ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/494

(2004/C 88 E/0506)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0306/04

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Use of sky marshals

The US authorities have demanded that European airlines deploy armed sky marshals as a protective measure on certain transatlantic flights. Some Member States are willing to use armed sky marshals, whereas others are strongly opposed.

The type of ammunition is a crucial factor when deploying armed sky marshals, as conventional ammunition cannot be used due to its penetrating power.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

1. What type of ammunition do the armed sky marshals use?

2. Does the type of ammunition used comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights?

3. What further action does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission has no information on the weapons, ammunition or intervention techniques used by armed sky marshals. In view of the nature of these duties, such information is confidential. The methods used by the police forces of an individual Member State are a matter for that State, which is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

In view of US demands on the airlines of several Member States to deploy armed sky marshals on certain high-risk flights it will be necessary in future to establish a common response enabling cooperation with the US authorities to be organised on a more balanced basis. The Commission regards sky marshals as just one aspect of the broader issue of the need to adopt optimum security measures for transatlantic or domestic flights. The Commission is about to launch a wide-ranging debate on this subject with the Member States which takes the existing divergences of opinion into account.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/654

(2004/C 84 E/0738)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0688/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject: Application of Regulation No 1788/2003 Article 10(3)

For operational transparency and control reasons, the Azores milk producers' representative bodies have claimed that the calculation of the possible reallocation of the unused parts of the reference quantity be made not only at the level of each buyer and national level, but also at the intermediate level of the regions.

Does the Commission believe that this request contradicts the ‘objective criteria’ referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 Article 10? (1)

Is the Commission aware of any case in which the Member State is going to make use of this intermediate stage in the reallocation of reference quantities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector clearly lays down the two ways in which unused quantities are to be reallocated, one exclusively at national level, the other firstly at the level of the purchaser and thereafter at national level where appropriate. This at once rules out any regional stage.

It is for the sake of sound management and so as not to weaken the role of the purchaser that the regional level is not referrred to in Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003.

For deliveries it was agreed to give purchasers prime managerial responsibility for the declaration of milk collected and collection of the additional levy. That is why unused quantities can be reallocated at purchaser level.

Thus the system is not compatible with regionalised management. Purchasers' collection areas are not necessarily bounded by regional borders — they may collect milk in more than one region.

(1) OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 123.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/944

(2004/C 84 E/1042)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1087/04

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Uncertainties regarding Finland's Natura 2000 network

The Finnish Government has on several occasions forwarded material to the Commission concerning the Natura 2000 network which is to be established. Most recently the government took a decision on this on 22 January 2004. In its decision of that date it stated that Finland's Natura 2000 network comprised 1 806 areas.

According to information provided by the Commission last year, however, Finland's Natura 2000 network was to comprise 1832 areas. Moreover, again according to the Commission, their combined surface area was 1 239 000 hectares greater than decided by the Finnish Government.

According to the information currently available to the Commission, how many Natura 2000 network areas are there in Finland and what is their combined area?

How is it possible that the Commission's information does not correspond to the decisions of the Finnish Government?

What will the Commission do to bring its data into line with the decisions of the Finnish Government?

If the Commission adopts Finland's Natura 2000 network on the basis of contradictory material, will the legally binding decision comprise those areas designated by the Commission in its decision or those areas which the Finnish Government has proposed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission is investigating the differences identified with the Finnish authorities and undertakes to ensure that there are no discrepancies prior to the formal Commission decision on the Natura 2000 list for the Boreal region, which is programmed for later in 2004.

In relation to the discrepancies, these may arise from corrections in the data bases and consolidation of some overlaps by the Finnish authorities which have yet to be fully incorporated within the Commission figures.

The Commission will, after verification with the Finnish authorities, inform the Parliament of the latest updated and agreed figures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/572

(2004/C 88 E/0583)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1124/04

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Tax concessions for stud farms

Will the Commission please state its view concerning the practice whereby Ireland grants tax exemption to stud farms in respect of ‘nomination fees’ payable when a stallion impregnates a mare?

Is this practice not an illegitimate form of state aid to stud farms in Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission has received a formal complaint about the practice of Ireland granting tax exemption to stud farms. As the Commission has concerns about the compatibility with State aid rules, this practice is being examined under Article 88 of the EC Treaty (State aid No NN 32/04).
The rights of minorities are among the principles common to the Member States, which are listed in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. These principles have been solemnly reaffirmed by the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (1). Article 22 calls for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity to be respected. It should also be noted, however, that Article 51 of the Charter provides that its provisions are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.

In its action plan, ‘Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity’ (2), the Commission proposes measures to be taken at EU level from 2004 to 2006 in order to create a language-friendly environment.
2.

Does the Commission agree that the moratorium was agreed upon because differing views on ethically controversial issues cannot be handled in exactly the same way as other disagreements in the Council, so that a compromise must be found to which all the Member States can agree?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/168

(2004/C 88 E/0176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Suspected traffic in human organs — Mozambique

At the end of 2003, there were rumours that in a region in Northern Mozambique, a criminal network was operating in trafficking in human organs, removed from people (children above all, but also adults) kidnapped and murdered for this purpose. It was claimed that mutilated corpses were appearing on a weekly basis around a monastery in the Nampula area. There were apparently also countless cases of people who had vanished without trace. The trade in organs was possibly being carried on via South Africa, with reference being made to the possible involvement of a South African citizen. The population was panic-stricken, and there were fears that the network might be connived at by high-ranking politicians or businessmen.

The seriousness of such crimes can scarcely by overestimated, and public knowledge of their possible truth first came from religious sources; fear for the lives of clergy and religious in the area — there have been death threats against missionaries disturbed by these crimes and outraged by the possible traffic in organs — meant that they treated the reports with extreme caution, while seeking to gather further evidence. However, the rumours had already hit the news, when a Brazilian woman missionary levelled accusations during a television broadcast in Brazil at the end of 2003. News coverage in Portugal followed, in the ‘Público’ newspaper of 24 December 2003 and 2 January 2004. The latter further stated that the Mozambique state prosecutor was aware of the accusations and was investigating the facts.

The European Parliament recently addressed this problem in a general sense, when assessing, on a Greek initiative, the proposal for a framework directive on the prevention and control of trafficking in human organs and tissues — see the proceedings in plenary of 23 October 2003 and the report by Robert J.E. Evans (A5-0326/2003).

The Commission:

— does the Commission have any information concerning these crimes in Mozambique;

— how might it be able to help the Mozambique authorities in the investigation of these claims, and in the international fight against trafficking in human organs and any other crimes which may be being perpetrated;
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/212

(2004/C 84 E/0256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption

The above-mentioned Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 has recently been implemented within Scotland, resulting in numerous interpretations. While no-one is against the spirit of the legislation, its enactment in Scotland is causing concern. Many small, one-person businesses are facing unacceptable levels of charges which will ultimately force them into bankruptcy.

The reason for my question was to enquire whether the Commission, when drafting this legislation, envisaged a cut-off point where small businesses fell out of the scope of the Regulation, or could that be dealt with at Member State level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0393/04 (2).

(1) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p. 1.

(2) See page 210.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/901

(2004/C 84 E/0996)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0888/04

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Slaughterhouses in Greece

In the conclusions of a report by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) on a mission it undertook to Greece in July 2003, reference is made to the fact that many Greek slaughterhouses still demonstrate serious shortcomings as regards compliance with EU requirements. Although the competent authorities have provided the Commission services with guarantees that they will complete planned actions, the FVO inspectors still found deficiencies in administrative structures, operational standards and in animal welfare and veterinary supervision.

Can the Commission say what action it will take, or has already taken, to improve the situation of slaughterhouses in Greece? Does this action include sanctions? If so, what are they, and when will it impose them?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The draft report of the mission of July 2003 to Greece (Ref: 9176/2003) on the production and placing on the market of fresh meat was sent to the Greek authorities for comment on 21 August 2003.

In their response of 30 September to the draft report, the Greek authorities gave assurances that official approval to market meat in the Community had been withdrawn from the slaughterhouses and cutting plants where serious deficiencies had been observed during the mission. In addition, standard forms for the monitoring of establishments had been sent by the central competent authorities in Athens to all prefectures in Greece, requiring them to assess and report back on the situation in the red-meat sector.

In their letter of 17 February 2004 and accompanying action plan, in response to the final report of the mission, the Greek authorities mainly repeated the information given in reply to the draft report. The action plan did not contain anything to indicate that the report's recommendations were being addressed satisfactorily.

In the light of this and other findings during recent FVO missions in Greece, the Commission services, on 27 February 2004, sent an administrative infringement letter to the Greek authorities regarding understaffing in the services responsible for food safety and veterinary controls seeking a response, within a short deadline, to concerns expressed by the Commission services. The answer received from the Greek authorities does not respond satisfactorily to those concerns. Therefore, the Commission will now initiate infringement proceedings against Greece on these matters. A further administrative letter will shortly be sent to the Greek authorities regarding animal welfare concerns.

In addition, other food safety and veterinary matters on which satisfactory written assurances have been received from the Greek authorities will be the subject of further on-the-spot checks during FVO missions to Greece planned for later this year.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/694

(2004/C 88 E/0713)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0312/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Development aid

What is the EU budget's total contribution for overseas aid, both as an amount and as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI)? Can the Commission provide an equivalent figure for the United States?

When the individual national budgets of the Member States of the EU are taken into account in addition to the contribution of the EU budget, what is the total contribution by the EU for overseas development aid, as an amount and as a percentage of the EU's GNI?

As a percentage of GNI, how does the UK's national budget for overseas development aid compare to that of the other 14 Member States and of the 10 accession states?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

In 2002, the EU total contribution for official development aid was USD 29 949 million, equal to 0,365 % of Gross National Income (GNI). The USA total contribution for official aid was USD 13 290 million, equal to 0,13 % of GNI. Those two ratios are respectively above and below the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development Cooperation Directorate (OECD/DAC) average which is at 0,23 % of GNI (with an exchange rate EUR/USD of 1,28).

The budget managed by the European Community accounted for EUR 6 962 million in 2002 and was included by the Member States in their statistics on the basis of their contribution keys for the budget and the European Development Fund.

The ranking of the Member States in % of GNI for 2002 was:

1. Denmark 0,96 %;

2. Sweden 0,83 %;

3. Netherlands 0,81 %;

4. Luxemburg 0,77 %;

5. Belgium 0,43 %;

6. Ireland 0,40 %;

7. France 0,38 %;

8. Finland 0,35 %;

9. United Kingdom 0,31 %;

10. Germany 0,27 %; 10. Portugal 0,27 %; 12. Austria 0,26 %; 12. Spain 0,26 %;

14. Greece 0,21 %;

15. Italy 0,20 %.

The ten Acceding countries have collectively an average ratio of official development assistance (ODA)/GNI at about 0,03 % of their GNI.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/646

(2004/C 84 E/0727)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0643/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Update on suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome

Regarding Written Question P-3323/03 (1) requesting clarification of a possible infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome, the Commission replied, on 27 November 2003, that it would make the necessary checks ‘to ascertain whether ATAC complied with Community rules and principles on public procurement in the case in question’.

Can the Commission indicate whether these checks have been made and, if they have been completed, what the findings of these were?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

Further to Written Question E-3323/03 from the Honourable Member, the Commission asked the Italian authorities, in a letter dated 8 December 2003, to provide information on the procedures used by ATAC in Rome for the award of the public procurement contracts which were the subject of that Written Question and to submit all relevant documentation.

A reply from the Italian authorities was received only at the beginning of March 2004. The Commission is in the process of examining certain aspects of that reply and is still waiting to receive all the relevant documents; this material should allow the Commission to make a final assessment on the compatibility of the procedures in question with Community law on public procurement.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.
1.

The European Commission has prepared a document entitled ‘Status report on the European Commission's work in the field of nutrition. October 2002’, which has been sent to the Information offices of the Parliament, Commission offices in the Member States, Cabinets of the Commission, National Parliaments, some information networks and consumer associations and it is available on the Public Health web site. A network on Nutrition and Physical Activity composed of Member States, Acceding Countries and European Economic Area (EEA) expert institutes, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been established by the Commission. The network is a forum for exchanging experience and establishing and disseminating best practice. In this way, it will contribute to a coordination of Member State policies. The network also advises the Commission on the creation of a Community strategy to improve public health nutrition, reduce and prevent diet-related diseases, promote physical activity and to fight obesity. The Commission is financing projects aimed at collecting data on obesity, nutrition and physical activity within the Public Health Action Programme (2003-2008) (1) and its 2003 and 2004 Work Plans. Moreover, a major project aimed at preventing obesity in children will be supported under the programme. The Council Conclusions on Healthy lifestyles from December 2003 underline the need for an integrated approach to fostering health, an approach which combines the promotion of healthy lifestyles with actions aimed at addressing social and economic inequalities and the physical environment, and with a commitment to pursue health objectives through other Community policies. This is very much in line with the approach taken by the Commission with the Public Health Action Programme, and will include action on promoting healthy nutrition and preventing obesity. A specific working group has been established to deal with ‘health information’ aspects of lifestyles. The purpose is to bring together the various projects dealing with lifestyle related indicators and data and to consider what additional elements need to be addressed. The Commission has actively supported the Irish Presidency's initiatives on cardiovascular diseases and obesity. This process is now leading to Council Conclusions on Promoting Heart Health. In the draft proposal, the Commission is invited to bring forward a Proposal for Council Recommendations on health determinants of major importance for the promotion of cardiovascular health; the prevention of obesity will be an essential element in any such measure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/192

(2004/C 84 E/0233)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0281/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Wärtsilä and Italian state subsidies

The engine manufacturers Wärtsilä are halting production of diesel engines at Turku in Finland and moving their operation to Trieste in Italy. In his reply to a parliamentary question from Theodoras Bouwman, MEP (P-3451/01) (1), Commissioner Monti said the Commission was looking into the possible misuse of state subsidies in connection with Wärtsilä's closure of its Zwolle plant. Now that we have a further instance of Wärtsilä closing a viable production unit in one country and moving its operations to another, suspicions are reinforced that the Italian state is supporting a former state-owned production unit on improper grounds. Can the (Italian) Commissioner responsible for competition tell me whether the investigations referred to in his answer to Mr Bouwman's question have been completed, what was the result of these investigations as regards possible distortions of competition, and whether Wärtsilä has received, or is receiving, unjustified aid from the Italian State?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The investigations referred to in the Commission's reply to written question P-3451/01 by Mr Bouwman have been completed. The Italian authorities confirmed that, apart from the aid from the European Social Fund (ESF) as part of the 1997-1998 Single programming document (SPD) for vocational training, to which the reply to Mr Bouwman's written question already refers, no State aid had been granted to Wärtsilä and no agreement had been concluded with the company on its acquisition of the company Grandi Motori di Trieste.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 180.