO Conventions the exceptions appear and on which articles they are based?

2. Can the Commission confirm that, according to the established interpretation of the Committee of Experts, Convention 87 does not contain an exception that would, for example, exclude Latvian police officers from the freedom to form trade unions?

3. If not, what is the basis for the Commission's interpretation that Convention 87 does contain an exception?

4. Can the Commission now urge the Latvian authorities more strongly to lift this ban on forming trade unions so that Latvia respects fundamental trade union rights in full?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

In addition to the answer given to Written Question E-2055/03 by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to add the following information:

— Article 9(1) of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 87 and Article 5(1) of the ILO Convention 98 provide for the following exception: ‘The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations.’ Article 5 of the European Social Charter contains an identical provision;

— the Commission is aware of different legal interpretations of the above mentioned exceptions and notes that several current Member States, notably Italy and Greece, appear also to have imposed a total ban on police trade unions;

— within the limits of its mandate, which is rather restricted in that case, the Commission continues to follow this issue, and has already promoted a dialogue on the trade unions rights for police officers in Latvia.

(1) See page 61.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/331

(2004/C 88 E/0338)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Harmonising size labelling systems

Last January we celebrated the tenth anniversary of the internal market. These ten years have seen changes which have profoundly transformed Europe and the lives of its citizens. Barriers have been removed and doors have been opened. Consumers have an indisputably wider choice of high quality products, and thanks to the euro, can compare prices more easily.

However, there currently exist at least four different systems for indicating clothing and shoe sizes within the European Union. Italy, France, Germany and the UK all have their own systems. This lack of harmonisation does not make the life of consumers and exporters any easier.

Does the Commission not believe that the elimination of these technical differences would make it easier to complete the European single market? If so, how does the Commission intend to achieve such harmonisation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its reply to written question E-3437/02 by Mr Menrad (1).

The Commission would like to reiterate that it does not, at present, foresee any initiative to standardise or harmonise clothing and footwear sizes and labelling in Europe.

Although many operators in the Community clothing sector claim that a harmonised system would improve industrial competitiveness, the existence of different sizing systems in itself has not been recognised as a barrier to trade, as defined by Community law. Besides, the Commission is not aware of any Community-wide consensus between stakeholders and/or Member States on the matter. One possible way forward would be through an industry led initiative to establish voluntary agreements between all interested parties (manufacturers, importers, consumers …) and, possibly, national authorities.

The European Committee for Standardisation is currently developing work on size labelling for all kinds of garments, and on measurement methods. These standards have not been mandated by the Commission and are industry-led. Industry will be free to apply these standards as and when it sees fit.

As far as footwear is concerned, the Commission is aware of initiatives developed by industry aimed at establishing standardised measurements in order to increase the use of information and communication technologies in the sector. However, as in the textiles sector, a consensus of stakeholders and national authorities on a Community-wide harmonisation of sizing systems has not emerged. Under these circumstances, the Commission believes that voluntary agreements are at the moment the best way forward for this sector.

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 208.
3.

Does the Commission know whether or not the contract for putting out fires in oil wells concluded with KBR, a subsidiary of the US company Halliburton, whose chief executive officer until 2000 was the current US Vice-President, also contains a clause saying that the company has the right to run the infrastructure and distribution of products, which means that it can manage the oil wells and trade the oil? Until when does this contract run and is it expected to be extended?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/478

(2004/C 84 E/0554)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1857/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: Protecting slots for regional air routes

Could the Commission clarify the position in regard to how regional air routes can have their slots protected under the current air slot regulations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Community law provides for the protection of regional services in two ways. Firstly, the Community rules on market access (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (1), Article 4) provide for governments to be able to impose the so-called public service obligations on routes within the Community in the periphery and the regions, for which air transport is vital for their development. For routes where a public obligation has been imposed and which are domestic, the Community rules on slot allocation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (2)) provide that Member States may reserve slots at fully coordinated airports (Article 9 § 1 (b) of the Regulation). For non-domestic routes, where a public service obligation has been imposed, there is no possibility to reserve slots. Secondly, for routes, which do not benefit from a public service obligation but connect regional airports on the territory of a Member State with a fully coordinated airport, the rules on slot allocation (Article 9 § 1 (a) and § 3 of the Regulation) give Member States the right to reserve slots only under certain conditions. Accordingly, slots for such routes could be reserved, only if the routes in question were operated in 1993, when the slot Regulation entered into force, and if the Member State concerned had communicated the list of the routes benefiting from this regime.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/109

(2004/C 88 E/0114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2703/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: The sociologist Mehmet Bercet and the head of the Goc-Der refugee organisation, Sefika Gurbuz, on trial in Turkey for inciting racial hatred

Following the forced migration of hundreds of thousands of Kurds from the south-east of Turkey to the outskirts of that country's major cities, and in particular Istanbul, the sociologist Mehmet Bercet, himself an ethnic Kurd, launched a study in association with the Istanbul-based refugee organisation Goc-Der to assess the difficult living conditions and oppression endured by those people, who have been compelled to flee their own villages and leave behind their land, jobs and houses. The results of this study were announced by Sefika Gurbuz, head of the Goc-Der refugee organisation, at a press conference held in Istanbul on 17 July 2002. Sefika Gurbuz was accused of ‘separatism’ under Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code for having announced the results, while Mehmet Bercet, as the main author of the study, was charged with inciting racial hatred. Both were brought before the State Security Court. A first hearing was held on 25 November 2002 and at the subsequent hearing of 12 March 2003 the prosecution called for three year's imprisonment for both the accused.

How does the Commission view this situation? Should it not make it quite clear to the Turkish Government that these accusations and the indictment of Sefika Gurbuz and Mehmet Bercet clash totally with the possibility of Turkey entering the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the case mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As regards freedom of expression, Turkey has adopted a series of reforms over the last two years introducing changes to several articles of the Turkish Penal Code. In particular, the grounds for limiting freedom of expression in Article 312 have been amended in view of complying with the European standards.

According to official data, it appears that the majority of cases launched against individuals on grounds of freedom of expression over the last year have been concluded with acquittals by courts.

However, court cases against individuals continue to occur, often reflecting a restrictive interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Penal Code.

The Commission has repeatedly stressed to the Turkish authorities the need for a practical implementation of the reforms for the benefit of all citizens, regardless of their origin.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the context of the Copenhagen political criteria and will make a detailed assessment in its Regular Report to be published in November 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/450

(2004/C 88 E/0459)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3081/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Sewage systems in Palestine

Only 37,5 % of Palestinian homes are connected to a sewage system. This creates a serious environmental hazard.

Is the Commission aware of the effect that this has on the health of Palestinians? What action is it taking to address this issue?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/17

(2004/C 88 E/0016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0904/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Use of agricultural diesel in border areas

Netherlands farmers working their land in Germany with red diesel in the fuel tanks of their farm vehicles, face fines imposed by the German customs authorities, who do not allow this diesel, on which there are tax concessions, to be used on German territory.

A German court has evidently referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

In answer to questions put by members of the Netherlands Second Chamber (883, parliamentary year 2002-2003), State Secretary Van Eijck wrote that, as it has proved impossible to find a bilateral solution, the matter is now being discussed by the Committee on Excise Duties and the European Commission has promised to bring forward a proposal to deal with the problems of implementation that may arise in this connection.

1. When can such a proposal be anticipated?

2. Does the Commission share the view that farmers should be able to use the special diesel in the fuel tanks of farm vehicles without problems when entering another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

1. The problem referred to by the Honourable Member is indeed being discussed in the Committee on Excise Duties. On its meeting of 4 April 2003 all Member States except Germany could accept the following practical solution: Member States that apply the normal rate of excise duty for fuel used by, for example, agricultural vehicles, should accept that vehicles from another Member State can use on their territory fuel, supplied in that other Member State at a reduced rate or exempted. The approval by Member States only refers to the fuel, containing the common fiscal marker, which is already in the vehicle's standard tanks. If these vehicles have to refuel whilst operating in a Member State that applies the normal rate, they must do so with fuel taxed at the normal rate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/78

(2004/C 78 E/0076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2101/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Common agricultural policy reform — ‘capping’

A frequent topic for discussion in debates on the reform of the CAP is that of deciding whether or not a ceiling should be imposed on the amount of aid/subsidy which, under any heading, may be allocated to a given farm or to a farmer on an individual basis. This is customarily known as ‘capping’.

On this subject, impressive arguments of a social nature are normally put forward (and also, these days, ones of a financial nature, since ‘capping’ would enable significant amounts of CAP funding to be released for the benefit of the new CAP headings, thereby reducing pressure on other mechanisms such as modulation).

The Commission:

— Would it therefore say why it does not advocate strict capping of CAP subsidies?

— Does it not believe this to be an imperative of justice?

— For what reason does it not take advantage of the resulting major financial benefits in order to improve the redistribution of aid and incentives and to provide greater support for the reformed CAP's new budget headings?

Answer given by Mrs Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

In its Communication on the Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy of 10 July 2002 (1), the Commission did advocate capping of direct payments. However, it turned out in the following discussions that no consensus was possible among Member States on the introduction of strict capping.

Thus, the Commission proposed, in the context of modulation and degressivity, to cut direct payments while granting a franchise to those farmers who receive smaller amounts of direct payments. According to this proposal, the cuts in direct payments were to be fully reimbursed up to an amount of EUR 5000 in direct payments received and half for all amounts between EUR 5000 and EUR 50 000. The money was to be spent on rural development measures.

In the final Council decisions, modulation was adopted with a franchise of EUR 5 000. As regards degressivity, the Commission proposal was not taken up. Instead the introduction of a mechanism of Financial Discipline has been announced. In this respect, a Commission Declaration states that the proposal concerning Financial Discipline would include a franchise of EUR 5 000 and possibly other franchises.

Further options for redistributing money among different regions and agricultural sectors have been added to the provisions on the optional regional application of the single farm payment scheme.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/126

(2004/C 84 E/0162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3985/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject: Sourcing of timber for the refurbishment of Commission buildings

What timbers are being used in the refurbishment of the Berlaymont Building?

Which companies have supplied these timbers, and what evidence was requested by the Commission, and what evidence was provided by the suppliers, to confirm that all the timbers being used come from legal and sustainable sources?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

In line with its policy of green housekeeping, the Commission's technical buildings specification rules provide that any timber used in the refurbishment of Commission-owned buildings must be sourced from environmentally sustainable managed forests. Proof of this can be provided by forest certification schemes such as the PEFC (Pan European Forest Certification) or the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) label.

In relation to the renovation of the Berlaymont building, the Commission explicitly required that Berlaymont 2000 SA (the management company owned by the Belgian State) procured timber as described above.

As Berlaymont 2000 SA is the awarding authority responsible for all calls for tenders related to this renovation, the names of the companies which have supplied the timber are not currently available to the Commission.

The Honourable Member may wish to know that an examination of the compliance with the requirements regarding the sustainability of the timber will be carried out by the Commission during its acceptance procedure for the building, and production of documentary evidence of compliance with legislative and contractual requirements will be required.