ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/808

(2004/C 84 E/0902)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/04

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Requirement to keep poultry indoors

On Thursday, 12 February 2004, the executive of the Netherlands Poultry and Eggs Marketing Board decided to make it compulsory for chickens, turkeys and ducks on poultry farms to be kept indoors. This measure is intended to prevent possible infection with the avian flu virus during the present bird migration, which will last until the end of April.

1. Ought not this measure to be made compulsory immediately throughout the European Union, in view of the international nature of bird migrations?

2. Will the Commission call on amateur poultry-keepers to adopt the same measures?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The ‘Productschap Pluimvee en Eieren (PPE)’ has, according to the information gathered by the Commission, asked the Dutch authority if the compulsory locking up of poultry is considered to be a veterinary necessity as a preventive measure against an infection of avian influenza by migratory birds. The Dutch authorities have considered this question, but after a balanced deliberation of advantages and disadvantages did not order compulsory locking up of poultry.

The Commission agrees that measures to prevent and control avian influenza must be risk based, whilst risk management measures must consider both benefits and costs. Measures aimed at reducing contact of migratory wild birds with domestic poultry and bio-security measures on poultry farms, including hobby farms, should in principle reduce the risk of Avian Influenza virus transmission. However, the epidemiology of this disease is complex and there are still a lot of unknown factors. There is also insufficient knowledge and experience indicating if the benefits in terms of reduction of risk of infection of poultry by wild birds by a draconian measure like locking up poultry in the whole Community outweigh the undesirable environmental and social consequences and the possible negative impact on animal welfare.

In order to improve knowledge on these issues the Commission, following the advice of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, has coordinated and co-financed a survey in the Member States to estimate the prevalence and distribution of Avian Influenza in wild birds and poultry, in particular as regards the so-called Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza. This survey was conducted in 2003 and will be executed again in 2004. The Commission might forward proposals on the Community's policy on avian influenza in the light of the results of these surveys.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4070/98

by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Misleading labelling

Is the Commission aware that poultry/pigmeat products are being imported into Ireland in significant numbers and are being passed off as Irish through inadequate and misleading labelling? Will the Commission investigate this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

The Commission has in its possession no information concerning the facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

Article 2 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 december 1978(1), on the labelling of foods specifies that such labelling shall not mislead consumers, more particular as regards the origin or source of those foods. It is for the inspection authorities in the Member States to comply with that provision. In this instance any inquiry must therefore be conducted by the Irish inspection authorities.

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2163/98

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Compensation for missing luggage

The 1929 Warsaw Convention appears to assist airlines to avoid their responsibilities for compensation to passengers for missing luggage. This seems to have been exacerbated in the United Kingdom by the Carriage by Air Road Act 1979 limiting liability to seventeen Special Drawing Rights per kilo for claims settled after 1 December 1997 so that the pay out on estimated kilo weight covers little more than the cost of a lost suitcase, leaving the airline passenger with totally inadequate redress against the airline in question.

Does the Commission have any plans to address this question?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

The Commission agrees that the current system of baggage and freight liability is outdated and extremely complex. Several attempts to update the 1929 Warsaw Convention have been frustrated, mainly because the number of signatories necessary to ratify the so-called Montreal protocol No 4 has always been insufficient.

A new draft convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air is currently being prepared within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Luggage and freight are included in this work, and the Commission is of the opinion that the Community should await the results of this work before assessing the need for further Community legislation on this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3835/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Land consolidation in Austria

Land consolidation work is currently being carried out in certain places in Austria, including Raabs an der Thaya, an area covered by Natura 2000 (No AD 1201000/No AD 1201A00), with the aim of increasing productivity. According to my information, there are numerous grounds for suspecting that this consolidation work is incompatible with current EU directives (such as the Protection of Wild Birds Directive, 79/409/EEC, and the Flora and Fauna Habitats Directive, 92/43/EEC)(1). The competent authorities claim that their actions are lawful on the basis of the Lower Austria Lands Constitution Law.

Is the Commission aware of this issue?

If so, what has it done about it to date?

If not, what does it intend to do?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

The Commission is aware of these facts. It has received a complaint and is assessing it. It will inform the complainant accordingly.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3554/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: The "complex-systems thermodynamics" project under the third framework programme in the fields of research, human capital and mobility

With reference to contract No ERBCHRX-CT92-0007 between ENEA [national committee for research and development in nuclear energy and alternative energy] and DG XII of the European Commission, dealing with the administrative management of the Community funds allocated to the complex-systems thermodynamics project under the third framework programme, which is designed to facilitate the exchange of scientific knowledge through a network of 16 European partners:

1. can the Commission confirm that the funding of ECU 600 000 for the first two-year period (1 June 1993 to 31 May 1995) was used to further the above project's aims? If so, was the funding renewed for the second two-year period;

2. if not, what were the funds used for;

3. if the funds were not used to further the project's aims, were the accounts in order and was the management of the project transparent;

4. has the Court of Auditors ascertained that this expenditure was justified with regard to the objectives to which the funds were allocated;

5. does the Commission not consider that if funds have been used improperly a thorough investigation should be carried out in order to ensure that the success of the project that was initially approved is not undermined and to safeguard the credibility of the Community's research and technology framework programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1999)

The Commission concluded its Human capital and mobility (HCM) network contract, No ERBCHRX-CT-92-0007, with eight contractors, including Ente per le Nuove technologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente (ENEA) acting as co-ordinating institution in 1993 for an initial period of two years. ENEA decided to withdraw from the network in 1995. The Technical University of Berlin, one of the other original contractors, eventually took over the role as the co-ordinating institution in 1997. As a consequence, the contract was extended until the end of 1998.

The Commission's financial contribution for the network as a whole is fixed in the contract at a ceiling of 600 000 euro. An initial advance payment was made in 1993. The Commission has subsequently reimbursed costs incurred during the first year of the contract. The cost statements of all network partners were checked and only costs which were eligible in accordance with the terms of the contract were reimbursed. Due to the restructuring of the network, no further cost statements have been processed.

The Commission conducts sample audits of network contracts on a regular basis and each contract can be audited until two years after the end of the contract. The Court of auditors also has the right to audit such contracts, though no audit has been made concerning this specific contract. Whenever it is found that the Commission's contribution is used outside the terms of a contract all necessary measures (including legal action) are taken to recover funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2235/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Social security legislation

Would the Commission indicate whether equivalent provision is made for workers in Member States, other than the UK, to receive benefit if they are capable of working, if they are available for work and if they are actively seeking work?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

Unemployment benefits exist in all the Member States, although the qualifying criteria vary. A comprehensive description of the criteria used in each Member State is published in chapter 10 of the Commission's Missoc (Mutual Information System on Social Protection)(1).

The first two criteria of eligibility mentioned by the Honourable Member, i.e. to be capable of working and to be available for work, are applied in almost all the Member States. However, the third criterion mentioned, i.e. to actively seek work, may be implemented in different ways (for example in Ireland the formulation is genuinely seeking work whereas in other Member States such as Belgium the person must be registered for employment).

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc2000/index_chapitre10_en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1280/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Mobilisation of crisis management force

The European Council has decided to establish by 2003 a rapid reaction force for purposes of crisis management. On the decision of what institution, and under whose orders, does the Council consider this force will be deployed?

Reply

(21 November 2001)

The Headline Goal, announced at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999, set an agreed voluntary capabilities target with the aim of ensuring effective capabilities for

the full range of Petersberg tasks. That target is for the provision of military self-sustaining forces of up to 15 brigades or 50 000 to 60 000 persons, capable of being deployed at 60 days notice for up to one year and available in 2003. As has been noted in the conclusions of successive European Council's, these capabilities (the so-called Rapid Reaction Force) do not constitute a standing or European Army. The decision to participate in any mission remains the sovereign decision of each Member State.

In addition to military crisis management capabilities and as mandated by the Feira European Council, the EU is also developing capabilities in the field of civilian crisis management. By 2003, Member States should, inter alia, be able to provide up to 5 000 police officers for international missions across the range of conflict prevention and crisis management operations, and within that overall target be able to identify and deploy, within 30 days, up to 1 000 police officers.

Decisions on the deployment of armed forces for crisis management in EU-led military operations with or without recourse to NATO assets are taken by the Council in accordance with Article 23 of the EU Treaty.

The Council also appoints the operation commander. Under all circumstances, including for an operation calling on NATO assets and capabilities and including also the choice of all or part of the chain of command (e.g. operation commander, force commanders), the entire chain of command remains at all times under the political control and strategic direction of the Council/Council bodies (Political and Security Committee).

It is for individual Member States to decide whether to contribute troops or resources to each specific crisis management operation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2322/02

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Funding of the European Movement

The European Movement is in receipt of funds from the European Communities budget.

1. Can the Commission identify under the budget lines of the past three years what monies have been made available to:

(a) each national office of the European Movement,

(b) the European Movement International Secretariat,

(c) each national branch of the Young European Movement (YEM),

(d) Agora,

(e) other European Movement elements?

2. What funds over this period have been made available for:

(a) publications, by title,

(b) public meetings,

(c) specific campaigns?

3. What support have individual Commissioners provided to this network?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The Commission is pleased to send to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the tables in which he will find detailed information relating to funds allocated to the national offices of the European Movement for publications and the organisation of meetings and campaigns in 1998, 1999 and 2000 together with the global allocations for 2001. These funds were all committed under budget line B3-301.

Grants for operating costs are provided under budget line A-3021 which provides grants to European think tanks and organisations advancing the idea of Europe. Payments have been made to the European Movement International Secretariat over the last three years as follows:

>TABLE>

With respect to European Movement member organisations, the following amounts were committed within the last three years:

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

This adds up to a total of EUR 213 047.

EUR 131 119 of this amount were allocated to the budget line A-3029, which covers part of the operating costs of international non-governmental youth organisations.

EUR 81 928 under budget line B3-1010 (YOUTH Programme) were committed for the following two projects:

1. Young European Federalists: Putting the Euro in Action Options for European Youth:

- project number: 2001-2275;

- amount committed: EUR 29 590;

- type of activity: youth exchange programme countries;

2. European Migrants Forum: Empowering migrant and ethnic minority youth leaders:

- project number: 1999-1375;

- amount committed: EUR 52 338;

- type of activity: training course providing for practical skills to develop youth activities aimed at migrant and ethnic youth.

As the Honourable Member will understand, Members of the Commission support a wide range of organisations and networks, including the European Movement, that provide information about the Union and communicate with citizens, empowering people to participate in a dialogue about European issues. The amount of time and energy devoted by Members of the Commission is naturally for them to decide as individuals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2795/02

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 October 2002)

Subject: European Mobility Week and the International Car Free Day

On 22 September 2002, International Car Free Day was held in 1300 European towns and municipalities. This one-day campaign formed part of European Mobility Week. The project has not yet been evaluated, but it is clear from the media and from the reactions of various people involved that this initiative was a great success. The whole of the Brussels Region, for example, was made car-free. This was widely applauded and met with little opposition.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- What will the Commission do with the evaluation which is being made of this European campaign week?

- How much do European Mobility Week and the International Car Free Day cost the Commission?

- Will the Commission increase this amount in future?

- Will the Commission widen the campaign concept and organise a European car-free week or more frequent car-free days (once every month or three months)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

The 2002 European Car Free Day and European Mobility Week is being evaluated and discussed with the representatives of the Member States, networks of local authorities, non-governmental organisations and the European associations which are supporting and developing this initiative with the Commission.

The first evaluation results, in particular those of an opinion poll carried out in four of the participating cities, are available online on the initiative's website: www.mobilityweek-europe.org

The main cost of European Mobility Week is EUR 551 573 to cover a 28-month grant which started on 1 January 2002. The event marking the launch of the first European Mobility Week on 16 September 2002, held in the parc du Cinquantenaire in Brussels, was organised by the Commission and cost about EUR 12 000.

The International Car Free Day as such does not involve any further direct cost to the Community budget, since the local and national authorities and other parties in the 37 participating countries take charge of organising it.

No decision has yet been taken on the financing of this initiative after April 2004.

Since it falls to the participants to decide on the basis of each one's evaluation what form the initiative is to take in the future, it is not yet possible to answer the last part of the Honourable Member's question. The dates have, however, already been fixed for European Mobility Week 2003, which will take place from 16 to 22 September 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3670/02

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Cost of eliminating waste arising from the slaughter chain

What is the nature of the approach taken in each Member State since the BSE crisis to the elimination of the (bone) waste arising from the slaughter chain? The Spanish state obliges producers to meet certain costs which are then passed on to the consumer, who ends up picking up the bill in the form of higher prices: the waste elimination is thus ultimately financed by the consumer.

It appears that certain other Member States are directly meeting these waste elimination costs, a practice which translates into a comparative advantage for producers in those Member States over their counterparts in the Spanish state: for certain imports from the internal market, these costs are not included in the price, and this creates a situation of comparative inequality between Member States.

Can the Commission state whether any EU legislation exists obliging all Member States to operate the same practices, or whether this is a matter for the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Community legislation(1) currently requires slaughterhouses and cutting plants to extract specified risk materials. However, the Member States can decide to authorise the removal of the spinal column from carcases or part-carcases in butchers that are specifically approved, controlled and registered to do so.

After the entry into force (1 January 2003) of the Community guidelines for State aid concerning TSE tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste(2), the Commission will no longer authorise State aid to cover the costs involved in eliminating the slaughterhouse waste produced.

However, as an exceptional measure and with a view to enabling the meat sector to absorb gradually the higher costs resulting from the introduction of the legislation on TSE, the Commission will authorise State aid of up to 50 % of the costs for the safe disposal of specified risk materials and meat- and bonemeal of no commercial value produced in 2003.

For the same reason, the Commission will also authorise State aid of up to 100 % of the costs for eliminating specified risk materials and meat- and bonemeal of no commercial value produced before the entry into force of the guidelines.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2) OJ C 324, 24.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/358

(2004/C 78 E/0376)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0586/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Reduction of VAT on CDs

A reduction of VAT on CDs would be a significant boost to the music industry in Europe, which is currently plagued by piracy. A significant reduction in the price of CDs produced by record companies would also simultaneously increase sales and government revenue for every Member State. In Greece, CDs are in fact subject to the highest rate of VAT (18 %).

What is the Commission's position on this subject? What measures will it take to reduce VAT in the Member States? What are its views on the idea put forward by organisations in the music industry that the rate should be harmonised with the VAT applying to books and cinema tickets?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-1553/02 from Mrs Angelilli (1) and E-3841/02 from Mr Veltroni (2).

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 120.

(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 153.
No C 110/74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 5. 5. 80 
CORRIGENDA 
Corrigendum  to the answer  to Written  Question  No 77/79  by Mr Damseaux 
(Official  Journal  of the European  Communities  No C ISO  of 15 June  1979) 
The answer  to Written  Question  No 77/79  on page  14 is to read  as follows: 
'Answer 
(16 May  1979) 
It is estimated  that  the known  recoverable  on-shore  and off-shore  resources  are in the order  of: 
— for  oil, 4 800  million  tonnes  of crude  oil and about  150  million  tonnes  of condensates, 
— for  natural  gas,  4 8 (1012)  cubic  metres. 
These  data  refer  to the proved  and published  reserves.  This  term,  as used  in Western  Europe,  refers  to the 
oil and  gas  volumes  which  are estimated  to be recoverable  under  present  economic  and  technical 
conditions.  The  figures  should  be treated  with  caution  since  there  are great  difficulties  in estimating  the 
volumes  of oil and gas in the ground.'