ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/454

(2004/C 78 E/0481)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3030/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Use of hydraulic dredges in the EU

Hydraulic dredges, wrongly called ‘chupadeiras’ or ‘chuponas’ (suckers), a fishing technique which has profound repercussions in terms of the environment and of conservation of fish stocks, are used for fishing for bivalves; the high-pressure hosing and consequent stirring up of the offshore seabed in order to catch epi-benthic fauna in the dredges has both directly and indirectly destructive effects on the seabed and affects its recolonisation and reconstitution.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

— is this technique being used in the European Union? If so, where and by which parts of the fleet;

— what is the Commission's opinion of this technique? Is there any Community legislation in this area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the use of mechanised dredges in most of Community waters from the Baltic to the Mediterranean sea. This technique is very often used for fishing molluscs and to wash out deeper-sited shells, usually by small vessels fishing near the shore.

The Commission is aware of some studies on the impact of this fishing gear on the environment. Detailed studies on long-term effects of this fishing method are lacking. There is however, some evidence of environmental effects in the short-term.

At present there is no Community legislation in the field of fisheries on the use of mechanised dredges. Where such measures are now applicable, these are established for local fisheries by Member States.

In certain cases, the use of these devices could be restricted on the grounds of Community legislation in the field of nature protection.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/11

(2004/C 88 E/0011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0356/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) and Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Human rights abuses in Honduras

The Commission will be aware of the human rights abuses, notably the frequent murder of street children, which continue in Honduras.

Has the Commission:

1. Made representations to the Honduran Government?

2. Other plans, to try to improve the dreadful situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its joint reply to questions E-0086/03 by Mr Roger Helmer and question E-0097/03 by Mr Philip Whitehead on the same subject (1).

(1) See page 5.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/719

(2004/C 84 E/0807)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1040/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leader+ 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 support innovative rural development measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and natural heritage, creating new jobs by strengthening the local economy and improving the organisational capacity of rural communities,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

2. whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/676

(2004/C 78 E/0719)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3922/03

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject: Projects co-funded by the Commission as part of the National Hydrological Plan

The Spanish Environment Ministry regularly publishes various figures concerning the number of NHP projects and Annex II to Law 889 (on building works and projects) which have secured EU funding. However, the Commission's DG on Regional Policy has replied to all questions and requests for information in this connection with the statement that it possesses no NHP building project references, since the requests for funding arrive without explicit reference to the NHP, bearing reference numbers different from the abbreviations used in the NHP Law. This is a worrying situation, above all in terms of the cumulative environmental effects and synergies of the various building projects.

Can the Commission submit a report on the co-funding, making reference to each NHP project?

Should the DG on Regional Policy not request that the Spanish Government from now on, identify each building project included in the NHP Law with a specific reference to the latter, so as to facilitate the monitoring of NHP projects?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the response given to the question E-2288/01.

It should also be noted that Annex II of Spanish law 10/2001 on the National Hydrological Plan (SNHP) referred to by the Honourable Member includes a listing of investments consisting of several hundreds of projects. The Spanish authorities have submitted a number of these projects for financing in the framework of the financial instruments and programming documents mentioned in the response referred to above, without specifically informing the Commission whether they are included in the SNHP, as this is not a necessary requirement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/86

(2004/C 84 E/0099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3704/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Terni

With reference to question E-0973/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Terni (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/885

(2004/C 78 E/0936)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3937/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: European Regulation on yogurt

During an investigation of the requirements for yogurt and yogurt products undertaken by the Commission in December 2002, it was found that these vary greatly between the different Member States. Some of the Member States, such as the southern European countries and Denmark, recognise only the classic Bulgarian-style yogurt, in which cultures of Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus are used.

However, in other Member States such as Germany, the Netherlands, England, Ireland, Sweden and Finland, ‘mild yogurt’, in which other Lactobacillus species are used instead of Lactobacillus bulgaricus, is permitted in addition to the classic Bulgarian-style yogurt. Furthermore, the Member States have different requirements for the use of the designation ‘heat-treated yogurt product’.

It should be borne in mind in this context that in April 2002 the EC and the Member States approved the Codex Standard for fermented milk products, and that Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1) calls on the Member States and the Community to ensure consistency between international technical standards and food law. In view of the fact that during talks on the Codex Standard for fermented milk final approval was granted by all the Member States and the Commission, it would seem reasonable to expect that a proposal would be made for European harmonisation on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and the Codex Standard.

However in reality the draft put forward by the Commission, the latest version of which is dated 20 August 2003, differs significantly in both its basic principles and its details from the Codex Standard for fermented milk products.

What is the reason for this lack of consistency between Commission policy and the Codex Standard? It should be noted that under the Codex Standard the EU is considered a single state, in which all products must be able to circulate freely, including ‘heat-treated yogurt products’.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

As mentioned in the reply to Written Question E-2397/03 by Mr Vallvé (2), the Commission is examining the need for yogurt legislation.

A first document prepared by the Commission services forms the basis for technical discussions with experts. Up to now, the Commission has not decided to make a proposal for legislation on yogurt.

Should this decision be taken, there will be ample opportunity to discuss every aspect, including the question asked by the Honourable Member, with Member States and the Parliament.

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/22

(2004/C 84 E/0024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Penalisation of Portuguese farmers

At a recent meeting with milk producers from northern Portugal I was confronted with reports of the unjust treatment of Portuguese farmers who had exceeded the milk quota up to the end of March 2003.

These farmers have received penalties, whilst in Italy it has just been announced that an agreement has been approved to resolve the problem of Italian farmers in the same situation.

Can the Council provide information on the specific conditions of the Italian agreement and the measures which are being provided for or will be taken to remedy this injustice against Portuguese farmers?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products introduced an additional levy scheme in that sector. The scheme has been extended several times, notably by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector. All Member States are obliged to comply with their respective reference quantities and must pay the Community, by way of the additional levy, an amount corresponding to any excess quantities produced.

The Council Decision of 16 July 2003, establishing the compatibility of the aid which the Italian Republic intends to grant its milk producers and published (1), lays down the following specific conditions:

— the amounts owed to the Community by Italian milk producers by virtue of the additional levy on milk and milk products for the period 1995/1996 to 2001/2002 to be advanced by the Italian Government,

— deferred payment of the debt by the producers in a number of equal annual instalments, without interest, over a period not exceeding 14 years.

That specific Decision, based on the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, was adopted unanimously by the members of the Council, on the basis of an assessment of the exceptional nature of the circumstances which prompted the Italian Government's request. Application of such a measure in other cases that might be considered comparable would therefore be a matter for individual assessment by the Council.

The Council also refers the Honourable Member to the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Brussels on 16/17 October 2003 and particularly to paragraph 38 of the conclusions in which the European Council welcomed the Commission's proposal to prolong the arrangement concerning the problems linked to the development of milk production in the Azores and invited the Council to examine it as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 184, 23.7.2003.
1.

In the Apulia Region, the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF) contributes to the co-funding of the rural development plan for the period 2000-2006, which was approved by Commission Decision No C(2001)479 of 2 March 2001. This programme provides, among other things, for a measure concerning the reforestation of agricultural land. The rural development plan covers the entire regional territory, but gives priority, in particular as regards the reforestation of agricultural land, to sites of Community importance (SCI) and special protection areas (SPA) and to other protected areas. For the period 2000-2006, guaranteed EAGGF co-funding of EUR 11 million is planned for this measure. Farmers in the Alta Murgia were able and still can submit projects under this measure. The Guidance Section of the EAGGF contributes to the co-funding of the regional operational programme (ROP) and the Community initiative Leader+ programme for the period 2000-2006. Under the ROP, which was approved by Commission No C(2000)2349 of 8 August 2000, the Apulia Region plans, in the framework of measure 1.7, to carry out activities for the forestation and reforestation of woodland for environmental purposes in particular. The measure covers the entire regional territory, but gives priority to the SCI and SPA areas and other protected areas. For this programme, foresters and other aid recipients in Alta Murgia may also submit reforestation projects in response to the invitations for tender issued by the Region. EAGGF co-funding of EUR 31 million is scheduled for this measure. With regard to the Community initiative Leader+ programme for the period 2000-2006, which was approved by Commission Decision No C(2002)171 of 29 January 2002, no specific EAGGF Guidance Section funding is planned for forestation in the Apulia Region. The Commission has approved the above programmes after verifying that they conform with the relevant Community provisions. Local management is the responsibility of the Member States, at the most appropriate geographical level. The programmes must be implemented by the competent national and/or regional authorities, which must in particular ensure that projects are selected from among those proposed by potential recipients which fulfil the eligibility requirements and apply for support. The Commission is kept informed, in the framework of the partnership, about the detailed arrangements for using the funds by means of programme implementation reports and by Monitoring Committees in which the Member States participate. The information, which is in the form of financial and physical monitoring indicators, and the assessment factors do not concern specific areas such as the Alta Murgia or individual cases in which support is given, since in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity the Commission is not competent to express an opinion on them. The Commission would therefore ask the Honourable Member to contact the Apulia Region Assessorato all'Agricoltura for information about funding for reforestation in the specific area of Alta Murgia in the framework of the above programmes.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/292

(2004/C 84 E/0338)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4054/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject: National waters within the EU's EEZ

In response to Written Question P-3011/03 (1), Commissioner Fischler explained on 24 October 2003 that the Member States are responsible for defining their exclusive economic zones and the boundaries between sea areas where such a definition is necessary. The Commission gave the impression that it did not have the information requested readily available. In its Communication towards uniform and effective implementation of the CFP (2), however, it states on page 8 that more than half of the catches of northern hake are taken in ‘Irish waters’. Furthermore, on page 10 it makes reference to ‘the northern part of Dutch waters’.

In the light of these statements relating to national waters rather than to ICES zones, can the Commission confirm that it does in fact have the information requested in question P-3011/03 which concerned national boundaries within particular ICES zones, and can it now provide this information? If it does not have this information, can it on the other hand explain on what basis its assertions in COM(2003) 130 final were based?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

For the purpose of the Common Fisheries Policy, the term ‘Community waters’ is defined as the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of waters adjacent to non-Community territories mentioned in Annex to the EC Treaty. Therefore, as stated in response to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-3011/03, Member States are responsible for the delimitation of the waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

The Commission has no precise information on the delimitations of the waters which have been defined by Member States as waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

The statements in the Communication: ‘Towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (2)’ as referred to in the written question are based on the following information: the statement ‘more than half of the catches of northern hake are taken in Irish waters’ is based on an approximative aggregation of catch statistics by statistical rectangles presumably lying in waters defined by Ireland as waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction whilst the reference to ‘the northern part of Dutch waters’ is based on information received from the Netherlands.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2) COM(2003) 130 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/292

(2004/C 78 E/0293)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3492/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Romano Prodi — Manifesto

The President of the Commission has written a text entitled ‘Europa: il sogno, le scelte’ explicitly directed to the Italian centre-left parties, calling on them to unite in a single list for the forthcoming European elections and act unitedly in the ensuing Parliament.

This initiative produced an immediate reaction from the Italian opposition parties, and comprehensive criticism from the parties comprising the government majority, having already been repudiated by representatives of European political groups. Italian political commentators have even stated that the Commission President was positioning himself as the possible leader of the left in Italy, with a view to the elections next June.

Can the Commission answer the following:

— How does the Commission view the initiative taken by its President? Does it believe it to be compatible with the nature of his duties, as set out in Article 211 et seq. of the EC Treaty? How does it guarantee the impartiality of its political guidelines and interventions, which are legally the responsibility of its President? Specifically, how does it assess it in the light of the principles of separation of powers, independence, and general interest of the Community? How does it define and delimit what counts as ‘intervention in the internal politics’ of the Member State?

— Is Romano Prodi going to resign as President of the Commission in order to pursue his party political intervention in Italian politics? Or does the Commission feel comfortable with a President who appears to have stepped directly into the disputed leadership of the left in Italy? How does it intend to guarantee the impartiality of its acts and opinions from now on?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the discussions that took place during the debate on the Commission's work programme at Parliament's November 2003 part-session and to the remarks made by the Commission President on the matter at hand.
4.

Has the Commission also heard that the reasons for this delay are that claimants are required to communicate in languages other than those they have learned themselves, that attempts to telephone the organisation lead only to a voicemail box where it is possible to leave a message, that letters are left unanswered and that documentary evidence has to be submitted which does not exist?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/384

(2004/C 78 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject: European Union unit to work for the release of kidnapped European tourists

The frequent cases of European tourists being kidnapped in third countries which they are visiting for their historical, cultural and other attractions have highlighted the need for the European Union to have a permanent team of negotiators and mediators to intercede with the relevant national authorities to secure the release of Community nationals who have fallen victim to these inhuman practices at the hands of local terrorists.

In this way, Community negotiators could keep the families of victims better informed than is currently the case with local authorities, which are seeking to cover up the failure of their own efforts.

Will the Commission propose to Member States that permanent Community negotiating teams be set up to secure the release of European tourists who have been kidnapped in third countries for internal political reasons which have nothing to do with them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Protection of Union citizens is enshrined in article 20 of the EC Treaty, and includes the protection of any Union citizen by diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented. Under article 20 of the EC Treaty this responsibility relates also to Commission missions.

Within the limits of these provisions, the Commission has in the past cooperated closely with the Member State authorities to resolve situations of crisis or kidnapping of Union citizens. This cooperation has been carried out both in Brussels as well as through the Commission's External Service. However, given that under Article 20 of the EC Treaty consular protection first and foremost remains a responsibility of the Member States, it is currently not planned to set up any specialised Community facility.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/454

(2004/C 78 E/0480)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3012/03

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

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Wine

Amidst the tortuous negotiations over alcoholic beverages and foods, has the Commission been able to discuss with the other members of the WTO the list of geographical indications that the European Union would like to see protected internationally?

This list includes several names of wine, such as Rioja, and other food products.

Does the Commission believe that it will be possible to reach an agreement in this area, given the strong resistance shown by countries like the United States, who have grown used to freely misappropriating Community names?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Community presented its short list of geographical indications in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agriculture negotiations at the end of August 2003 in Geneva. Given the short term between its submission to the WTO and the Fifth Ministerial Conference, there was no time to discuss the list before Cancun. Unfortunately, due to the course of events in the Conference, it was not possible to discuss it in Cancun.

The Commission considers that this is a very important issue in order to guarantee effective protection of geographical names which are being abused worldwide. It will, therefore, continue asking for this matter to be an integral part of the negotiations in Geneva, though the degree of acceptance of this proposal by other WTO Members appears to be low at this stage.