ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/200

(2004/C 70 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Approval of support for Ford's Belgian car manufacturing plant in Genk and its suppliers

According to the Flemish authorities, on 12 September 2003 the Commission approved the granting of support for an investment programme for the Ford car manufacturing plant in Genk (in the Belgian province of Limburg), and for a number of component suppliers. The Commission has apparently agreed that an amount of EUR 45,06 million can be granted to Ford and EUR 2 million to its suppliers.

Can the Commission say whether it has in fact approved this support and, if so, what the amount involved was? Were any conditions imposed on the granting of this support, and if so what conditions, and under what programme or programmes can the support be granted?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

The Commission on 5 September 2003 decided not to raise objections against an aid of EUR 45,06 million, which the Belgian authorities intend to grant to Ford Werke AG in Genk and to EUR 2,57 million in favour of five first-tier component suppliers.

The planned aid was assessed under the provisions of the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (1), which applies to the motor vehicle sector since 1 January 2003. As the measure concerns an ad hoc aid, i.e. not aid under an approved scheme, it had to be notified individually. According to the framework, the maximum aid intensity for regional investment aid in the motor vehicle sector is 30 % of the regional aid ceiling.

Genk is an assisted Article 87(3)(c) area with a regional ceiling of 14,46 % gross grant equivalent (10 % net grant equivalent). Consequently, the maximum allowable aid intensity was 4,3 %. Belgium intended to grant an intensity of 4,2 %. Based on eligible investments of EUR 1,073 billion, the foreseen aid intensity of 4,2 % resulted into an allowable aid amount in favour of Ford of EUR 45,06 million. Based on the same aid intensity, an aid of EUR 2,57 million was authorised in favour of five first-tier component suppliers.

The aid may only be granted to the extent that the notified investments are in fact carried out. The decision will be published shortly in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 70, 19.3.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/103

(2004/C 70 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2467/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject: Digital tachographs: Corrections to Annex 1B

On 16 December 2002 there was a meeting held in Brussels between the Commission and manufacturers of tachograph equipment and cards. This meeting highlighted the fact that a number of errors had appeared in the text of Annex 1B between submission for publication by the Commission and publication in the Official Journal. These errors, though apparently small, were such that type approval was not possible without correction of the text. A tachograph CATP meeting was held on 26 June 2003 where these errors were reviewed and corrections were agreed. The Commission stated at the CATP meeting that the corrections would probably be published in the Official Journal in September 2003.

Whilst it is quite acceptable to carry out type-approval testing against requirements not yet published, it is normal legal practice only to issue type-approval certificates against an officially published text.

Will the Commission please confirm that this is the case here? In other words, please confirm that type-approval certificates may only be issued after publication of the text against which approval is sought?

If the Commission is unable to confirm this interpretation, will it please indicate the legal basis for its alternative interpretation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

On 26 June 2003 at a meeting of the CATP (Tachograph Committee) the Commission proposed a number of corrections to the text of Annex 1B (1). The Committee unanimously agreed to these corrections.

Copies of the agreed corrections were then sent to the members of the Committee, to industry and to other stakeholders, in order to prepare for type approval of the recording equipment and the tachograph cards.

Meanwhile, the Commission will prepare the adoption and publication of the corrections. Publication in the Official Journal is expected in October/November 2003.

It should be noted that between the delivery of first provisional interoperability certificates and the definitive interoperability certificates, a period of at least four months should intervene. Only if a manufacturer holds a definitive interoperability certificate (plus a security certificate and a functional certificate) can he apply for a type approval certificate. The first interoperability tests are expected to start soon now and as soon as they have been completed, the manufacturers can apply for the type approval certificate. Therefore, Member State authorities will be able to issue type approval certificates on the basis of the text of the Annex 1B, including the corrections, as officially published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(1) Annex 1B to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1360/2002 of 13 June 2002 adapting for the seventh time to technical progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, OJ L 207, 5.8.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/31

(2004/C 70 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0897/03

by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Proposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the market in ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin (COM(2001) 101 final — C5-0095/01) in particular, measures for the agricultural alcohol market/Article 10

In Germany it is usually family farms which run corn distilleries producing agricultural alcohol. The Commission now intends to destroy these traditional agricultural production methods with the above proposal for a regulation. This agricultural activity will suddenly and without good reason be transformed into an industry.

A distinction must be made between the terms ‘ethyl alcohol’ and ‘spirits’. Distillates should only be classed as ‘spirits’ when they are ready for use. Coarse and fine corn distillates are agricultural and not commercial products.

Why does the above proposal for a regulation not distinguish between coarse and fine corn distillates on the one hand and the finished product corn schnapps on the other?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Article 10 to which the Honourable Member refers provides for the application of rules on national aid in the alcohol sector in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty. The Commission is fully aware of the German production structure's specific situation and a compromise solution on that article was found in order to enable that system to operate during a ten-year transitional period. The Council therefore adopted the Regulation (1) with the agreement of all delegations except Italy.

The Commission is of the opinion that, since distillates possess all the characteristics of spirit drinks, they are to be classified as such even if they are not yet ready for direct human consumption. By contrast, distillates which are used to make ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin are to be regarded as products falling under Annex I to the EC Treaty. Korn is a spirit drink defined and protected in Community legislation (2). There is nothing in the definition of that drink to suggest that this distillate, like the distillate of any other spirit drink covered by that legislation (such as whisky or wine spirits) may be regarded as an agricultural product which would become a spirit drink (ready for human consumption) and therefore a non-agricultural product. The product which is distilled in accordance with the rules laid down in the definitions contained in the above Regulation and which is obtained from the distillation process is to be regarded as a spirit drink and marketed as such.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 670/2003 of 8 April 2003 laying down specific measures concerning the market in ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin, OJ L 97, 15.4.2003.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks, OJ L 160, 12.6.1989.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/39

(2004/C 70 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1380/03

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Wage subsidies in Germany

According to Danish media reports, German tradesmen are entitled to receive wage subsidies from the German state, thereby substantially reducing the cost of their labour. Apparently, certain German building firms have endeavoured with the backing of such wage subsidies to enter the construction market in Denmark. This means that, thanks to the subsidy from the German state, they can practice price dumping and out-bid Danish building firms that are not in receipt of wage subsidies.

Will the Commission advise whether this kind of wage subsidy does in actual fact distort competition and run counter to the EU's competition rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The information available to the Commission does not allow to identify the German public support measure, as described in Danish media reports and as referred to by the Honourable Member. Therefore, the Commission requested Germany to provide all necessary information. Should the German measure exist and contain state aid in the meaning of Article 87 paragraph 1 of the EC Treaty, and should this aid not be exempted from notification pursuant to the Commission Block Exemption Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (1), its compatibility will be assessed under the relevant State aid rules.

(1) OJ L 337, 13.12.2002, and Corrigendum OJ L 349, 24.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/126

(2004/C 70 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2655/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Euronews

Will the Commission say by how much it proposes to subsidise the Euronews television channel and what conditions will be attached to this subsidy? Will the Commission also say what measures will be taken to ensure that Euronews is able retain independence in choosing the substance and form of its reporting?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2003)

The Commission does not award an operating grant to the Euronews television channel, but, as it does with many other radio or television channels, awards grants for actions, either for ad hoc projects or for the ‘coproduction of television modules’ under a framework agreement covering the period 2001-2004. Grants for actions and framework agreements, awarded in accordance with the financial rules in force when they are signed, in no way restrict the editorial freedom of the beneficiary, who must, however, respect the image of the European institutions and the raison d'être and general objectives of the Union.

In addition to these grants Parliament entered a sum of EUR 3 million on line B3-300 of the 2003 budget ‘intended to finance the activities of Euronews in connection with the European institutions’. To give effect to this request and on the basis of the Commission decision of 9 July 2003, Euronews was invited to present a programme of additional actions for which new grants may be awarded. This programme will be assessed by a selection committee in accordance with the arrangements laid down in the Financial Regulation (1) and its implementing rules (2). On the basis of the report of this selection committee, the Commission will decide whether or not to award all or part of the amount earmarked on line Β3-300. If it does so, as generally applies with grants for actions, the editorial freedom of Euronews will be fully respected.

The decision on continued cooperation with Euronews or any change in the arrangements will be taken in the light of the findings of an evaluation of the channel's Community-funded activities.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/232

(2004/C 70 E/249)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3177/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Reuse of medical instruments and accessories

Medical instruments and accessories account for a significant proportion of the costs of public healthcare. Reuse of such instruments and accessories can reduce costs by up to 40 % and has significant benefits from an environmental point of view. However, producers of medical instruments and accessories often mark their products as ‘single use’, preventing reuse and unnecessarily driving up costs. A further negative consequence of this approach is that — in order to save costs — instruments and accessories are often nonetheless reused, without being treated, cleaned or sterilised in a professional manner. A large proportion of hospital infections are believed to be the result of unprofessional reuse of accessories and instruments.

1. Is the Commission aware of the existence of agreements between producers of medical accessories and instruments with a view to marking as many products as possible ‘single use’?

2. Is the Commission prepared to carry out an investigation into such agreements?

3. Could the Commission give an indication of the benefits of professional reuse in terms of economic costs, environmental benefits and prevention of hospital infections?

4. Is the Commission prepared (possibly within the framework of the thematic strategy for recycling) to promote the reuse of medical instruments and accessories?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

1. and 2. The Commission is not aware of the existence of agreements between producers of medical accessories and instruments with a view to marking as many products as possible ‘single-use’ and has prima facie no reason to examine whether such agreements do exist.

3. The Commission is not in a position to provide indications regarding economic costs and environmental benefits associated with re-use of single-use devices. Hospital infection is a complex issue, of which the use of medical devices is only a component, probably difficult to identify and isolate.

4. The Commission shares the point of view of virtually all Member States that re-use of single-use devices should not be promoted for reasons of health protection. It draws the attention to the fact that through procurement policy, Member States can promote the use of medical devices designed and placed on the market as reusable devices. The role procurement policy and other instruments can play in limiting the generation of waste will be considered in the Commission's Communication ‘Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste’ (1). However, this strategy will not address re-use of medical instruments and accessories in particular.

(1) COM(2003) 301 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/129

(2004/C 70 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2696/03

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Export refunds for ovalbumin

The production of egg products generates greater quantities of albumin than the European market can absorb, while third countries have a substantial need for high-grade albumin. In order to be capable of competing on the world market, the European egg production industry is dependent on export refunds.

Ovalbumin is regarded as a non-Annex I product (CN Code 3502) and so, for the purpose of export refunds, is bracketed with wheat and milk products rather than eggs in shell (CN Code 0408). On account of increased exports in the wheat and milk products sectors, the Commission recently introduced a reduction of over 90 % for export licence applications, a reduction which also applies to ovalbumin, although exports in that sector have not increased.

Ovalbumin accounts for a very small proportion of the total products covered by CN Code 3502, but is very important for small and medium-sized undertakings in the egg production industry.

1. What is the Commission's assessment of the effects on the ovalbumin sector of the measures decided?

2. Is the Commission prepared to change the tariff classification of ovalbumin by reclassifying it under agricultural products, thus placing it on the same footing as other egg products such as eggs in shell, egg yolk and whole egg (CN Code 0408)? If so, what timescale does it have in mind? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Egg albumin falling under CN subheading 3502 is indeed not included in Annex I of the EC Treaty. Together with other Non Annex I products containing cereals, sugar, milk and eggs it is however eligible to benefit of export refunds for the amount of agricultural products of the four sectors mentioned which are used for their manufacture.

In the Uruguay Round the Union agreed to limit its export refunds for agricultural products. These commitments were made separately for the various agricultural product sectors and for Non Annex I products.

The recent strong rise of applications for refund licences of Non Annex I products during 2002/2003 has indeed led to ever increasing reduction coefficients (42 % first tranche, 95 % last tranche) in order to respect the Union's World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments. These reductions were particularly felt by the egg product industry in view of the quite unique position of egg albumin amongst the many Non Annex I products being manufactured from one raw material alone. According to trade statistics available until June 2003, no dramatic drop of export can yet be observed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/86

(2004/C 70 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2337/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Alcoholic consumption in European cities

A number of constituents have raised concerns over how the English are portrayed in Europe. Their concerns arise mainly from experiences of young people using cheap flights to go abroad for stag and hen weekends.

Does the Commission collect data on the increase in violent incidents in ‘tourist areas’ of European capital cities arising from or connected with alcohol consumption? If so please could the Commission provide this information?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2003)

The Commission does not at present collect data on the number of violent incidents in ‘tourist areas’ of European capital cities arising from or connected with alcohol consumption.

Nevertheless, the Commission considers that it would be useful if the competent authorities of the Member States, which are responsible for maintaining public order on their territory, were to collect information for statistical purposes so that the extent of the problem could be correctly assessed and adequate measures taken.

Such information could be relevant for the report which the Commission is drafting on the economic and social burden of alcohol, which is one of the priorities of the public health program for the Community for 2003-2008.

Crime prevention including the prevention of alcohol-related criminality, remains a matter largely within the responsibility of local, regional and national authorities. Action at Union level in this field should continue to be limited to supporting exchange of information and best practice between the competent authorities, such as the European Crime-Prevention Network, which focuses on urban, juvenile and drug-related crime.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/249

(2004/C 70 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3269/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Repeal of legislation

How many pieces of legislation (directives, regulations, decisions) have been repealed in each year for the last five years?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

The number of legislative instruments which are repealed or expire each year are listed in the General Report on the Activities of the European Union:

— 2002 General Report, Point 1095, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/2002/pt1095.htm);

— 2001 General Report, Point 1212, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/2001/pt1212.htm);

— 2000 General Report, Point 1154, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/2000/pt1154.htm);

— 1999 General Report, Point 1036, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/1999/pt1036.htm);

— 1998 General Report, Point 1090, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/1998/pt0028.htm);

The data are extracted mid-January from the interinstitutional automated documentation system for Community law, CELEX, and do not include instruments not published in the Official Journal of the European Union or published in light type (routine management instruments valid for a limited period).

The data are summarised in the table which has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.