ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/127

(2004/C 33 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1494/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Expressions of interest in the Sixth Framework Programme of Research for embryo research and stem cell research

On 20 March 2002 the Commission published an invitation to submit expressions of interest in the Sixth Framework Programme of Research (FP6). Until 7 June 2002, scientific institutes and businesses could submit plans to the Commission for assessment as to their suitability for support from the Framework Programme. On 4 October 2002 the Commission published the results.

From the published results it emerges that in 1997 expressions of interest were submitted for the thematic priority ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology’. This priority includes financial support for stem cell research.

The regulation of human embryonic stem cell research is subject to subsidiarity in Europe, and different practices exist in the Member States in this regard. In some Member States, for example, it is permitted to produce human embryos for research purposes, whereas in other Member States this is explicitly prohibited.

Under the compromise reached between the Council and the European Parliament in September 2002 concerning the five specific programmes within the FP, it was agreed that until the end of 2003 the Commission should not finance any research programmes which included embryonic stem cell research.

1. How many expressions of interest have been submitted to the Commission under the thematic priority ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology’ which involve embryonic stem cell research?

2. In which Member States are the scientific institutes and/or businesses based which submitted these expressions of interest?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Priority 1 Life ‘Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health’ received 2000 Expressions of Interest (EoI). About 80 expressions of interest involving research on stem cell (animal or human stem cells) were submitted.

The various sources of stem cells were explored (embryonic, foetal, umbilical cord blood, adult). The specific sources of stem cells were not indicated in all EoI’s nor was the country in which the specific research was going to be carried out. The Commission is therefore not in a position to provide more detailed information regarding the number of EoI’s, which involve the use of human embryonic stem cells and the countries where this research is planned to take place.

A first call for proposals for Priority 1 was published on 17 December 2002 and closed on 25 March 2003. At this stage of the analysis of the response to the call for proposals the Thematic Priority 1 has received 26 proposals addressing research on stem cells and three proposals foresee to use banked or isolated human embryonic stem cell in culture. This research involves laboratories in Belgium, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and Israel.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/224

(2004/C 65 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2822/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Welfare of dairy cows

Modern dairy cows have been bred to produce extremely high milk yields. This leads to cows suffering from a range of serious health and welfare problems including: metabolic hunger as they find it difficult to consume sufficient food to support the high milk yields; digestive disorders; an increased incidence of lameness; and lethal production diseases. After around four or less years of production the cows are often chronically exhausted and suffer severe loss of body condition and are culled.

Will the Commission request the European Food Safety Authority to ask the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health to prepare a report on the health and welfare of dairy cows?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Honourable Member will be aware that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1) as an independent scientific point of reference from which the Commission may request scientific opinions. A Scientific Committee and various scientific Panels, including a Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, have been established by EFSA to provide these scientific opinions.

The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health is a regulatory committee consisting of representatives of the Member States and chaired by a Commission representative that advises on implementing legislative rules.

It should be noted that the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare adopted in 1999 a report on animal welfare aspects of the use of bovine somatotrophin, which contained a specific chapter describing welfare problems in high yielding dairy cows. A number of research projects funded under the Community's Fifth Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development have also addressed the issue of the health and welfare of dairy cows. Specifically, the Commission currently supports research on lameness in dairy cattle and on nutrition of dairy cattle through the better utilisation of pasture. It also supports projects on the genetics of mastitis and milk production. Research of a more generic welfare nature, such as on cattle transport, also has important implications for dairy cattle.

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/228

(2004/C 65 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2830/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject: Railways in Greece

The modernisation of Greek railways has been a long-standing target of structural measures and has been included in all previous support programmes. Does the Commission think that the railways programme under the second Community Support Framework was properly implemented? What was the rate of utilisation of funds from the initial and revised budgets for the programme? What information does it have on the implementation of the project? What railway projects are being funded from the third Community Support Framework and the Cohesion Fund for the programming period 2000-2006? What has been the rate of utilisation of these funds?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The 1994-1999 European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational Programme (OP) for the modernisation of the Greek railways and the related Cohesion Fund projects are currently in the process of closure in administrative terms. The total programmed ERDF contribution to the OP Railways 1994-1999 was EUR 394 million, of which so far some 92 % has been paid. Under the Cohesion Fund, 1994-1999, EUR 546 million of assistance was approved for Greek railway projects, of which so far some 86 % has been paid. The projects concerned primarily the modernisation of important sections of the Korinthos-Athens-Thessaloniki railway axis and some related lines (such as Thessaloniki-Alexandroupolis and Paleofarsala-Kalambaka).

The Commission has monitored carefully the physical implementation and the contract management of certains major projects in partnership with the national authorities. This concerned in particular track works which included the construction of tunnels and bridges (e.g. at Kallidromo, Tembi, Platamon), and the project for the electrification of the line. The Commission implemented a number of audits and commissioned a series of expert opinions, the results of which will be fully taken into account for the closure of the programme and projects concerned, which is currently underway and will determine the definitive absorption figures for the period 1994-1999.

Most of the large railway projects launched in the previous funding period represent major long-term investments and accordingly their realisation will only be complete under the 2000-2006 ERDF Operational Programme ‘Railways, Airports, Urban transport’ and the Cohesion Fund railway projects of the 2000-2006 funding period. In the current period, new projects include the modernisation of the railway section Korinthos-Patras and the construction of the Athens suburban railway.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/152

(2004/C 65 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2438/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Abolition of visas for journeys by immigrants from third countries legally resident in Switzerland

The Swiss Industry and Construction Union and the Swiss Forum for the integration of migrants stress the need to abolish visas for immigrants from States not belonging to the European Union who are resident in that country.

Around half a million residents of Switzerland who come from countries which are not EU Member States are still required to obtain a visa whenever they wish to travel to their country or to a State in the Schengen area, which entails costs in terms of both time and money.

Even though the situation has certainly improved, since the visas now have a longer duration, the underlying problem remains.

Can the Commission say what measures it will take, following on from the earlier issues which have now been partially resolved, with a view to abolishing the visa requirement for residents of Switzerland who come from countries which are not members of the European Union, in the context of reciprocal measures, given that in August 2000 Switzerland abolished the visa requirement for citizens of a third country legally resident in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The Commission's attention has already been drawn (1) to the situation of third-country nationals residing in Switzerland who, because of their nationality (2), must be in possession of a visa when travelling to a Schengen State or when simply passing through a Schengen State on their way to their country of origin.

This matter has been examined by the competent group in the Council, the ‘visa’ group, which came to the conclusion that the Schengen acquis does not prevent multiple-transit visas with a lengthy period of validity from being issued to those residents. The consular departments of the Member States have been informed of this possibility, which, as the Honourable Member acknowledges, is a step in the right direction in that it cuts down on the number of visits made to consulates to apply for visas.

That said, the Commission is still considering a solution that would exempt third-country nationals in possession of residence documents for Switzerland from the visa requirement for passing through Schengen States or even for making short stays there. Such a solution would, in any event, necessitate amendments to the Schengen acquis.

(1) Written Question No E-0557/02 by Mr Imbeni and Mr Pittella, OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, OJ L 81, 21.3.2001.
1.

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the relevant paragraphs in the Commission Decision 2003/433/EC of 21 January 2003 on the aid scheme ‘Stamp duty exemption for non-residential properties in disadvantaged areas’ notified by the United Kingdom (1), in particular points 38 to 41 (under the heading ‘Compatibility with Regional Aid Guidelines’) and points 42 to 45 (under the heading ‘Compatibility with the Deprived Urban Area Guidelines’). Firstly in the paragraphs following the heading ‘Compatibility with Regional Aid Guidelines’, the Commission acknowledges that the regional aid map for the United Kingdom is not based on NUTS III areas but on the concept of job opportunity zones each of which has a population in excess of 100 000. It follows that, in contrast, the areas targeted by the Stamp Duty Exemption are isolated, micro-spatial areas. Paragraph 41 ends the heading by providing that: ‘the United Kingdom authorities agree that the Guidelines on national regional aid do not apply to the Stamp Duty Exemption even though many of the selected disadvantaged wards do form part of the regional aid map.’ Secondly, following the paragraphs under the heading ‘Compatibility with Deprived Urban Area Guidelines’, the Commission notice on the expiry of the guidelines on State aid for undertakings in deprived urban areas constitutes the initial legal basis for its assessment. Following this notice ‘failure to extend the guidelines (the guidelines on State aid for undertakings in deprived urban areas had expired in the course of the procedure), does not imply that State aid for deprived areas is no longer possible and depending on the specific circumstances of the proposed aid in question, it may be approved directly upon the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty. Accordingly, the Commission will examine such cases in the light of Community objectives.’ Thus, the Commission analysed the scheme both in the light of the Community's objectives and its effect on competition and trade.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/207

(2004/C 65 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2752/03

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) and Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject: EU-Turkey Association Agreement: increase in fees for residence permits

Age 12 and over Under 12 Old rules 1 May 02 1 Jan 03 Old rules 1 May 02 1 Jan 03 Residence permit (fixed period) 56,72 258 430 22,69 169 285 Residence permit (indeterminate period) 226,89 539 890 N/A N/A N/A Amendment of residence permit 0 258 430 0 169 285 Extension of residence permit 0 169 285 0 169 285 Application for assessment of compatibility with EU law 15,88 26 28 15,88 26 28

It is clear from the above table that, during the course of the past year, the Dutch fees for granting, extending and amending a residence permit for non-EU nationals have been substantially increased, in some cases doubled. This increase affects, among others, migrants with Turkish nationality. The increase in the fees has made it harder for Turkish citizens wishing to work in the Netherlands as employees, self-employed persons or service providers. Article 41(1) of the additional protocol to the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement, and Article 13 of Decision 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council, prohibit the introduction of ‘new restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services’, and of ‘new restrictions on the conditions of access to employment applicable to workers and members of their families legally resident and employed in their respective territories.’

1. Does the Commission rule out the possibility that fee increases on the scale introduced in the last two revisions constitute a ‘new restriction’ prohibited within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and Article 13 of Decision 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council?

2. If not, does the Commission propose to take measures, for example by initiating an investigation seeking to clarify the compatibility of fee increases with the provisions referred to in question 1?

3. Has the Commission had any comments from the Turkish side, or held consultations with the Turkish authorities, concerning the Dutch fee increases in relation to the Association Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of the increases in fees charged by the Netherlands concerning residence permits referred to by the Honourable Member. In order to ascertain whether they may constitute a new restriction within the meaning of the Community-Turkey Association Agreement, the Commission is in the course of writing to the Netherlands to seek further details.

The Commission has not received representations from Turkey on this issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/55

(2004/C 33 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Turkey and the ‘Ocalan case’

For some weeks now the leader of the former PKK, Abdullah Ocalan, has been unable to receive visits from his defence lawyers or anyone else. This arbitrary decision on the part of the Turkish Government constitutes a flagrant violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the ‘political criteria’ for enlargement identified by the Copenhagen European Council.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that Ocalan is guaranteed the basic right of defence? Does it not consider that, since Ocalan's sentence of death has been commuted, Brussels should now exert pressure on the government in Ankara to ensure that Ocalan is granted freedom and that negotiations are launched with a view to a political solution to the ‘Kurdish question’?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of Abdullah Öcalan's current detention conditions. Since 27 November 2002 there have been reports that relatives and lawyers of Mr Öcalan have had difficulties in gaining access to him.

As a Candidate Country, Turkey aims to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria as well as the priorities identified by the Accession Partnership. These include the alignment of prison detention conditions with European standards and full compliance with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Commission has been informed of the visit made on 16 and 17 February 2003 by a delegation of the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which was given access to Mr Öcalan. The CPT delegation concluded that the health of Mr Öcalan was good, but that his continued isolation was a problem. The CPT's delegation will take steps to ensure that Mr Öcalan's right to receive visits is effective in practice.

The Commission will continue to monitor the conditions of Mr Öcalan's detention, and the respect of his right to defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/199

(2004/C 65 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/03

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Network of cycle paths

Belgium has an extensive network of cycle paths for tourism and recreation. Many of these cycle routes have been created thanks to European grants. I should like to have more information about the subsidies granted to Belgian cycle routes.

Can the Commission provide details of the EU subsidies granted to Belgian cycle routes in 2002 in 2003?

What amount was allocated to cycle routes in the province of East Flanders?

What are the Commission's plans for the allocation of European funds in 2004 and subsequent years? Will subsidies be granted for measures in the province of East Flanders?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2717/03 and E-2718/03

given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

Under the present regional policy rules, in this particular case those on part-financing of projects from the Structural Funds, project selection is an exclusive responsibility of the managing authority for each programme, always of course subject to compliance with the wording of the priorities and measures set out in the programming document and its complement.

Thus the granting of European funds under the structural policy should be looked at as part-financing of projects selected by the Member State rather than as an actual subsidy from the Commission.

For Flanders Region as a whole, 2002 and 2003 has seen approval of cycle route projects totalling EUR 5 582 503,81 for which the Regional Development Fund (ERDF) contribution is EUR 1268 302,96.

In the province of Antwerp EUR 277 099 has been granted for the Recreatief fietsroutenetwerk in the Grande Nethe area (total project cost EUR 1 108 394) and in East Flanders EUR 20 834,11 for the Schaarse Wegel cycle route project at Bassevelde (total project cost EUR 83 336,40).

It goes without saying that any cycle route projects that are subsequently presented and are in line with the objectives of the programme measures will be part-financed from the ERDF at the rate specified in the programme complement.

As far as the Walloon Region is concerned, the managing authority for the Meuse-Vesdre Programme expects, for the entire programming period, to approve projects for the cycle route network costing a total of EUR 13 218 470,38, of which the ERDF will pay EUR 6 654 735,19.

No cycle route network projects have been part-financed by the Structural Funds in the Brussels Capital Region in 2002 or in 2003. Given the wording of the measures in the programme it is unlikely that any are to be presented.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/249

(2004/C 65 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2936/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Electric connections for caravans

Further to the written question tabled in the light of some reports (cf. the 6 and 8 September 2003 editions of ‘Algemeen Dagblad’, a Dutch newspaper) that the electrical equipment of most caravans does not conform to European safety standards, attention must now also be paid to the electric connections between caravans and campsite electric bollards or junction boxes. Caravan connections in Europe must conform to the CEE 17 European Standard. Although the campsite connection must conform to the standards of the relevant Member State, the power point on that electric bollard must, in principle, also be equipped with the CEE connector. Any failure to monitor carefully the rules governing this matter may result in serious potential danger for caravanners.

1. Is the Commission aware that, in many Member States, campsite connections are not equipped with a power point with a CEE connector?

2. Does the Commission agree that the fitting of a power point with a CEE connector must be made obligatory in order to reduce safety risks to a minimum?

3. Is the Commission prepared to take steps to ensure that all European caravans and campsites are equipped with connectors and power points which conform to the CEE European Standard?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

For the time being the safety of electric installations of caravans is not covered by any Community

legislation. Electric connection of caravans to the mains on campsites is also excluded from Community

legislation. Electric installations and connections to the mains of caravans are subject to national installation rules in the Member States, which differ significantly.

1. The Commission is aware of this non-harmonised situation in Europe with regard to the plug and socket outlet system. All attempts to harmonise plugs and socket outlet systems for domestic use (i.e. up to 16A rated current) throughout the Union, which were heavily inspired by the Commission, have been abandoned in the past. The majority of the Member States do not see the need to agree on a harmonised solution. Various attempts were made by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) to agree a standard on these plugs, however, after several years of intensive meetings it has not been possible to find consensus with the manufacturers of plugs and socket outlets.

2. With the current legal situation in Europe it is, therefore, not possible for the Commission to decide on a harmonised connection system for caravans.