ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/667

(2004/C 84 E/0752)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Support for regions which will not be included in Structural Fund Objective 1 on account of the so-called ‘statistical effect’

What transitional financial arrangements will apply to the regions which cease to qualify for Structural Fund Objective 1 status on account of the so-called ‘statistical effect’ which is due to the arrival of regions from the new Member States whose average income levels are well below the current Community average?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission adopted proposals for the future of cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013 in the Third Report on economic and social cohesion which was adopted on 18 February 2004 and transmitted to Parliament and to the Council. Among the proposals, the Commission considers that temporary support should apply to regions where per capita the gross domestic product (GDP) would have been below 75 % of the Community average in a Union of Fifteen but above 75 % in a Union of Twenty-five (the so-called statistical effect of enlargement). These are regions where objective circumstances have not changed, although their GDP per head will be relatively higher in the enlarged Union. In the interest of equity, and to allow the regions concerned to complete the process of convergence, the Commission proposes that support would be higher than decided in Berlin in 1999 for the so-called ‘phasing out’ regions of the current generation (1).

(1) COM(2004) 107: A new partnership for cohesion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/157

(2004/C 84 E/0194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0070/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Chrome-plating factory in Tabaçò, Arcos de Valdevez

Following my Question E-2437/03 (1) of 11 July 2003 and the reply of 23 September 2003, concerning the possible building of a polluting factory in Tabaçò, Arcos de Valdevez, Portugal, a statement by the Association for the defence of the Valdevez Natural Environment says that there is a risk of the Serraliber chrome-plating factory briefly starting chrome-plating operations in January 2004.

There is a revocation case before the courts (No C/000830/03) for failure to comply with the provisions of Decree Law No No 69/2000 of 3 May since the factory was built before the environmental impact assessment had been concluded.

What action has been taken since the Commission replied to me in September 2003?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Following its answer of 23 September 2003 to question E-2437/03 (1) by the Honourable Member on the same subject, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Portuguese authorities have since replied to the letter it sent requesting further information on the construction of the proposed factory.

The Commission is currently examining the Portuguese authorities' reply. The situation will then be examined at a meeting between the Portuguese authorities and the Commission with a view to adopting a position on the complaints in question.

At that meeting, the Commission will not fail to question the Portuguese authorities regarding the impact assessment carried out on the project, and in particular the situation reported by the Honourable Member in her question.

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.
3.

The Commission would like to underline that Annex XVIII to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, as amended by the decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 37/89 of 30 April 1998, extends the geographical scope of Directive 96/71/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) to the non-EU Member States of the European Economic Area. It follows that undertakings have to guarantee that workers posted to the territory of Iceland enjoy, whatever the law applicable to their employment relationship, the terms and conditions of employment in force in Iceland and covering the following matters: maximum work periods and minimum rest periods, minimum paid annual holidays, minimum rates of pay (including overtime rates), conditions for hiring out of workers, health, safety and hygiene at work, protective measures with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of children and young people, equality of treatment between men and women and other provisions of non-discrimination. The monitoring of compliance with these rules by individual employers is observed by the national authorities of the EEA-Member State concerned. According to existing information, the Commission is aware that Impregilo employs workers from Portugal and Romania, among other nationalities. Although the Confederation of Icelandic Labour Union has expressed general concerns about conditions and salaries of workers under the Italian contractor, no formal complaints have been put to Icelandic authorities or labour unions regarding violations of Icelandic law. Icelandic national legislation contains provisions on minimum rights and wages for workers of all nationalities working in the country (2). A dispute between Icelandic authorities and Impregilo on wages and working conditions has recently been settled (October 2003). According to the Icelandic Confederation of Labour, some few outstanding disagreements of working conditions are being negotiated and salaries too are in compliance with the Icelandic law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/443

(2004/C 84 E/0517)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0704/04

by Guido Sacconi (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject: Transport of poultry

EU citizens have repeatedly expressed concern for the conditions in which animals destined for slaughter or further fattening are kept, and the EP itself has called several times for an overall time limit for transport of eight hours or 500 km.

This concern regards all kind of animals, whose suffering should be limited by stricter rules.

The EC proposal for a review of the legislation on transport does not include any reference to stocking densities, journey limits, or stops for feeding and watering for poultry.

Several cases of transport of poultry which have involved serious problems of welfare and even death of these animals have been reported; in some cases, hundreds of animals died because the cages in which they were kept were broken by the cages above that crashed on to them.

Strict measures for the protection of poultry need to be introduced as a matter of urgency.

The EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) is currently producing evidence relating to the transport of poultry.

How and when will the Commission introduce standards for poultry within the debate for a new Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the animal welfare problems that may occur in the transport of poultry mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission proposal now under discussion in the Parliament and in the Council already includes general animal welfare requirements for the protection of poultry during transport aimed at improving the current situation.

Furthermore, in October 2002 the Commission requested the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare to examine the issue in order to elaborate a detailed scientific opinion on the protection of poultry during transport.

As the Scientific Committee for Animal Health and Animal Welfare (Schahaw) had not completed its evaluation at the time of transfer of competence for scientific advice from the Commission to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the request was taken over by the EFSA Panel and Animal Health and Welfare.

Once the EFSA opinion becomes available the Commission will consider presenting a proposal to introduce additional standards for poultry.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/901

(2004/C 84 E/0995)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0886/04

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Road toll system

The proposal for a new EU road toll system for heavy goods vehicles came to nothing on account of disputes between the EU's peripheral states and transit states.

Strict Community rules ought to be adopted regarding road tolls for HGVs instead of numerous disparate practices, and the system should not leave any scope for interpretation.

It has been suggested in the media that the failure of the proposal may mean a delay of at least a year before any decision is taken. Yet when the new Member States join the EU on 1 May the situation on Europe's roads will only become more difficult unless rules enter into force this spring.

Now that the proposal has failed, how does the Commission intend to proceed in order as soon as possible to put an end to the present free-for-all regarding tolls?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member suggests in her written question, the common rules on charging HGVs for the use of road infrastructure (1) ought to be tightened. What is at stake is the smooth operation of the internal market.

At the Transport Council of 9 March 2004 the Member States failed to reach political agreement on the text of the future directive, due notably to differences of opinion on the principle of the Commission's proposal that revenue from charging must be allocated to the transport sector. However, it cannot be said, at this stage in the discussions, that the proposal has failed. With regard to the Council, the Irish Presidency and the Commission are doing all they can to secure political agreement on this dossier as soon as possible. Meanwhile, on 21 April 2004 Parliament adopted an opinion at first reading on the Commission's proposal.

(1) Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/183

(2004/C 84 E/0223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Labelling of bread

Recently, Italian bakers joined forces in a campaign to save their profession. They have drafted a proposal for a law to regulate the use of the term ‘fresh bread’, to ensure that it is applied only to bread made by traditional methods and sold on the day it is made. Consequently, only undertakings which are responsible for the whole production process from beginning to end will be able to call themselves ‘bakeries’, and will be able to label their bread as ‘fresh bread’. The problem that Italian bakers — and European bakers in general — have had to cope with for many years now is competition from bread sold in supermarkets. In most cases, supermarket bread is a product which is partially baked in the factory, frozen and transported to the place of sale, where it is placed in electric ovens to give it a similar colour, appearance and taste to freshly baked bread. By this means, the supermarkets manage to be extremely competitive on the market by reducing production costs. Bakers practising their profession in the traditional way are obliged — by the very nature of the product — to work at night, and consequently to pay their employees a higher rate, which greatly increases the cost of fresh bread. Consequently, consumers — as shown by recent surveys — are increasingly likely, on economic grounds, to buy their bread in supermarkets. Often, however, consumers base their decision to do so on a mistaken assumption, which is that the product they are buying is the same as, rather than similar to, the product offered by traditional bakeries.

In view of the foregoing,

1. Would the Commission state whether it is possible to adopt at European level a label certifying the quality and freshness of bread?

2. What are the Commission's views on this subject?

3. What, in the Commission's opinion, are the most effective measures that could be taken to help save traditional bakers' occupational category, in view of the fact that last year, for example, two thousand bakeries had to close in Germany and, in the south of France, bread is sold almost exclusively in supermarkets?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

The range of bakery products available in the EU is enormous, reflecting the multitude of regional and local customs and traditions.

Moreover, as the Honourable Member rightly states, these products are usually produced in whole or in part at their place of sale and are therefore not exported to other Member States to any significant extent.

This means that legislation setting harmonised, EU-level quality standards for bakery products would be difficult to achieve and would not meet a real need.

However, Member States, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, may decide to take measures of this kind at national level, within the rules laid down by Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/699

(2004/C 88 E/0718)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0526/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain)

The Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Port Authority has made public (Canaries Official Journal of 14 November 2003) the Basic Arinaga Port Extension Scheme which affects the towns of Agüimes and Santa Lucía. The future quay occupying 2,2 km of coastline, is intended for loading and unloading passengers and goods such as gas and oil. The damage which the building work to enlarge Puerto de Aringa will cause is far greater than the questionable socio-economic benefits it may provide, quite apart from its impact on the fabric of business life in Puerto de La Luz and Las Palmas, as a result of diverting part of container traffic and shipping to Puerto de Arinaga. The scheme will have grave effects on the most productive of the coastal marine ecosystems and the sebadales, shrinking the breeding and growing area for the species which are of interest to the fishermen of Agüimes (19 284 inhabitants) and Santa Lucía (40 011 inhabitants). Moreover, it will affect the prospects for developing ‘green’ tourism in the area. The scheme's environmental impact study has not been drawn up with the requisite methodological seriousness and expertise, since many of its claims are quite unjustified from a scientific point of view (e.g.: existing alternatives to this new port, absence of impact on the coastal sedimentation patterns and therefore on Playa del Inglés and Playa de Maspalomas; the absence of effects on the natural wave and wind patterns at Pozo Izquierdo, Europe's most important windsurfing site; the absence of effects on the Playa del Cabrón site of Community interest (SCI) and on the sebadales of Arinaga Bay; the failure to quantify the populations of protected species affected, or the interest of the area in the island context; the real value of the scheme to the population of the surrounding towns; the loss of leisure opportunities and of exploitable marine resources).

Can the Commission demand that alternative schemes be investigated, which would not have a negative impact on the SCI and important bird areas affected by this scheme, nor prejudice the development prospects for sustainable activities in the area, such as water sports, fishing, shellfishing, bathing and leisure?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/495

(2004/C 88 E/0507)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/04

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: People with mental disabilities in Russia

Is the Commission aware of the lack of legal protection for people with mental disabilities in Russia?

Would the Commission identify and clarify what action is being taken on behalf of these people and whether the matter has been raised at the highest possible level with the authorities?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

According to information at the disposal of the Commission, the Russian Constitution does not directly address the issue of discrimination against persons with disabilities. In addition, although laws to prohibit discrimination do exist, it appears that these are not always adequately enforced.

The Commission has been working for several years via the Tacis programme to improve the treatment of the disabled in Russia. Examples of projects include: ‘Partnership in health, education and social assistance’, implemented as part of the 1999 Tacis Action Programme for Russia in cooperation with the Ministry of Education, which has promoted the early detection of disabilities and the better treatment of Russian children in several regions of Russia.

Further projects — to be implemented with Russian institutions including the Russian Ministry of Labour and Social Development — are currently being prepared.

These projects aim, inter alia, to:

— improve existing legislation;

— develop mechanisms of cooperation between different departments/agencies and organisations dealing with disabled children;

— develop programmes for the social inclusion of children with disabilities and provide support to their families;

— better train social workers, medical staff and teachers;

— raise awareness of the rights of disabled children and their families, the problems which they experience and their contribution as valued members of society.

The Commission has also provided support to a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), charities, parents' associations and religious organizations via its Civil Society Programme, with the aim of promoting better understanding and treatment of the disabled and in particular disabled children.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/834

(2004/C 84 E/0928)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0657/04

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Misfuelling of motor vehicles

Is the Commission aware that hundreds of thousands of drivers across the EU each year inadvertently fill their vehicles with the wrong fuel, either petrol or diesel?

In the UK alone it is reported that some 120 000 misfuelling incidents take place at filling stations each year, resulting in costly service bills, damage to vehicles, and potential environmental pollution.

Possible solutions include altering the shape of fuel tanks and pipe nozzles to ensure that petrol and diesel systems are entirely separated, clearer markings, and use of audio warnings.

As vehicle manufacturers and fuel suppliers work on an EU-wide basis, will the Commission take the initiative to bring together interested parties to consider proposals for long-term solutions to the problem, and will the Commission consider legislative measures if voluntary agreement cannot be secured?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission acknowledges the risk, as identified by the Honourable Member, of mistakes being made by motorists when re-fuelling their vehicles at filling stations.

The Commission considered this matter in 1991, when the introduction into the market of vehicles provided with after-treatment systems, such as catalysts, made necessary certain provisions to prevent the use of leaded petrol in vehicles which should only accept unleaded petrol.

To this end, Council Directive 91/441/EEC of 26 June 1991 relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles (1), establishes in its Annex I, that the inlet orifice of the fuel tank of a car intended to use unleaded petrol must be so designed that it prevents filling with a petrol pump delivery nozzle designed for leaded petrol.

Since the application of this Directive, petrol pump delivery nozzles with different diameters have been used to refill petrol cars using unleaded petrol or leaded petrol, and so costly confusion between the fuels being prevented.

Though this provision no longer has any relevance since leaded petrol is no longer permitted, this technical requirement would generally prevent a car running on unleaded petrol from being refuelled with diesel fuel. However, it would not prevent diesel cars from being refuelled with petrol.

With respect to the possible confusion between unleaded petrol and diesel fuel the Commission will consult all relevant stakeholders, i.e. vehicle manufacturers and fuel pump equipment manufacturers which are subject to the Machinery Directive (2), in order to assess all the aspects of the problem and of the practical implementation of possible solutions of a legislative or non-legislative nature.

(1) OJ L 242, 30.8.1991.

(2) Directive 98/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery, OJ L 207, 23.7.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/390

(2004/C 84 E/0452)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0415/04

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Review of decision on Norrmejerier

Norrmejerier is building an installation for the processing of whey, biological purification of waste water and production of green energy. The project period has been extended to 31 November 2004, but Norrmejerier needs a further six months to get the installation into shape and complete its final report. The installation will be operational in April 2005. It cannot be absolutely guaranteed that a final report will be ready by that date, and Norrmejerier has accordingly sought an extension until 31 May. This construction project is excellent from the environmental point of view: it will reduce the use of fossil fuel and alleviate the greenhouse effect.

The payment of support to Norrmejerier from LIFE has been halted, and this is causing Norrmejerier financial problems.

Would the Commission consider reviewing the decision to withdraw support for Norrmejerier, thereby giving it the opportunity to complete the project according to plan?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The LIFE Programme (1) aims at contributing to the implementation, updating and development of Community environment policy and of environmental legislation, in particular as regards the integration of the environment into other policies, and to sustainable development in the Community.

LIFE beneficiaries commit themselves to fulfil the requirements laid down in the individual Commission decision for their project and notably the standard administrative provisions (cf. LIFE web-site (2)).

The project LIFE00 ENV/S/854 proposed by the beneficiary Norrmejerier aims at building a pilot plant to ensure protein recycling and energy recovery in dairy production. Considering its potential positive environmental benefits, the project proposal was selected in 2000. In order to meet the beneficiary's need for more time for project implementation, a prolongation was exceptionally granted for 12 months, adding to the original timetable of three years.

Recently, the Commission received a new prolongation request, but decided to terminate the project. The Commission has carefully examined the Honourable Member's request to review this decision, but cannot do so and still be in conformity with the standard administrative provisions applying equally to all LIFE projects. The beneficiary has not been able to meet the extended deadlines and will not be able to achieve the original project conditions, thereby jeopardising project results. The project has barely started and only a small part of eligible costs have been incurred so far.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE), OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.

(2) http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/home.htm