ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/626

(2004/C 84 E/0699)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0551/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in Ireland

What reply has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland in July 2003, as announced in Commission press release IP/03/1070, regarding the failure of Irish legislation to take sufficient account of sensitive sites or of the cumulative effects of smaller individual projects which, when added together, have a significant impact within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2)?

What action has the Commission taken, or is it considering taking on this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The matter to which the Honourable Member makes reference relates to a decision by the Commission to refer Ireland to the Court of Justice for non-respect of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997. One of the issues of concern related to the approach of the Irish authorities to provisions of Irish legislation that allow for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects belonging to Annex II of the Directive that fall below thresholds for mandatory EIA set in the Irish legislation. These provisions for sub-threshold EIA are important in order to ensure that sufficient account is taken of smaller projects that may affect sensitive sites or that may, when combined with other similar projects, give rise to significant environmental effects. The Commission was not convinced that adequate administrative arrangements had been made to give a real meaning to these provisions, with the result that environmentally significant sub-threshold projects might be approved without prior EIA. In September 2003, the Irish authorities sent the Commission a copy of new administrative guidance on applying the relevant provisions of the Irish legislation. This guidance was published in August 2003 (3). To allow an examination of this guidance, the Commission later decided to suspend the decision to refer Ireland to the Court. The Commission is due to make a further decision on the matter during 2004.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(3) ‘Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance for Consent Authorities regarding Sub-threshold Development’, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, August 2003, ISBN 0-7557-1657-4.
1.

Free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law and includes the right to live and work in another Member State. Insofar as workers are concerned, Article 39 (2) of the EC Treaty prohibits ‘any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States’. Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1) implements Article 39(2) of the EC Treaty whereas Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (2) abolishes restrictions on movement and residents within the Community for workers and their families. Thus, migrant workers in the EU can exercise their right to free movement simply on production of a valid identity card or passport (3). According to the European Court of Justice, the Member State is entitled to check the passports or identity cards (4) and require that the nationals of the other Member States report their presence to the competent national authorities of the host State. However, such legal formalities must not be designed in such a way that they restrict the freedom of movement required by the EC Treaty or limit the right conferred on nationals of the Member States to enter and reside in the territory of any other Member State for the purposes intended by Community law. (5) Host Member States may also require migrant workers to obtain a residence card. The same rules apply to other EU nationals who make use of their right of free movement and residence. According to the Commission's information, Spain has suppressed the obligation to obtain a residence card for EU citizens who are workers, self-employed persons, students or beneficiaries of the right of permanent residence. France has also recently adopted legislation suppressing this obligation for all EU citizens, but this shall not apply to workers from acceding States who will still need to obtain a residence card for as long as the transitional measures last. The rest of the Member States' legislations still lay down the obligation for EU citizens to obtain a residence card.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/697

(2004/C 88 E/0716)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Residence of nationals in another Member State

Will the Commission please state the number of nationals of each Member State resident in each of the other Member States for each year for the last ten years for which figures are available?

Will it also state the number of non-EU nationals in each Member State in each year for ten years, indicating, if possible, the number of US nationals?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The tables which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat indicate the number of non-national citizens resident in the Member States for the years 1994 to 2003. Where possible, the number of non-nationals is disaggregated by the citizenships of the individual Member States, by the total number of non-EU citizens and by the number of American citizens. To maximise the data series, the table for 1994 includes figures for Austria, Finland and Sweden although these countries were not then members of the EU.

The figures in these tables are based on the data currently available to Eurostat. The data are supplied to Eurostat by the National Statistical Institutes in response to an annual data request relating to migration flows and migrant stocks.

For the reasons explained below, only a partial response is possible to these questions. Statistics on non-national population are not available for all Member States and for all years. Where figures are available, some caution is required in their interpretation. Different data sources and definitions of residence are used across Europe, and this can affect the comparability of statistics for different Member States.

The table for 2001 is the most complete. The 2001 round of population censuses provides additional data that can be used to verify figures from other data sources or to provide information where no other data are available. Statistics on non-national populations in Luxembourg and Austria are based on the census and so are only available for 2001. Similarly, the statistics for France are only available for 1999, the year of the last census in France.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/282

(2004/C 88 E/0289)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1110/04

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Transeuropean transport networks

The list of priority projects stemming from transeuropean transport networks is currently being finalised by the Council and the European Parliament.

With which authority does the decision to determine the exact course of these projects lie?

Is it the European Commission on the grounds of its power to implement the decision?

Is it the Parliament and Council, as co-legislators and holders of the power of codecision in this case?

Or is it for each Member State to decide for the part of the project situated on its territory?

Will local authorities be consulted?

Finally, to what extent will local community associations and citizens be made partners in the process of determining the guidelines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The determination of the exact route alignment of a priority project falls under the responsibility of the project promoter, which can be the State, a region or a local administration depending on the legal framework applicable in the Member State concerned. Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001, on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) and 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) apply to these projects. These lay down requirements for the consultation of all relevant stakeholders. In addition, national procedures for granting development consent or building permits are applicable and foresee consultation of concerned stakeholders.

(1) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/957

(2004/C 78 E/1014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0616/04

by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Allocation of EU resources

As regards the allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann and the cities of Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Neuss, Remscheid, Solingen and Wuppertal (in North Rhine-Westphalia), will the Commission give:

1. The total amount and breakdown of EU structural resources received under the individual funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives?

2. The amount of EU resources allocated since 1999 under other budgetary headings for pilot projects or — as direct aid — to universities, research establishments, enterprises and other bodies in the above-mentioned cities and the district of Mettmann?

3. The number of jobs created or maintained by means of this assistance?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/512

(2004/C 88 E/0523)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0572/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Czech psychiatric hospitals

Could the Commission please illustrate what undertakings have been given by the Czech Republic to improve their mental healthcare provisions, such as the Bohnice Psychiatric Hospital in Prague, prior to accession to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Provisions on patients' rights in the Czech Republic are currently included in different laws and regulations, mainly in Act No 20/1966 on Care of People's Health, which has been amended several times. The Act includes e.g. provisions on treatment without consent, the right of complaint/appeal and compensation for damages.

The Commission has been informed that a proposal for a new Act on Health Care Services is being prepared, which includes a specific chapter on patients' rights. Furthermore, an amendment to the Act on Social Security is being drafted, banning the use of beds enclosed with iron cages or netting in institutions for mentally disabled and psychiatric hospitals. A Methodical Instruction is also being prepared to this effect, and a pilot project is under preparation which should demonstrate to staff how to replace the use of such restrictive means by modern practices.

The Czech Republic has committed itself to respecting and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms and has set up institutions for protecting and monitoring the implementation of these rights. This creates a firm basis for assessing and developing the status and rights of patients. Increased public awareness and involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) should also help to further address patients' rights issues. The implementation of patients' rights will also depend on the general situation in the health care sector in terms of resources, training and supervision of care providers and responsible authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/502

(2004/C 88 E/0513)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0449/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Monolithic rock-hewn churches in Lilibela, Ethiopia

The collection of 11th century monolithic rock-hewn churches in Lalibela, Ethiopia are a remarkable and unique treasure. Sadly the lack of resources to invest in the preservation of them is leading to a rapid and incipient decay of these priceless and unique buildings.

Is it true that the EU, in partnership with the UN, made a commitment to invest in the preservation of these churches in 2000? If so, where has the money been spent, and how much of a budget has been devoted to this worthy project?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission has decided to help with the preservation and conservation of the Lalibela churches. A Financing Agreement for an amount of EUR 9 100 000 was signed in May 2002. The project provides, mainly, for the erection of new shelters for the churches. These shelters, which will replace the existing ones, will give improved protection to the churches until a comprehensive conservation programme is designed and implemented.

This project complements earlier activities financed by the Commission. These activities comprised the design of the shelters and the recording of cultural treasures.

The Commission has co-operated with the United Nations (UN) on this, notably in the past for the preparation of the international architectural competition for the design of the shelters.

The implementation of the project can be summarised as follows:

— an open international tender was published in July 2002 for the selection of a contractor for the construction of the shelters. The tender had to be cancelled as no offers were submitted;
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/635

(2004/C 84 E/0714)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Irish stud farms

Would the Commission comment on the issue of tax breaks given by the Irish Government to stud farms? Each year Irish stud farms earn from the ‘nomination fees’ that an owner receives when a stallion impregnates a mare, and yet pay nothing in tax. This gives them a major advantage over British stud farms, resulting in lost revenue and jobs in the UK.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0592/04 and E-0610/04

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission has received a formal complaint in this matter and is investigating the issue. Before the investigation has been finalized, the Commission is not in a position to indicate whether the scheme is compatible with the EC Treaty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/509

(2004/C 88 E/0521)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Implementation of the Structural Funds in Portugal

What are the specific third CSF programmes still going on in Portugal, which have an uptake rate lower than 30 %? For which programmes are payments below 15 % of the total co-participation?

For which already completed programmes has the Commission requested the reimbursement of monies or refused the payment of the total amount? For what reasons?

For Portugal, what were the Structural Fund total and programmes affected by the N+2 rule at the end of 2003? For Portugal, what is the global amount, by Structural Fund programme, affected by the N+2 rule to-date?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Structural Fund execution in Portugal has proved generally satisfactory. Thanks to the efforts made in 2003 the great majority of the 1994-1999 programmes have been closed.

Implementation of the Operational Programmes of the 3rd CSF continues. These cover the entire period 2000-2006 and accordingly none has yet been closed.

At the end of February the uptake rate for the period 2000-2004 (ratio of payments made to appropriations programmed) was 64 % for the CSF as a whole. The breakdown was: European Regional Development Fund 63 %, European Social Fund 75 %, European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 49 %, Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance 60 %.

In the case of the ERDF, ESF and EAGGF no operational programme has a rate below 30 % at present. For the FIFG two programmes show a rate below 30 %: Alentejo and Centro. Neither is below 15 %.

On the basis of the estimates we have just sent the Portuguese authorities, for 2003 the only programmes affected by the N+2 rule are Economy (ESF), for an amount of EUR 2 009 015,59, and Technical Assistance, for amounts of EUR 2 634 957,55 (ERDF) and EUR 901 971 (ESF). Before 2003 the only OP affected was Health (ESF), for an amount of EUR 1 069 113,50. The FIFG measures in the regional programmes are exempted owing to late approval of the fishery aid schemes.

Closure for the 1994-1999 period involves 50 programmes. When a programme is closed the Commission often has to adjust the amounts requested by the Member State. Various parameters are involved such as the findings of national or Community Audits. Deductions, marginal by comparison with the assistance granted have already been made for a number of programmes. In the case of others (Health and Social Integration, Knowledge Bases and Innovation, Development Support Infrastructures, Modernisation of the Economic Fabric, Alentejo, IMIT) processing of the application for the balance is not yet complete. For some of these programmes we have however already made a first payment covering part of the balance requested. So far we have not acted to recover any amounts already paid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/207

(2004/C 88 E/0215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/04

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Introduction of the sector approach in EU development cooperation

The Commmission's development cooperation activities have undergone significant changes since the introduction of the sector approach, which increasingly provides for direct budget support to beneficiary countries. As a result, the amount of funding available for technical assistance (TA) in the form of projects for European consultancy firms is steadily decreasing, as in future a wide range of tasks will need to be carried out by the beneficiary state and its authorities.

Can the Commission provide statistics showing the absolute (in euro) and relative development of technical assistance (including procurement procedures) as a percentage of the Commission's estimated development budget (e.g. projects/budget support/total budget) from 1996 to the present day and, as a projection, until the end of the current financial period in 2006?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is a member of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and as such has an obligation to provide full and regular reporting on its overall development aid, in accordance with standard DAC reporting formats.

One of the elements that it reports is the amount allocated to ‘Technical Co-operation’(TCO). Technical co-operation according to the DAC ‘comprises provision of resources where the main aim is to augment the stock of human intellectual capital, i.e. the level of knowledge, skills; technical know-how …’ and amounts ‘primarily aimed at assisting the implementation of a project …’

The attached table shows the amounts reported to the DAC as Technical co-operation in the period 1996-2002 as a proportion of the total amount of Official Development Assistance (ODA) during that period in Commitments and Disbursements. This ratio has varied between 5,4 and 3,2 % for commitments and in a ratio between 5,2 and 3,1 % for disbursements.

Technical Co-Operation of the EU reported to the DAC compared to the total Bilateral Official Aid

(in million euro) Year Disbursement Commitments Bilateral ODA TCO % Bilateral ODA TCO % 1996 4 297,28 178,13 4,1 6 098,27 226,83 3,7 1997 4 549,91 235,48 5,2 5 251,81 286,04 5,4 1998 4 580,58 192,54 4,2 6 929,46 322,10 4,6 1999 4 593,19 181,93 4,0 7 009,32 248,99 3,6 2000 4 789,75 228,93 4,8 7 841,43 247,03 3,2 2001 6 160,42 199,74 3,2 6 286,88 199,49 3,2 2002 6 645,80 203,81 3,1 6 854,94 246,94 3,6

Considering that decisions on technical cooperation are taken in the framework of each specific project/programme, it is not possible to provide forecasts of commitments and payments.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/694

(2004/C 84 E/0779)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/04

byPaulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: List of deep-sea, pelagic and demersal fish species

Will the Commission provide an exhaustive list, indicating scientific names and common designations, of all species classified as:

— deep-water species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 (1)), deep-sea species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 (2)) and deepwater fish (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001 (3));

— demersal species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 2027/95) and non-deep-sea demersal species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (4));

— pelagic species (designation used in Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 199, 24.8.1995, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 351, 28.12.2002, p. 6.

(3) OJ L 222, 17.8.2001, p. 53.

(4) OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.