ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/944

(2004/C 84 E/1043)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1093/04

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Staging of football matches between TSV Alemannia Aachen, a German football club, and foreign opponents at the Kerkrade Stadium in the Netherlands

It is highly likely that the German football club TSV Alemannia Aachen will shortly be involved in international matches, for example in the UEFA Cup. Since, however, the Aachen Stadium is not equipped with the 80 % seating capacity prescribed by UEFA for such international fixtures, the club will be obliged to seek an alternative stadium in which to play its matches.

The nearest stadium which meets the UEFA criteria is located just 10 km away in Kerkrade in the Netherlands. On the other hand, the nearest such stadium in Germany is 80 km away. According to UEFA, a German club must play its matches in a stadium in Germany.

1. Is this requirement compatible with the rules governing the single internal market and freedom of movement in the European Union?

2. Is it lawful for a sporting organisation such as UEFA to re-erect the national barriers which have long since been abolished by European law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Honourable Member is referring to the rules of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) which oblige German football clubs to play their matches in stadiums in Germany.

The applicable regulation is the Regulation of the UEFA Cup 2003/2004. According to Article 3(6) of the Regulation, a club may play its matches in the territory of another UEFA member association subject to the agreement of the UEFA authorities.

In its decision to reject a complaint in the ‘Mouscron’ case (1), the Commission took the view that the rule to the effect that each club must play its home match at its own ground (‘at home and away from home’ rule) and the exceptions to that rule (which allow for the possibility of playing a match at a ground in a town in another country) was needed to ensure equality between clubs. The Commission argued that by adopting this rule and the exceptions to it, UEFA had exercised its legitimate right of self-regulation as a sports organisation in a manner which could not be challenged by the Treaty's competition rules. This rule and the exceptions to it cannot constitute improper exercise of UEFA's regulatory powers provided these exceptions are applied by UEFA in an objective and non-discriminatory manner.

(1) Case COMP/36851, see IP/99/965.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/941

(2004/C 84 E/1039)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1084/04

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject: Possible breach of the European Works Council Directive in respect to redundancies announced by FLS Aerospace

Will the Commission investigate and comment whether there has been a breach of the European Works Council Directive (94/45/EC (1)) with respect to the announcement of up to 421 redundancies by FLS Aerospace at Stansted and Manchester in the United Kingdom on 16 January 2004, without apparent prior reference to their Works Council? Given the fact that Easyjet are reported to be subsidised by GBP 16 400 to fly their aeroplanes to Dublin for maintenance instead, and given the apparent link to the subsequent acquisition of FLS Aerospace by SR Technics of Switzerland, could the Commission also investigate and comment on any possible breaches of European competition law?

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/203

(2004/C 88 E/0210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0670/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Commission investigation into discharges of oil at Poolbeg Peninsula, Dublin

What reply, if any, has the Commission received from Ireland in response to the letter of formal notice sent to Ireland in April 2003, as announced in IP/03/544, regarding the Irish Government's failure to cooperate with the Commission's investigation into complaints about discharges of oil into water next to a special protection area at Poolbeg Peninsula in August 2002 and Ireland's compliance with the Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC (1)) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (2))?

What action has the Commission taken or is it considering in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission letter of formal notice referred to by the Honourable Member addressed non-cooperation by Ireland consisting in a failure to respond to a request for information about compliance with environmental legislation at the Poolbeg Peninsula in Dublin. Ireland did not respond to the letter of formal notice, and consequently the Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion in December 2003. Ireland subsequently provided a detailed response to the Commission's original information request. This response is considered as having brought to an end the infringement for non-cooperation based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty, and no further action is currently contemplated on this ground. The Commission is still considering the substantive issues raised by the original complaint (3).

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3) P2001/4789.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/523

(2004/C 88 E/0536)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Ansaldo-Breda: possible monitoring of EU funding

At the meeting last week in Brussels involving trade union delegations and workers from Ansaldo-Breda, it emerged that the company has benefited from assistance supporting production activities in depressed areas of Italy, as provided for in Italian Law No 488/92, in the form of EU cofinancing. Specifically, funding has been made available for work on replacing the company's roof with eternit (asbestos lumber), so as to bring the workplace up to European standards in terms of safeguarding and protecting workers.

However, it would not appear that funding was requested to provide environmental protection for the surrounding area, despite the presence of an important acquifer in the vicinity of the establishment.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. In view of the above, can the Commission state whether Ansaldo-Breda has received funding and, if so, what kind?

2. What instruments can be adopted to check whether any funding awarded to Ansaldo-Breda has actually been used?

Supplementary answer givcn by Mr Barrot on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2004)

In the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programming periods the European Regional Development Fund has part-financed action under Italian Law 488/92 to strengthen the industrial fabric of eligible areas.

The action part-financed includes investments by the enterprises mentioned by the Honourable Member in restructuring, modernisation and enlargement of industrial premises in the regions of Apulia, Basilicata, Campania and Sicily. A table giving the detailed information sent by the Italian authorities will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat.

Ansaldo Breda is also participating in four research projects under the 5th Research and Technological Development Framework Programme (assistance granted EUR 867 617) and in two research projects under the 6th Framework Programme (assistance granted EUR 822 115).

Provision of that assistance falls under the authority of the Italian Government, which as managing authority for the programme (Ministry for Production Activities) is responsible for selecting and monitoring the individual projects. For more detailed information the Honourable Member should therefore approach the national authorities.

Where Community measures with decentralised management are concerned, the Commission normally confines itself to system checks and on-the-spot sample checks.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/663

(2004/C 84 E/0747)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/04

by Marjo Matikaineri-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject: Export subsidies for oats

Oats are grown on a very large scale in Finland. With the aid of export subsidies they have been exported to, among other places, Canada and the United States. At present the Commission is unwilling to pay export subsidies because cereals are in short supply in the EU area on account of last season's crop failures. Finland was one place where crops did not fail, with the result that farmers' grain bins are full of good oats.

Since oats are not used in central Europe, there is no significant market for them in southern Europe and other parts of the EU that would in any event need to import cereals. The Finnish oat harvest is at the moment lying in the farmers' grain bins because oats do not go to the EU regions that need cereals and the substantially lower export subsidies are insufficient to enable them to be exported to North America. It ought to be possible to export oats to North America because they are used there in massive quantities.

What specific measures will the Commission take, and within what time-frame, to enable oats to be exported to North America? Will it continue to pay export subsidies for oats and raise them back to their former level with a view to reviving full-scale exports to North America? If so, within what time-frame? This matter is urgent.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

Contrary to all other cereals, the EU had a normal 2003/2004 harvest of oats both in terms of quantity and quality, leading to a certain export surplus from Finland and Sweden. Indeed, the EU cereal production in the EU decreased from 209 million tonnes to 183 million tonnes. For the first time in many years, the EU overall production fell significantly below internal consumption (about 190 million tonnes). This led to a critical supply situation, in particular for feed grains.

The Commission recognised that additional internal demand for oats is limited since oats have limitations in normal animal feed formulation. Consequently, the Commission opened the oats export tender on 15 October 2003, allowing subsidized exports as from the beginning of the oats harvest. Until 12 March 2004, the Commission granted export refunds for a total quantity of 247 840 tonnes. This quantity constitutes a major part of the oats surplus during the campaign.

Of course, and taking account of the EU cereal deficit, the Commission intends to encourage additional internal oats use in compound feed. In addition, the oats market is a particular one, where there is only one buyer (United States), and world prices are fixed in this market. Consequently, the Commission's management of the oats export tender intends to support oats prices in Finland and Sweden, but maximizing the competitive element in export tenders in order to have a minimal impact on world prices. The Commission intends to pursue this policy until the end of the 2003/2004 campaign. The oats export tender will be open until 24 June 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/946

(2004/C 78 E/1001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/04

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

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Private Eye

A recent edition of the UK satirical publication, Private Eye, contained an apology to Commissioner Kinnock for a story it had printed. The publication also claimed it had paid Commissioner Kinnock substantial damages.

Could the Commission state how much money Commissioner Kinnock received in damages from Private Eye?

Could the Commission verify that Commissioner Kinnock is taking legal action against another publication, The Sprout, concerning the same article? If so has the Commissioner received any damages from The Sprout?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Private Eye and Sprout published allegations which were seriously defamatory and, consequently, Mr Kinnock, Vice-President of the Commission, sued both publications seeking a public apology, damages and costs. After legal representations, both publications printed apologies saying that they ‘accept unreservedly that there is and was no basis for allegations against Mr Kinnock’ and ‘Without exception we withdraw the allegations and criticisms of Mr Kinnock and apologise to him’.

They also said that ‘In recognition of the seriousness of the allegations against Mr Kinnock and the complete absence of any justification for them, we have agreed to make a substantial payment in damages to Mr Kinnock’.

Payment for damages and costs has been received from both publications.

It is Mr Kinnock's custom to use damages paid for defamation for payments to charities of his choice and, naturally, is continuing in this case. It is not his custom to publicise the sums received or the names of those charities although, sometimes, the charity payment has been publicised by others.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/193

(2004/C 84 E/0234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Mislabelling of seal oil in the EU

Is the Commission aware of the fact that many Member States are currently placing on the EU market products containing oil from Canadian harp and hooded seals and that this oil is mislabelled as ‘marine oil’, ‘fish oil’ or ‘fat oil’?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that seal oil from Canadian harp and hooded seals is currently used by some EU industries in several commonly consumed products such as pharmaceuticals, nutritional supplements for human use, pet food and animal feed using the above-mentioned misleading terms on their labels?

Given the existing stringent EU legislation on the labelling of products, in particular of nutritional supplements, as well as on consumer and health protection, is the Commission going to ensure that these products do not stay on the EU market with the current misleading label? Furthermore, given that many European citizens have ethical concerns about Canadian seal hunting, will the Commission ensure that this seal oil is labelled with the term ‘Canadian Seal oil’ in order to safeguard consumer choice?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

General legislation on the labelling of foodstuffs (1) lays down labelling requirements in order to ensure that consumers have information on the objective characteristics of products, such as the name under which the product is sold, the ingredients, the quantity or durability.

With regard to the designation of ingredients on labels, Directive 2000/13/EC provides that ingredients must be referred to by their specific name. Refined oils, however, may be included in the list of ingredients under the category name ‘oil’, followed either by an indication of the type, i.e. ‘vegetable’ or ‘animal’, or by an indication of the specific animal or vegetable origin.

In line with these provisions, the ingredient ‘seal oil’ must be referred to by the terms ‘animal oil’ or ‘seal oil’.

The designations mentioned by the Honourable Member therefore do not comply with these provisions, and it is up to the national monitoring authorities to take measures to rectify the situation. Member States have in any case been reminded of these points.

Allowing for exceptions, it is compulsory to indicate the origin or provenance of foodstuffs only where failure to give such particulars might mislead the consumer to a material degree as to the true origin or provenance of the foodstuff.

(1) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109, 6.5.2000 Directive last amended by Directive 2003/89/EC, OJ L 301, 25.11.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/398

(2004/C 84 E/0460)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0434/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject: EURO 0

Under Directive 1999/96/EC (1) stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will have to decrease by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The Commission is also looking at a further phase in reducing emissions, EURO 6, which is being considered for 2012-2013.

When is the Commission thinking, for example, of applying these standards, which aim to reduce emissions from new vehicles only, to older vehicles in the EURO 0 category or taking these highly polluting vehicles off the road?

(1) OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.
1.

The Commission would firstly like to recall the basic principle of devolution, namely that ‘anything that can be better managed and decided on the spot, close to what is happening on the ground, should not be managed or decided in Brussels. Deconcentration [SIC] therefore involves conferring on the Delegations the powers of technical, financial and contractual management for implementing Community aid that were formerly held by the Headquarters’. To enable them to meet their new responsibilities, the Delegations must be strengthened, especially in terms of human resources. In the case of India, the main areas involved are the following: trade and development of the private sector, civil society, NGO (non-governmental organisation) projects and operations, institutional support, human rights, refugees, reconstruction (e.g. Gujarat), environment and natural resources, social sectors such as health, education and gender issues. It should be noted that the Delegation in India also has regional responsibilities (Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan). It therefore takes on full financial and contractual responsibilities for the various countries it covers. This is reflected in the number of staff. Before devolution started in 2001, the Delegation in India consisted of 39 permanent posts, not including those of detached national officials and young experts, which derive from partnership with the Member States and are not permanent resources. In the wake of devolution, the Delegation in India now consists of 81 posts. The 42 extra posts are broken down as follows: — 30 posts for the devolution of aid management (5 officials, 13 local agents, 11 local technical assistance agents (ALATs) and 1 individual expert); (+ 30) — 3 local agent posts in the administration section to deal with the increased management burden associated with an increase in staff (1 local agent and 2 ALATs); (+ 3) — 6 posts associated with the internalisation of technical assistance (2 local agents and 4 ALATs); (+ 6) — 4 posts (3 officials and 1 ALAT) created through redeployment of existing resources for reinforced monitoring of trade (1A) and political issues (1A + 1 ALAT) and for aid management (1A); (+4); — on the other hand, 1 Α-official post was redeployed from the Delegation in India for the opening of the Delegation in Kathmandu; (- 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/637

(2004/C 84 E/0717)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/04

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Burma

Would the Commission give details of its position on Burma's ‘Road Map’ for democracy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The Commission has taken note of the roadmap for the transition to democracy presented by Prime Minister Khin Nyunt in August 2003.

While the Commission appreciates that the Burmese Government has been willing to present its plans for the transition to democracy, there are aspects which are not mentioned in the Roadmap that the Commission views as key requisites for achieving lasting national reconciliation. The first of these requisites is that all legitimate stakeholders, political parties and ethnic nationalities, should be included in the political process.

This calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all National League for Democracy (NLD) members, the release of political prisoners and freedom for all political groups and parties to exercise their political activities, without preconditions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/683

(2004/C 88 E/0702)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/04

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Death of 20 Albanian nationals

In recent days yet another dinghy that had set out from Albania has sunk, causing the death of 20 Albanian nationals.

According to reports in the Italian press there is evidence of collusion between the Albanian authorities and the traffickers. If this was indeed the case, the episode would call into doubt the good relations which Italy, in particular, intends to further develop as part of the process of achieving genuine democracy in Albania.

Can the Commission indicate whether and how it will shed light on this tragic episode which, at best, has revealed shortcomings in surveillance in Albania and along its shoreline?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission deplores the accident on 9 January 2004 in which over 20 Albanian citizens died in the Ionian Sea trying to reach Italy illegally. Despite previous assurances by the Albanian Government of a substantial reduction in the number of speedboats and dinghies crossing over towards Italy this event has demonstrated that increased attention by the Albanian authorities is an absolute necessity. This message was clearly conveyed by the President of the Commission to Prime Minister Nano during their meeting of 20 January 2004 in Brussels.

Preliminary investigations showed that members of the Albanian police were directly involved in facilitating this traffic. The reaction of the Albanian authorities was, on this occasion, immediate; arrests and other actions against the organisers and participants in the operation were promptly taken. However, the Albanian authorities still need to demonstrate that they are able to carry out more extensive investigations, and to ensure proper prosecution of all the persons involved. They also need to demonstrate that the reactions in the aftermath of this tragedy represent the start of a serious and determined action against organised crime and smuggling of human beings.

The Commission accords the utmost importance to monitoring progress by Albania in Justice and Home Affairs-related areas. In this context, it will continue to follow up closely events regarding this particular case, as well as the general situation in Albania, with a view to exerting, as appropriate, the necessary political pressure to help Albania to address these serious problems.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/565

(2004/C 88 E/0576)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1073/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Architectural quality in urban and rural environments

What follow-up has there been to the resolution agreed at the 23 November 2000 meeting of the Culture Council on ‘Architectural quality in urban and rural environments’? What initiatives has the Commission taken or is it considering on this issue since this resolution was agreed, specifically in relation to the call to it to seek ways and means of ensuring in the application of the Structural Funds a ‘wider consideration of architectural quality and the conservation of cultural heritage’?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Projects in the field of culture, including those relating to the architectural quality of the built environment, have feature prominently in the regional development programmes supported by the European Union under the Structural Funds. In order to understand better the nature of interventions in this field the Commission undertook a specific study involving a wide ranging questionnaire which was sent to the Member States. The results of this investigation are available in the form of a working document of the Commission services, on the internet: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/sources_info/compolitics/ fond_structurel_en.html).