ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/170

(2004/C 78 E/0174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2805/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Solar energy

Can the Commission advise whether there are any common funds available for the conversion of individual dwelling houses to solar power?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that, based on the 6th Research and Technological Development Framework Programme 2003-2006, priority thematic area ‘Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems’, the Commission has in place a relevant activity to exploit solar energy for electricity and heat generation.

The short and medium term part of this activity supports projects aiming at the cost reduction of renewable energy technologies and their large scale integration within local communities. Common contributions for the conversion of individual dwelling houses to solar power may be available only if the action is integrated within a large project, that presents appropriate elements of research and technological innovation, and has a clear European dimension.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/903

(2004/C 78 E/0954)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4044/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Free passes for local residents to the grounds of heritage and tourist sites

1. Can the Commission confirm that under forthcoming EU regulation, heritage and tourist sites will be unable to provide people with free passes to their grounds based on geographical proximity?

2. As a result of such a European law, will heritage and tourist sites, such as Hampton Court Palace in London for example, be obliged to revoke the passes giving free access to their grounds to local residents?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

In its Judgment of 16 January 2003 in Case C-388/01 on admission to museums in Italy, the Court of Justice ruled that, like those based on nationality, preferential rates granted on the basis of the place of residence — even local — of visitors to cultural sites were discriminatory and hence incompatible with the EC Treaty, and in particular the principle of free movement of services.

According to consolidated case-law, a distinction drawn on the basis of residence is liable to operate mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States, since the majority of non-residents are foreigners. In particular, it is immaterial whether the contested measure may affect nationals of the State in question resident in other parts of the national territory as well as nationals of other Member States.

A distinction based on local residence could be acceptable only if it were based on overriding reasons in the general interest — in other words, not purely economic reasons — and if it respected the principles of necessity and proportionality.

In its proposal for a Directive on services in the internal market adopted on 13 January 2004, the Commission upholds the principle, as expounded in the case-law of the Court of Justice, of prohibiting distinctions based on nationality and place of residence, with respect to terms of access to services.

It is in the light of these principles that the competent national authorities should examine cases where there are differences in fees for admission to tourist sites, such as those mentioned in the question by the Honourable Member, and should take the appropriate measures on the basis of the particular features of each situation in order to avoid discrimination between nationals of the various Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/139

(2004/C 78 E/0143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2636/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 1999

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405):

(a) the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999: — 135 000 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 231 985,50, equivalent to aid of EUR l,72/kg; — 21 000 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 35 986,05 equivalent to aid of EUR 1,71/kg; — 230 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 402,90 equivalent to aid of EUR l,75/kg;

(b) the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999: — 120 000 kg were exported from Austria and 21 600 kg from Germany to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that: — unwarranted aid of EUR 26 179,07 was paid on an additional 15 230 kg not shown in the OECD data; — no application was made for aid of EUR 1 028,17 for the export of 600 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/620

(2004/C 88 E/0640)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2041/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in Russia through exclusive cooperation agreements with the Russian Orthodox Church

Considering that:

— the 1993 Constitution proclaims that Russia is a secular state in which there is no state religion and religious organisations are separate from the state and equal before the law;

— the 1997 federal law on religion establishes that religious organisations may not exercise the functions of state institutions and may not accompany the proceedings of government bodies with religious ceremonies.

In view of the cooperation agreements concluded by the Russian Orthodox Church:

— with the Ministry of Defence in 1997 with a view to ‘working together to revive Orthodox traditions in the Russian army and navy’,

— with the Ministry of Education in August 1999 with a view to ‘educating the young generations in the spirit of old moral values’ (including, in particular, numerous attempts by the Russian Orthodox Church to bolster its influence within the Russian education system),

— with the Ministry of Health and the Foreign Ministry on 5 and 6 March 2003 respectively,

— with many Russian local authorities,

and given that the constant increase in concordat agreements between the Russian Orthodox Church and various state bodies, both at federal and at local levels, has conferred on this Church special powers, thereby discriminating against other religious faiths, and given it special and exclusive access to prisons, the army, schools and hospitals,

will the Commission state:

— whether it is aware of the above cooperation agreements between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian State, discriminating against other religious faiths?

— what measures it intends to take to ensure that religious freedom is restored in Russia, as required by the Russian Constitution and the federal law on religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the difficult situation facing religious group in Russia.

The EU/Russia partnership is based on fundamental core values, among which is full respect of human rights. The Commission frequently raises its concerns about the need for Russia to guarantee the full respect of human rights in the context of our political dialogue.

The Commission will continue to impress upon the Russian authorities that the major international and European Human Rights conventions that Russia has ratified, which include reference to freedom of religion or belief, must be complied with. It appears that certain measures grant privileges to the Russian Orthodox Church as compared with other religions and may therefore be incompatible with the principle of State neutrality towards religious institutions. In addition to this, it should be recalled that Russia is a focus country under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights programme, a Commission programme which aims, inter alia, to promote Human Rights.
1. and 2.

Sixteen projects were funded in the framework of the Council's conclusions from 22 September 1997 initiating pilot activities concerning violence in school. They were in operation from 1997-1999 and had built-in internal and/or external evaluation. The expert group mentioned in the Council conclusions was continuously informed about the progress of the projects. Six projects on violence in school emerged partly as a follow-up to projects funded in the framework of the initiative Violence at Schools'. They were funded from 1999-2001 in the framework of the Connect initiative. A complete evaluation of the Connect initiative was carried out and published in 2002. It contains detailed information on each of the six projects as well as overall conclusions. The conclusions mention among other issues the lack of intercommunication and exchange of experience. All of the projects were, however, said to have had very good potential in each of their fields. It is known to be a common difficulty for this type of project to ensure continuity especially in terms of funds. The conclusions mention in this context that two of the six projects at the time of the evaluation had presented pre-proposals in the framework of Socrates, Comenius 3 (networks).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/324

(2004/C 78 E/0340)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3807/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Livorno

In its answer to question E-0981/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Livorno had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/320

(2004/C 78 E/0328)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3775/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Ancona municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1062/03 (1)) asking whether the Ancona municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Ancona had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/23

(2004/C 78 E/0024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Customs 2002 programme by the municipality of Ancona

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Ancona, urgently need to use European funds for measures to enhance the spirit of partnership and cooperation created between the Commission and the Member States, for monitoring and anti-fraud measures and in order to improve the tools used by customs authorities in their work,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Customs 2002 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0883/03 and E-1061/03

given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

The Customs 2002 programme financed activities that aimed to improve co-operation between the Customs administrations of the Member States in the internal market (1). The programme distinguishes between two type of activities: IT activities (2) and Joint and Other actions (3).

The IT activities concern the Customs IT systems. For instance Transit. The Joint and Other Actions were organised by the Commission and the Customs administrations of the Member States. The participants in the events were officials from these administrations.

The financial management of Joint and Other Actions part of the programme is organised in the following way: the Commission pays an advance to the administrations of the Member States concerned while these administrations make the necessary payments. Examples of payments are paying for a plane ticket of a participant or paying an invoice for a conference facility when an administration hosts a seminar. The administrations of the Member States have to report twice a year to the Commission on the expenses financed from the programme budget.

Consequently, the Commission can inform the Honorable Member that the municipalities of Ancona and Fiumicino did not fit the criteria for participating in the Customs 2002 programme and therefore did not submit projects or secured any funding.

(1) The Programme Decision gives a detailed overview of the objectives of the programme. (Customs 2002 Decision No 210/97/EC of 19 December 1996, amended by Decision No 105/2000/EC of 17 December 1999).

(2) Information Exchange and Communication Systems.

(3) For instance seminars, exchanges, working or benchmarking groups.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/752

(2004/C 78 E/0799)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2706/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Daphne Programme

The Daphne Programme, which was set up to stop violence against women and children, received funding of EUR 20 million in the period 2000-2003. Can the Commission list the non-governmental organisations, public bodies and private establishments to which that funding was awarded? Has the Commission launched an evaluation of the results of the programme?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

During the period 2000-2003 the Daphne programme has provided financing totalling EUR 18 271 522 for 145 projects by organisations or public authorities.

A complete list of projects financed has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

An evaluation of the results and of their initial impact is made annually and forms the basis of a summary report. A mid-term evaluation of the Daphne programme itself has been made and the report on that evaluation, together with the annual evaluation reports, is available on the programme's internet site: HtmlResAnchor (http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/funding/daphne/funding_daphne_en.htm).

A final evaluation of the Daphne programme is being made. The evaluation report should be available at the beginning of 2004 and will be sent to Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 9(3) of Decision No 293/2000/E (1) establishing the Daphne programme.

(1) European Parliament and Council Decision No 293/2000/EC of 24 January 2000 adopting a programme of Community action (the Daphne programme) (2000 to 2003) on preventive measures to fight violence against children, young persons and women, OJ L 34, 9.2.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/98

(2004/C 84 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3784/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Massa under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1096/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Massa had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/323

(2004/C 78 E/0334)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3801/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Prato

In its answer to question E-0988/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/446

(2004/C 88 E/0455)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3020/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Human rights in Romania — underage marriages in the gypsy community

The shocking case of Ana-Maria Cioaba, a 12-year-old gypsy girl regarded as a princess by the Roma community in Romania, who was forced into a marriage which she desperately opposed, has spotlighted the serious violations of fundamental human rights in an applicant country due to join the European Union in 2007.

Adherence by the gypsy community to its traditions in cases such as this constitutes flagrant violation of the human rights of children belonging to the gypsy community who are not asked whether and whom they wish to marry but are compelled by force to comply with the choice of their male relatives. This is tolerated if not actually covered up by the Government, which chooses not to implement its own laws, particularly regarding the Roma. For example, the legal age for marriage in Romania is 18 while, under certain conditions, it may be allowed at the age of 16. Concerning the Roma community, however, the authorities tend to turn a blind eye, allowing the practice of forced marriages such as that referred to above to be perpetuated.

What measures will the Commission take and what representations will it make to the Romanian Government with a view to protecting the human rights of underage members of the gypsy community given that Romania's application for European Union membership must denote a significant step forward by the country regarding the protection of human rights?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of the traditional Roma wedding of two minors that recently took place in Romania. This wedding does not have legal force because the two minors have not reached the legal age for marriage under Romanian law.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Child Protection Department of the province where the traditional wedding took place reached an agreement with the parents concerned. As a result both children have returned to their parents' homes, they will go to school and will attend counselling sessions at the Child Protection Service until they reach the legal age of marriage.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/513

(2004/C 78 E/0534)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3294/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject: The European Commission's 5th Framework Project

How does the Commission plan to utilise the findings of its 5th Framework Project ‘The Orientation of Young Men and Women to Citizenship and European Identity’ (HPSE-CT-2001-00077)?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Under the Second Call for Proposals launched by the Key Action ‘Improving the Socio-economic knowledge-base’ of the Fifth Framework Programme, the project ‘Orientations of Young Men and Women to Citizenship and European Identity’ (HPSE-CT-2001-00077) received a financial contribution of EUR 995 000 with a duration of 36 months, from the Community. The project is co-ordinated by Prof. Lynn Jamieson, University of Edinburgh and wishes to examine the constructions of European identity and European citizenship amongst young people in six countries — four current and two prospective Member States.

The project is still ongoing and it is expected that most of its results will be of value in a tangible manner during its final year. The final conference of the project itself will take place in Brussels in July 2004 where key findings and policy suggestions will be presented with a particular focus on the needs of policy makers (institutional actors, educational authorities, vocational bodies).

The research consortium plans to raise awareness and utilise its findings by disclosing them in two principal ways: first, through the website of the project http://www.ed.ac.uk/sociol/youth where documents and reports are available to the general public as well as to the scientific and policy communities. Second, by establishing contacts with European, national and local institutions and actors (the list of these contacts is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament). Furthermore, the consortium plans to prepare and distribute a policy brief with the key findings of its research to all Ministries of Education in Europe and across all levels of government.

The Commission asked the project coordinator to disseminate the research findings in the conference organised jointly by Directorate General Education and Culture (DG EAC) and the Council of Europe on Youth and Participation, Strasbourg, 24 to 26 November 2003, which aimed to contribute to the implementation of the White Paper on Youth (1). Moreover, it is anticipated that through rigorous collaboration between DG Research (RTD) and DG EAC the research deliverables will have an impact on education policy and active civic participation. Finally, the research findings will also be transmitted to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy as well as the Committee of Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sports of the Parliament.

(1) COM(2001) 681 final.