ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/806

(2004/C 78 E/0855)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3365/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Regeneration of the Psyrri district

One of the projects being undertaken in Athens with some Community funding with a view to unifying the archaeological sites is the so-called regeneration of the Psyrri district; it forms part of the old city and had low buildings, narrow streets and a working-class population pursuing traditional economic activities. Unfortunately, this regeneration is increasingly displacing the original inhabitants and traditional craftsmen and leading to the completely uncontrolled development of nightclubs which are a source of great inconvenience and pollution. Those directly affected have increasingly complained and made representations to the authorities, but without any result so far, despite the fact that it is generally recognised that infringements and illegal activities have taken place in the Psyrri district.

Will the Commission say whether it was aware of any planning objectives of this regeneration before financing the projects, whether it had given its approval and whether it has monitored their ‘implementation’? How is it possible for Community funds to be used to carry out projects which are destroying the urban and economic fabric at the very centre of the Greek capital?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The integration of the Athens archaeological sites is one of the priorities included in the third Community Support Framework for Greece and is implemented by way of a series of projects. These projects concern the renovation of the sites and related cultural activities. As it does not concern projects in the sense of chapter V (‘major projects’) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), the national authorities are responsible for the selection of individual projects. The detailed planning and implementation is a matter for the designated managing authorities of the relevant programmes, in particular the operational programme ‘Culture’ and the regional operational programme ‘Attica’.

According to the information currently available to the Commission, no commercial activities of the kind described in the question of the Honourable Member have been supported under the programmes concerned.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/604

(2004/C 88 E/0621)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia

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 Perugia, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/719

(2004/C 78 E/0767)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1586/03

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Radioactive contamination from Sellafield

Will the Commission set out the means by which it is in a position to independently determine, as required under Euratom Treaty Article 37, whether the reprocessing activities at Sellafield and La Hague respectively are liable or not to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State?
2.

The European Court of Justice has decided in its judgement in case C-458/00 that the primary objective of incineration in a dedicated municipal waste incinerator is waste disposal. The Court added that this classification as a disposal operation is not changed if, as a secondary effect of the process, energy is generated and used. The consequence of the Court Decision is that the definition of the recovery target provided for in Article 6 of the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging (3) waste should be interpreted as follows: The word recovery is defined in Directive 94/62/EC as any of the applicable operations provided for in Annex IIB to Directive 75/442/EEC. The Court's judgement in case C-458/00 has by applying the concept of the primary objective of the operation excluded dedicated incineration in municipal incinerators from this list of operations. Energy recovery defined as ‘the use of combustible packaging waste as a means to generate energy through direct incineration with or without other waste and with recovery of the heat’ is excluded from the concept of recycling as it is defined in Directive 94/62/EC. On this basis, to achieve the overall recovery target, Member States have either to increase recycling or to recover energy from the combustible fraction of the packaging waste stream through co-incineration in cement kilns or power plants, which have been recognised by the Court as recovery operations (Law case C-228/00, judgement 13 February 2003).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/458

(2004/C 88 E/0470)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3270/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Progress in Cameroon

In the context of the donors' meeting on Cameroon scheduled for 29 October 2003, what reports has the Commission received on progress towards democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Cameroon? In particular, is the Commission satisfied that the necessary reforms are being implemented to enable a free and fair Presidential election to be held in October 2004?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

In the context of the Commonwealth-sponsored ‘Meeting of Cameroon's international partners’, which took place on 31 October 2003 in London, the Commission received the report ‘Strengthening the Electoral Process in Cameroon’. This report, made by a Commonwealth Team of Experts, underlines the shortcomings in the organisation of the previous elections in Cameroon and proposes concrete measures to redress the situation. At the meeting itself the Cameroonian authorities reported on the plans for wide-ranging reforms in the areas of election management, human rights, the rule of law, decentralisation and the independence of the judiciary. In concrete terms, the Cameroonian authorities committed to present to the parliamentary sessions in March 2004 and June 2004 legislation concerning the reform of the National Commission for Human Rights and Freedoms and the National Electoral Observatory, in order to increase the independence of these bodies, as well as on decentralisation.

In the area of election management, the Commission regrets that the necessary reforms have not yet begun to be implemented. The Commission, as well as the other donors present at the meeting in London, urged the government to speed up the measures to be taken, stressing, the need for (a) a clear and publicly available calendar of the various processes and procedures leading up to the October 2004 Presidential election, (b) the elaboration of a new voters' roll; (c) the adoption of the proposed draft legislation on the Observatory as early as possible to allow for its application in good time before the election and (d) ensuring full consultations and transparency on all aspects of the electoral process.

The Commission will follow closely the concrete measures the government takes.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/91

(2004/C 78 E/0090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2206/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Action to confine marketing of specified products to the Czech Republic

Appendix A to Annex V to the Accession Act lists establishments in the Czech Republic that are permitted to delay until 31 December 2006 their compliance, in the area of veterinary legislation, with the structural requirements of the directives applicable respectively to fresh meat, fresh poultry meat, meat products, egg products and milk. Products originating from those establishments may, during that period, only be placed on the domestic market or used for further processing in domestic establishments.

I therefore ask the Commission what action can be taken, short of border checks on products, to ensure that the above products originating from the Czech establishments concerned have in fact been placed or processed only on the domestic market?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2003)

The provisions of Annex V to the Accession Act provide specific rules guaranteeing that products from establishments granted a transitional period do not circulate in the internal market. In addition, Annex V entitles the Commission to adopt detailed implementing rules for the production, marketing (including special marking) and control of products originating from establishments granted a transitional period.

The Commission has initiated discussions on supplementary control measures to be applied to the production and marketing of products in transition with existing and new Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/154

(2004/C 78 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2695/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Implementation of the Promise programme

The Promise programme, which ended in 2002, provided funds totalling EUR 25 million for projects involving the exchange of information, technology and good practice with a view to improving the security of telecommunications networks. What projects have been funded under this programme, with particular reference to Italy? Would the Commission list in full the companies, undertakings and public bodies that submitted projects under the programme, and the companies whose applications were successful? Was the successful completion of the projects monitored, and were their results assessed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The total spending amount of Promise, as foreseen by its legal basis was EUR 25 million, for five years. The total amount committed was EUR 21 847 032 covering all the period of the programme. An overall information on the spending in 1998 and 1999 and the indication for expenditure with reference to Italy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In 2000, after the mid-term review evaluation made by a group of external experts, the Promise programme was redirected towards the eEurope Action plan and in particular the associated benchmarking exercise and exchange of best practices. In this context, the budget of Promise was devoted to call for tenders for studies or surveys launched by the Commission and committed according to public procurement rules. The budget breakdown for 2000, 2001 and 2002 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. This includes the names of the contractor and the Member State, where its seat is established. In the case of the Eurobarometer surveys, the indicated contractor is a Belgian company which carried out the contract together with its subsidiaries in each Member State.

During the last two years Promise financed three best practices projects in collaboration with presidency countries; Two ‘e-government’ conferences in Belgium (2001) and Italy (2003) and the ‘eHealth’ Conference (Greece 2003). Furthermore, one work-shop on eEurope 2005 has been organised in Spain, during the Spanish Presidency.

The Commission has issued payments for the services received on the basis of invoices and after analysis and acceptance of the technical reports submitted by the contractors according to standard procedures.

A group of external independent experts are currently in charge of the final evaluation of the programme. They work on the basis of the terms of reference agreed in the Promise management committee and will submit their report in November 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/467

(2004/C 78 E/0491)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3128/03

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject: Trade

Some draft conclusions were drawn up in preparation for negotiations on the agriculture chapter at the failed WTO talks in Cancún that would involve cutting back subsidies under the common agricultural policy, which has just been reformed.

Does the European Union intend to accept these new conditions even though no agreement was reached on this matter in Cancún?

What is the European Union's margin for manoeuvre on agriculture for the next multilateral negotiations, without it having to introduce fresh reforms to the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Due to the course of events in Cancun, Ministers did not have the opportunity to discuss the Agricultural part of the draft Ministerial Declaration submitted by Mr Derbez. This chapter contained some proposals of great concern to the Commission, notably in the pillars of domestic support and export competition. Had the discussion started in Cancun, the Commission would have sought the necessary changes to the text.

The Commission has based its position on the decisions on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform taken in Luxembourg in 2003. The depth and width of the CAP reform will enable the Commission to continue working on this basis in the future so as to maintain the consistency of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations with the Community's domestic framework.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/303

(2004/C 78 E/0305)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3618/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject: Building cooperatives in Greece

Commissioner Byrne gave me a polite reply to my question No E-2850/03 (1), indicating that the issue it touched on was a ‘private matter’, and at the same time providing a brief analysis of timeshare leases which, however, have no connection with the issue which I raised in my question.

I would like to return to the subject I initially raised, which affects at least 500 000 Greek citizens (as many leading Greek newspapers have been pointing out) and which consists of the following totally unacceptable situation: there are building cooperatives in Greece which were founded up to 38 years ago (such as the Medical Staff Summer Property Cooperative situated in Athens which owns land in Saronida, Attica, and many other plots), whose members have been paying their annual and additional contributions for decades, but nobody is giving them any information on when they will receive the plots to which they are entitled.

The Greek press has reported that associations of cooperative members are already making moves in the direction of an appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Is it consistent with EU legislation that thousands of Greek nationals (EU citizens) have been paying subscriptions — for decades! — without so far receiving any assets? Which provision in EU legislation might they invoke in support of their claims?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it does not appear that the situation described is covered by a specific consumer protection Community legislation.

For the rest, and although it sympathises with the predicaments of the people affected by such a difficult situation, the Commission is not empowered to take action in the case of private disputes between companies/professionals and consumers.

This matter, being an internal issue and taking into account the principle of subsidiarity, appears to be solely for the national authorities concerned and in particular the national jurisdictions. If, at a later stage, a national jurisdiction considers that the case raises a question of Community law and encounters problems of interpretation, it can make use of the preliminary ruling procedure and bring its questions before the Court of justice.

(1) See page 179.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/121

(2004/C 84 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3939/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Failure by drivers of refuse and gritting lorries to comply with the rules on driving and rest periods when carrying out public service tasks

Over the Christmas period and during the winter the workload facing drivers of refuse and gritting lorries, whose duties in Germany include some public service tasks, is such that they are unable to comply with the rules governing driving and rest periods for drivers of heavy goods vehicles.

This state of affairs prompts the following questions, which concern both public-sector employers and the employees in question in Germany:

— Can derogations be granted from the rules governing driving and rest periods when drivers are performing public service tasks?

— If so, by how many hours can maximum driving periods be exceeded in such cases?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Regulation which governs driving time and rest periods for drivers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport (1), sets out a list of exemptions in Article 4. Under Article 4(6) vehicles which are used for highway maintenance and control as well as refuse collection and disposal are exempt from the Regulation's provisions. It therefore follows that for the period in which these vehicles carry out such activities, they are excluded from the Regulation's provisions. Thus drivers of the two categories of vehicle mentioned — refuse lorries and gritting vehicles — are not subject to the Regulation's provisions.

This being so, only certain provisions of the general working time Directive (Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (2), as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 (3)) are applicable to such mobile workers, including, amongst others, the requirements that they should have adequate rest, and that they should work 48 hours per week on average within a reference period of four months that can be extended, by the Member State concerned, up to 12 months.

In addition, Member States may make national rules to cover these particular drivers.

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(3) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/133

(2004/C 84 E/0170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4026/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Precious Metals Directive

Given the Council of Minister's failure to reach agreement on the Precious Metals Directive during the Italian Presidency, will the European Commission withdraw its proposal on Articles made of precious metal (1)? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Committee of Permanent Representatives on 19 November 2003 did not consider the subject ready for discussion in the Council of Ministers.

As there continue to be divergent views on the proposal for the directive in Council, the Commission will consider its position and duly inform the Honourable Member on its further course of action.

(1) COM(1993)0322, OJ C 318, 25.11.1993, p. 5.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/386

(2004/C 78 E/0409)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Reduced VAT on the rent or purchase of video cassettes and DVDs

Video cassette and DVD purchases have greatly stimulated the dissemination of culture, benefiting in particular the European film industry, since high-quality reproduction can be obtained from equipment which is reliable, easy to use and inexpensive.

The vitality of this sector is reflected by a 20 % increase in demand for rent or purchase in 2002 compared with the previous year. Despite the high level of demand for cultural products of this nature, further expansion is being hampered by high VAT rates with no reductions as is the case with cinema entrance tickets and pay television, for example.

Does the Commission intend to extend Annex H of the sixth VAT directive (Directive 77/388/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 2001/4/EC (2)), removing or reducing VAT on video cassette and DVD-related goods and services so as to support the European film industry?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Under the Sixth VAT Directive (3) as it stands, all Member States must apply the standard rate to rentals and purchases of video cassettes and DVDs. This ensures that taxes on these products are to some degree harmonised throughout the Community (though the standard rate varies between Member States from 15 % to 25 %). Reduced rates are optional for Member States and introducing this option for video cassettes and DVDs would only increase the differences in rates applied across the Community.

The Commission intends to present a proposal for a Directive on reduced VAT rates before the summer of 2004. The primary purpose of the proposal will be to improve the functioning of the single market by rationalising the way Member States use reduced rates. The aim is to avoid potential distortions in competition by giving all Member States the same opportunity to apply reduced rates.

In the lead-up to the forthcoming revision of reduced rates, the case for extending their scope will be carefully examined.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 22, 24.1.2001, p. 17.

(3) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, as last amended by Council Directive 2002/92/EC of 3 December 2002, OJ L 331, 7.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/54

(2004/C 88 E/0057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1984/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject: Turkish violations of Greek airspace

Turkish warplanes, often fully armed, are continually violating the rules of air traffic and Greek airspace, and there are frequent interceptions and mock dogfights over the Aegean. These incidents occur on a daily basis: they severely threaten peace in the region, constitute a threat against a Member State and certainly violate the principles of good-neighbourly relations to which Turkey is supposed to have committed itself. On 26 May 2003 General Hilmi Özkök, Chief of the Turkish General Staff, stated that Turkish warplanes would move freely in Greek airspace and that this would not constitute a violation, since it was international airspace.

Has the Commission intervened with the Turkish authorities to put an end to these provocative actions which pose a serious threat to a Member State of the European Union? What else does it intend to do to persuade Turkey to apply the principles of good-neighbourly relations vis-à-vis Greece and other neighbouring countries, a policy to which it has committed itself?