ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/37

(2004/C 84 E/0041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 September 2003)

Subject: National land register in Turkey and property on the island of Imvros

According to the Imvros Association of Athens, the implementation of the Turkish national land register on Imvros has led to the loss of most of Greek property on the island which has been arbitrarily registered as belonging to the Turkish State. According to the results of the land register carried out in June 2003, 100 % of the uncultivated land in the village of Agridia on Imvros which is a purely Greek village has been registered as belonging to the Turkish State, although Greeks hold legal property titles to this land. Bearing in mind a previous statement by the Council that Turkish-EU relations must be based on a clear commitment to respect law and international agreements, and given that the Treaty of Lausanne provides for self-rule for the Greek inhabitants of Imvros and Tenedos and in particular for respect for their language, religion and property and that Turkey is a candidate country, will the Council say how it intends to intervene with the Turkish authorities to guarantee the protection of the property of Greek on Imvros?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

1. The Council is well aware that under the Lausanne treaty Turkey has obligations towards non-Moslem minorities as regards the protection of persons and property.

2. The Council expects all countries aspiring to EU membership to respect international law and their treaty obligations, in particular in the field of human rights. Moreover, Turkey should ensure full and effective implementation of reforms to ensure that Turkish citizens can enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms in line with European standards including civil and property rights. This is being constantly made clear to Turkey and is also reflected in the revised Turkey accession partnership by the relevant priority, requesting Turkey to ‘comply with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’.

3. The Council is keeping the matter under close review and will continue to make this point. The Commission's regular report for 2003 on Turkey's progress in the accession process, (November 2003), [will give] a full assessment of the State of Turkey's compliance with membership requirements. Human rights — including the implementation aspect — will feature prominently in this report.
1.

Is the Commission aware of the BBC's Panorama programme of 22 May 2003 which reported that Dutch chicken contained protein from beef and pork, although this was not indicated on the label? It was also claimed that Dutch companies were using proteins which could no longer be traced by such bodies as the Food and Veterinary Office.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/320

(2004/C 78 E/0326)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3773/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

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

In response to my previous question (E-1073/03 (1)) asking whether the Siena municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Siena 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 78/642

(2004/C 78 E/0683)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3760/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Siena

In its answer to question E-1028/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3751/03, E-3752/03, E-3753/03, E-3754/03, E-3755/03, E-3756/03, E-3757/03, E-3758/03, E-3759/03 and E-3760/03

given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Further to the answer given to the Honourable Member's previous questions, below are the numbers of projects submitted and grants received in 2000-2003 by the municipalities concerned under the Community's City Twinning Programme:

— Municipality of Terni, Italy: — in 2000 and 2003 no projects were submitted; — in 2001 one project was submitted but not approved; — in 2002 one project was funded (EUR 1 027), and the Municipality of Terni received a grant of EUR 1 170 as an invited town under another project.

— Municipality of Ancona, Italy: — in 2002 one project was submitted but not approved; — no projects were submitted in the other years.

— Municipality of Florence, Italy: — in 2000 no projects were submitted; — in 2001 one project was approved then cancelled; — in 2002 one project was approved in which the Municipality of Florence was an invited city, and the grant was paid to the organising city; — in 2003 one project was approved under which the Municipality of Florence received a grant of EUR 472,5 as an invited city.

— Municipality of Livornio, Italy: — in 2001 one project was not approved and one project was funded (EUR 9 000); — no projects were submitted in the other years.

— Municipality of Macerata, Italy: — in 2001 one project was not approved; — no projects were submitted in the other years.

— Municipality of Perugia, Italy: — no projects have ever been submitted.

— Municipality of Pesaro, Italy: — in 2000 and 2003 no projects were submitted; — in 2001 one project was funded (EUR 2 618); — in 2002 one project was funded (EUR 4 638).

— Municipality of Pisa, Italy: — in 2000 one project was not approved; — no projects were submitted in the other years.

— Municipality of Pistoia, Italy: — no projects have been submitted since 1993.

— Municipality of Sienna, Italy: — in 2000 one project was not approved; — in 2001 one project was not approved; — in 2002 one project was funded (EUR 2 854); — in 2003 no projects were submitted.

The Honourable Member might also contact the relevant local authorities for more detailed information.

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/322

(2004/C 78 E/0332)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3799/03

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 Pisa

In its answer to question E-0986/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pisa 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 78/209

(2004/C 78 E/0213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3011/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Fisheries: national boundaries within the EU's EEZ

In the hypothetical situation that national boundaries were to be established within the European Union's Exclusive Economic Zone, where within the ICES zones IIa, IV (a, b and c), Vb (1 and 2), VI (a and b), VII (a, d, e, f, g, h and j) and XII would those boundaries lie?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the Member States are responsible for defining their exclusive economic zones and the boundaries between sea areas where such a definition is necessary as a result of opposing or adjacent coastlines. They are defined in accordance with the rules of the international law of the sea.

The Member States have adopted national legislation defining the boundaries in the zones referred to in the Honourable Member's question, with the exception of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) zone XII, which only covers international waters.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/90

(2004/C 78 E/0088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2196/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Civil protection

What civil protection resources and capabilities are available to the European Commission and how is the Commission organised to handle these matters? What is the Commission's budget for civil protection activities for each year in the period 2000-2005? What steps are taken to ensure that the Commission does not duplicate the activities of the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre at NATO HQ? In the event of a crisis, what mechanisms exist to ensure that the Commission's call for and mobilisation of capabilities, and execution of civil protection procedures, are fully coordinated with those of NATO?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Following the Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in civil protection assistance interventions (1), the Commission has established a Response Centre which is accessible and able to react immediately 24 hours a day. The Centre can be activated in case of a natural or man-made emergency, occurring inside or outside the Union. If it receives a request for assistance, it takes up immediate contact with the 24-hour contact points of the countries participating in the mechanism (Member States, European Economic Area (EEA) and Accession Countries). Then, the Centre puts together the means available, offered on a voluntary basis by the national competent authorities and facilitates their deployment.

The budget for Civil Protection activities for the year 2003 is EUR 6,5 million. This budget covers, on a co-financing basis, different types of activities: training, exercises and exchange of experts for civil protection personnel, workshops and projects aiming at better information of the public, awareness raising projects.

Out of this budget EUR 2 million have been earmarked by the Parliament for floods and earthquake forecasting projects.

The Commission has developed regular contacts with all relevant bodies and international organisations concerned with civil protection, including NATO's Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC). It will be up to those Member States who have offered civil protection capabilities to one or more co-ordination centres to decide how best their resources should be deployed in any given emergency situation. Council Decision 1999/847/CE establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (2) is also worth mentioning in this context.

(1) OJ L 297, 15.11.2001.

(2) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/656

(2004/C 88 E/0673)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3936/03

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

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Italtrend

Following recent reports in the press regarding the Italian public procurement company Italtrend:

— What is the total value of Italtrend's work with the Commission since 1999?

— How many contracts have been awarded by the Commission to Italtrend since 1999?

— How were each of these contracts awarded? Please give a detailed breakdown.

— Were any of the contracts awarded through a restrictive tendering procedure?

— Were any of the contracts awarded through direct agreement with the company?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

In relation to the replies the Commission has already given on this issue to European Voice as well as to written question E-3586/03 by Mr Borghezio (1), should be noted that, on 31st December 2003, the total value of Italtrend's work with the Commission since the 1st September 1999 in the area of external aid is EUR 7,97 million, corresponding to the value of contracts signed with Italtrend in this area since the above-mentioned date. The number of contracts signed over this same period is 49.

From these 49 contracts a total of 43 are service contracts below EUR 200 000 awarded within the so-called framework contract. The framework contract was subject to tendering published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Further to this procedure open to competition, 58 companies were short-listed for subsequent consultation for award of short term service contracts below EUR 200 000.

From the other six contracts, one was awarded through call for proposals, two were awarded by restricted tender further to publication of procurement notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, one through negotiated procedure and two through direct agreement.

(1) OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 508.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/142

(2004/C 88 E/0150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3382/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Kidnapping of a Médecins Sans Frontières volunteer

Arian Erkel, the head of the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) mission in the Caucuses was kidnapped by three armed men in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan, on 12 August 2003. MSF has had no news of him since then, nor has it received any demands or any call for a ransom. Dr Erkel is the fourth MSF volunteer to be kidnapped in the Northern Caucuses since 1996. 56 humanitarian workers have been kidnapped in this region since 1995. Around 200 000 people (approximately 20 % of the population) have died since the initial conflict began in 1994, while another 300 000 have been forced to flee either to camps set up on Chechen territory or to those in Ingushetia. This umpteenth kidnapping of a humanitarian worker testifies to the insecurity in which they have to operate and the risks run by all those who want to provide aid to civilian populations but work in areas where violence is a fact of daily life and no respect is shown for humanitarian actions. In view of this disastrous and distressing situation:

1. What can the Commission do to come to the aid of Dr Erkel.

2. What action will the Commission take to enable independent humanitarian organisations to work in safety, to guarantee them access to civilian populations, both in Chechnya and in the neighbouring regions flooded with refugees, and to ensure that negotiations are reopened?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission is deeply concerned for the welfare of Mr Erkel, who was working on a European Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO)-funded project at the time he was kidnapped in Dagestan. The Commission has on numerous occasions — including at the EU/Russia Summit in Rome on 6 November 2003 — asked for the help of Russia in gaining the early release of Mr Erkel.

The Commission — via ECHO — is the largest donor of humanitarian aid in the north Caucasus. It is aware of the extremely poor security conditions which exist for humanitarian workers, notably in Chechnya itself. In this regard, the Commission has repeatedly called on the Russian authorities to facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid — by facilitating access of humanitarian workers to Chechnya, by providing non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with access to United Nations very high frequency (UN VHF) communications, by ensuring security for aid workers and by allowing ECHO to open an office in Nazran, Ingushetia. It regrets that Russia has not yet taken concrete measures to do so. On the contrary, the system of access permits to Chechnya has become even more opaque than before and high insecurity continues to prevail.

The Commission will continue to use political dialogue meetings to call on the Russian authorities to improve the security and access situation in the north Caucasus.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/459

(2004/C 88 E/0471)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3277/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: New relations with Libya

The lifting of the embargo against Libya, imposed as a result of its mistaken support for terrorism, should present the European Union with the possibility of establishing new relations with that country that reflect, among other things, the Mediterranean policy that the European Parliament has for several years been hoping for in its regard.

In this connection:

1. Could the Commission indicate whether it has already taken steps to tailor relations with Libya towards a Mediterranean policy?

2. In the context of possible discussions on the economy and trade, does it intend to tackle the issue of compensation for the assets confiscated from the 20 000 Italians expelled by the Libyan regime in the past, and for the companies from Italy and other European countries who are still waiting for the Libyan Government to pay the balance of their fees along with any eventual damages?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

The lifting of the United Nations sanctions on 12 September 2003 is indeed an important step towards the reintegration of Libya into the international community. This was a condition for Libya to join the Barcelona Process, which is the framework of Union relations towards Mediterranean Countries. Libya is invited to become a full member of the Barcelona Process as soon as it has accepted fully all its ‘acquis’.

Libya's accession to the Barcelona process remains the main Union policy towards this country. In the meantime, possible co-operation on specific areas of interest, as is the case for example for illegal immigration, is being developed.

In the context of Union enlargement, consideration should be given to how it could incorporate Libya into its policy towards neighbouring countries, on the basis of the respect of shared values.

The issue of compensation for assets confiscated from Italians expelled by the Libyan regime is a bilateral one and therefore is not being dealt with at the EU level.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/73

(2004/C 33 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0732/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Guinea-Bissau: human rights

Recently there has been a spate of reports that trade unionists, human rights activists, leaders of opposition parties and those of various associations have been arrested in Guinea-Bissau. These reports come on top of others of severe restrictions on freedom of expression (RTP-Africa delegation, local radio stations and other media), and on other fundamental rights, making the gloomy overall picture of the economic, financial, social and political situation prevailing in Guinea-Bissau even blacker. Now, to complete this picture of general collapse, comes the news that the legislative elections originally scheduled for April will probably be postponed, on the grounds that the requisite funding simply cannot be found.

How has the Commission monitored the on-going deterioration of the situation in Guinea-Bissau and what measures has it taken, in particular with regard to protecting human rights and putting an end to political persecution there? Does the Commission believe that the EU could provide funding for the electoral process, and thus help to ensure democratic developments in Guinea-Bissau? What other measures does the Commission intend to take, either on its own or in cooperation with other countries and international organisations, with a view to promoting Guinea-Bissau's return to democratic normality?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Within the context of its political dialogue with the authorities of Guinea- Bissau, the Commission closely follows, in a permanent and regular way, the on-going deterioration of the situation as described by the Honourable Member. A political dialogue encompassing a regular assessment of developments concerning respect for human rights is provided for in article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement.

The Commission is willing to consider requests for financial support to the electoral process.

The Commission will continue to participate in a political dialogue with the authorities of Guinea-Bissau, which may be intensified depending on the evolution of the situation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/78

(2004/C 65 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1405/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject: The Commission's staff policy

About two years ago the Commission Representation in Vienna attracted attention as a result of its employment methods. People were appointed on the basis of employment contracts, without the knowledge of the Commission, to fill a number of different posts. When the Commission carried out checks these employees had to ‘keep out of the way’ (they were instructed not to come to the representation on these days, but to continue their work at home). Since then the Commission has already been convicted in one case by the Austrian Employment and Social Court, and OLAF investigations are pending.

Recently the former head of the Commission's Vienna Representation, Hatto Käfer, began working as press officer of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, having been promoted from an A5 to an A3 post in the process. It was Mr Käfer who on the occasion of Commission checks issued written instructions to all holders of employment contracts to stay at home and carry on working there and not to be seen at the Commission Representation.

Alberto Hasson, who was responsible at that time for the representations in the Member States, is now director ad interim of the entire administration of the Press DG, and is to be appointed as its permanent director shortly. Mr Hasson was one of the people with most responsibility for the Vienna representation and it was due to him that, among other things, the head of its staff representation being dismissed without notice.

Is it the Commission's practice to promote officials who are currently under legal investigation?

If so, in what other cases has the Commission acted in this way?

If not, what measures does the Commission take in such cases?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The question makes certain allegations about Commission officials referred to by name. This is an attack on their reputation and breaches the right enjoyed by every individual to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It could also harm the administrative and legal situation of the officials concerned.

The Commission wishes to correct the following points in the statements made by the Honourable Member:

— the recruitment procedure for filling the post of director in the Directorate-General (DG) PRESS is under way;

— the second official referred to in the question was responsible for personnel and administration in DG PRESS (Headquarters and Representations), and not specifically for the Commission Representations in the Member States;

— the decision to dismiss a member of the local staff without notice was taken by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment in full compliance with the relevant rules. The local staff member concerned did not have the status of ‘head of its staff representation’ (Betriebsrätin) as claimed;