ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/123

(2004/C 88 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2955/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) and Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Yet another case of persecution of homosexuals in Egypt

The European Parliament has on numerous occasions forcibly condemned the persecution campaign being waged against homosexuals in Egypt, and has called on the Commission and Council to take concrete and progressive measures vis-à-vis the Egyptian institutions. On 28 August 2003, 62 men presumed to be homosexual were arrested on the Qsr el Nil bridge in Egypt in the course of a raid by Cairo police, who surrounded the bridge, verbally abused the men and arrested them. The victims were imprisoned for three days, charged with ‘depraved practices’, obliged to sign statements of guilt, and released after being forced to give their addresses. The hearings will be held in November and December 2003.

Is the Commission aware of these arrests? Does it intend to take concrete and progressive measures, in line with Parliament's repeated demands, with regard to Egypt on the subject of the severe persecution campaign which homosexuals have now been suffering from there for years?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The Commission has carefully monitored alleged incidences of persecution of homosexuals in Egypt. It has raised its concerns with the Egyptian authorities both on the Queen Boat case itself, and on the related issue of police harassment on several occasions as requested in the Parliament's Resolution of 10 April 2003.

There have been recently some welcome developments, notably the release of twenty-nine of the defendants and the transfer of the proceedings from the security courts to the normal court system. But the Honourable Members can rest assured that our Delegation in Cairo, together with the Member State embassies, will continue to follow this case as well as the cases of the 62 men arrested on 28 August. Likewise, the Commission will continue to raise these issues with the Egyptian Authorities whenever appropriate.

The institutions of the Union-Egypt Association Agreement (still pending ratification from various Member States) will provide a useful additional forum to discuss a range of human rights issues.

In addition, as the Honourable Member knows, on 22 May 2003, the Commission issued a Communication on ‘Re-invigorating Union actions on Human Rights and démocratisation with the Mediterranean partners’, with the aim of working constructively to prompt concrete progress on human rights issues. This communication is now being considered by the Council and Parliament.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/535

(2004/C 78 E/0557)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3384/03

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI), Marco Pannella (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Corridor 5

The Italian (‘Trans-Padania’) leg of Corridor 5, which is to link Lisbon and Kiev and thereby ensure optimum east-west transport conditions in southern Europe, is important to the European and Italian facets of the economy of the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region and the city of Trieste.

The Trieste node is of particular importance in terms of links with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and as an ideal point of passage for east-west road and rail traffic south of the Alps.

Despite numbering among the Transeuropean projects originally proposed by the Commission, it seems that the Venice-Trieste-Capodistria-Ljubljana-Budapest section has unexpectedly been discarded from the slimmed-down ‘quick list’, which could jeopardise a prompt launch of the project.

Can the Commission urgently explain the reasons for this step backwards and indicate whether this means it has revised its position?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

On 1 October 2003, the Commission adopted a proposal to amend the guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) (1). This proposal includes a list of priority projects declared to be ‘of European interest’, which includes project No 6 (high-speed train/combined transport) Lyon-Turin-Milan-Venice-Triest-Ljubljana-Budapest (Annex III to the proposal for a decision). This demonstrates the Commission's interest in this project which is of key importance for improving links between the central part of the European Union and the new Member States.

The information supplied by the Member States on this project, which is given in Annex III, shows that building work on most of the sections will not start before 2010-2015, i.e. well outside the criteria defined for the Growth Initiative, which stated that the projects should begin by 2006. It was therefore not possible to include all the projects in the quick-start programme. However, two sections have been included as they fit in with this framework: the international section St Jean de Maurienne-Bussoleno (Mont Cenis tunnel between France and Italy), where preparatory work is already in progress, and the Ljubljana-Budapest section, where construction is due to start by 2005.

If it appears that other sections meet the same criteria, the programme could be extended in accordance with the procedure laid down for its establishment.

The Commission wishes to stress that the Growth Initiative does not in any way weaken its proposal of 1 October 2003, which will be adopted by the co-legislators under the co-decision procedure.

(1) COM(2003) 564 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/240

(2004/C 84 E/0284)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Council

(20 November 2003)

Subject: EU action against the Guantánamo Bay prison

The European Parliament has asked the current President of the Council, the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, to protest to Washington about the imprisonment of EU residents at the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. 26 EU residents are being held at Camp X-Ray. This prison holds people who have been arrested in connection with the war on terrorism since 11 September.

Does the Council know exactly what offences these 26 detainees are accused of?

Do not national governments have a responsibility to help safeguard the legal rights of their nationals in foreign prisons?

Can the Council provide a list of other EU residents who are being held in other non-European prisons for political reasons or in connection with criminal offences? Does the Council also keep abreast of their situation? How, specifically, does the Council go about this? To what results has it led in the past?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Council is not in a position to provide details of the offences for which any detainees are currently being held in Guantánamo Bay.

As the Council has previously stated in its replies to Written Questions E-1420/03 and E-2444/03, the protection of the rights and interests of Member States' nationals abroad pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is the responsibility of the individual Member States concerned, whether the individuals involved are being held in Guantánamo Bay or elsewhere.

For this reason, the Council does not maintain any list of the type to which the question refers. If a Member State chooses to bring the case of detention of one of its nationals abroad to the attention of the other Member States and requests assistance from the EU in lobbying for his/her release, then the relevant Council Working Group may agree to the Presidency's instructing the EU Heads of Mission in the third country concerned to carry out an appropriate démarche, confidential or otherwise, or to the EU Troika raising the matter in a political dialogue meeting with the third country concerned, where relevant. In such cases, the Presidency normally keeps the Member States informed of the outcome of the démarche or discussion and any follow-up thereto. Such approaches have been successful in some cases in achieving the desired result.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/2

(2004/C 88 E/0002)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0043/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Introduction of a minimum rate of excise duty on wine

The Commission has apparently drafted a proposal aimed at introducing a minimum rate of excise duty on wine of EUR 0,14 per litre (LIT 270) from 2003 and EUR 0,15 from 2007.

This would constitute a further fiscal and bureaucratic burden on one of the most advanced sectors of European agriculture and one of the most competitive at world level.

In many EU countries, including Italy, there is no excise duty on wine and thus its introduction, far from constituting harmonisation of the tax system, would actually represent the levying of a new tax.

Does the Commission not consider that the introduction of excise duty on wine might put producers at a disadvantage?

Does it not consider it worthwhile to safeguard and promote European wine production, which has its roots in our civilisation's most distant past and is an integral part of Europe's cultural and religious imagery?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

Council Directive 92/84/EEC, of 19 October 1992, deals with the approximation of rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1). Under its provisions it is necessary for the excise duty rates laid down in that Directive to be reviewed periodically by Council. This review shall be based upon a Commission report.

The Commission is preparing such a report at present, which will take into account all relevant issues, in particular the proper functioning of the internal market, competition between the different categories of alcoholic drinks, the real value of the rates of duty and the wider objectives of the EC Treaty, as provided by Article 8 of the said Directive. These considerations will also include the situation of producers and the other elements mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/647

(2004/C 78 E/0687)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3813/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Judicial inquiry by the Venice Prosecutor's Office into use of Community funds for the agricultural sector

An article appeared on 26 November 2003 on the Vivacity Belluno website, entitled ‘Puglia businessman arrested for fraud against the EU’. According to the article:

— three people were arrested for involvement in aggravated and repeated fraud to obtain national and Community funding, aggravated and repeated falsification by a private citizen in an official act, with the aggravating circumstance of causing serious prejudice to the body concerned;

— the three individuals concerned had, according to the information gathered by the Guardia di Finanza police, set up and managed many organisations and companies in the Veneto, Lazio and Puglia regions, producing and selling ‘dehydrated medicinal herbs’, thanks to substantial Community aid;

— the organisations were used to invoice or take delivery of consignments of medicinal herbs, through which the three individuals illegally obtained in 2002 alone funds from the AGEA (Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura) amounting to EUR 500 000;

— the sums to be refunded, added to the administrative penalties and sums owed by the companies for failing to monitor the activities of their own administrators, as well as ordinary and revaluation interest, amount to a minimum of EUR 1 300 000 and a maximum of EUR 1 900 000.

Will the Commission state:

— whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter?

— whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the European Antifraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into a company for alleged aggravated and repeated fraud to obtain national and Community grants and aggravated and repeated falsification.

As judicial proceedings are already in motion in Italy, at the Prosecution Service for Venice, OLAF is available to provide the judicial authorities with all such assistance as they may request.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/766

(2004/C 78 E/0815)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2918/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Case of Italian citizen Maurizio Trotta, imprisoned in Romania

On 2 August 2002, Mr Maurizio Trotta, an Italian citizen from Reggio Emiliano, was arrested in Romania on charges of international drugs trafficking for possession of 11 grammes of hashish, found in his rented apartment in Craiova.

Mr Maurizio, who has been held in Craiova prison since his arrest, was tried in a court of first instance and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, following the withdrawal of the charge of international trafficking, which is punishable by up to 25 years' imprisonment.

Having received a two-year sentence, and in the light of his good conduct, Mr Trotta ought to be released in December 2003. However, following an appeal against the sentence of the court of first instance lodged by the public prosecutor's office, the case is to be re-tried, with the result that the outcome is highly uncertain and Mr Trotta is still in prison.

In the meantime, Mr Trotta's family has spent substantial sums on visiting Romania and on the fees of Italian lawyer Mr Liborio Catagliotti and the succession of Romanian lawyers assigned to the case.

There is no knowing how long the case will last or what the eventual sentence will be and there have been reports of substantial bribes being requested by those seeking to take advantage of the situation.

After making the necessary enquiries with the Romanian authorities, will the Council say whether it considers that the fundamental rights established under the EU treaties may have been infringed in this case?

Will the Council provide details of the response from the Romanian authorities and say what possible steps might be taken?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Honourable Parliamentarian of the European Parliament is informed that the Council can not take a position in respect of an ongoing criminal procedure.

As the Honourable Parliamentarian are certainly aware, the EU is pressing for reform of the judiciary in Romania in view of EU accession. The EU has continuously stressed that the establishment of an independent, reliable and efficient judiciary is of paramount importance for Romania and has strongly invited Romania to strengthen the independence of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/655

(2004/C 78 E/0697)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3836/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject: VAT for transport service providers

The transport sector in the European Union is governed by various tax regimes. For instance, a Belgian transport service provider may transport its customers to Athens in a coach belonging to a Greek company, transport them from there to Vienna with an Austrian company and take them to their final destination in the Netherlands in a coach belonging to a Dutch company. The problem facing this service provider — which is essentially providing its customers with a package and therefore uses subcontractors — is the how to calculate VAT for such a service.

In this specific example, will the Commission say how VAT is to be levied so that all the subcontractors involved in providing services meet their tax obligations?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Since Community VAT legislation is based on a Directive (the Sixth VAT Directive — Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977) each Member State is responsible for the transposition of these provisions into national legislation and their correct application within its territory. In the light of this, and the basic principle of subsidiarity, national tax administrations have the principal responsibility for informing their taxable persons about the interpretation and application of these provisions.

According to Article 9(2)(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive the place of supply of transport services is the place where the transport takes place, having regards of the distances covered. Therefore, in the example quoted, it is up to each individual Member State to determine how VAT is to be levied and which obligations each subcontractor has to fulfil on its territory.

The Commission is aware of the problems which can occur in the field of taxation of passenger transport services and in the framework of its review and update of VAT Strategy priorities (1). it has undertaken to look at the simplification of the obligations for traders in the field of VAT in the third quarter of 2004 as well as at the issue of the place of taxation of passenger transport services in 2005.

(1) COM(2003) 614 final of 20.10.2003.
2.

On the basis of a large number of complaints, the Commission has opened an infringement procedure with regard to the Grensmaas project and has sent a letter of formal notice to the Dutch government on 2 May 2003. In this letter of formal notice, the Commission explains that it considers that the relationship between the Dutch authorities and those who are going to execute works in the framework of the Grensmaas project gives rise to a public works contract in the meaning of the applicable Union public procurement directives: such a contract should consequently be awarded in conformity with Union legislation. The Commission does not dispose of any data according to which one can conclude that the Grensmaas project has been delayed because of the ongoing infringement procedure. On the basis of the information available, it rather appears that this project is scheduled to be completed by 2022 and that the competent authorities do not foresee its execution to start before 2005. A tendering procedure as foreseen by European public procurement legislation usually takes no more than six months.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/20

(2004/C 88 E/0019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1148/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Seychelles

The executive power and ruling party's stranglehold on life in the Seychelles, threats to human rights and the restrictions on the press of the opposition, drug trafficking and money laundering are repeatedly denounced.

What steps have been taken by the Commission, under the auspices of the Cotonou Agreement and the EU's stated objectives on human rights and democracy, to improve democratisation and good governance in the Seychelles?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/182

(2004/C 78 E/0188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2864/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 September 2003)

Subject: Data and sources indicating the role currently played by the Vatican's financial system in the payment of interest to natural persons

The answer to question E-2426/03 (1) given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission on 5 September 2003 states that the Commission can only say that the role currently played by the Vatican's financial system in the payment of interest to natural persons does not appear to be jeopardising the competitiveness of European financial markets.

Can the Commission say what data it has to support this claim and what their source was?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission would refer to the reply to Written Question E-1914/02 put by the Honourable Member (2). The finding that a commercial financial sector does not currently exist on the territory of the Vatican City State (the only bank being the IOR (Istituto Opere di Religione), which also is the central bank) does indeed suggest that management of the assets of EU-resident natural persons is unlikely to be taking place on a scale comparable with that of the six non-EU countries to which the Council has given priority in starting discussions on taxation of savings (the United States, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra, and San Maríno).

The priority given to a limited number of particularly significant financial centres was, moreover, inevitable given that the Council had opted to establish a link between the (early) adoption and implementation of the Community Directive and receipt of adequate assurances from the third countries concerned that they would introduce measures equivalent to those of the directive in their territory. Entering into immediate contacts with a larger number of financial centres would have been likely, under these conditions, to set back by several years not only the date of application of the Directive on taxation of savings, but also that of the other components of the tax package (the code of conduct on company taxation and the Directive on interest and royalties). The Commission hopes that the Honourable Member can agree that such a delay would be undesirable in the interests of the smooth operation of the internal market.

The Commission has undertaken to collect the available information on the matter raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him directly of the outcome.

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.

(2) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/261

(2004/C 84 E/0308)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3900/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: Trieste-Divaca rail link

Under Commission proposal (1) of 1 October 2003 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and the funding thereof, the Trieste-Divaca rail link is not considered to be a cross-border link, despite forming part of priority project No 6.

Only ‘cross-border’ projects are eligible for Community grants amounting to 30 % of the overall cost and, should this position be confirmed, the Trieste-Divaca link would lose out on a considerable amount of Community financial support.

1. Would the Commission agree that the decision not to include the Trieste-Divaca link among the cross-border projects goes against the interests of Community citizens by affecting the amount of financial support to be provided?

2. Given that the Trieste-Divaca link forms part of the Lyon-Trieste/Koper-Ljubljana-Divaca-Budapest line, what other characteristics does it require in order to be designated a ‘cross-border’ link and included in the list of cross-border projects?

(1) COM(2003)564.