ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/242

(2004/C 84 E/0286)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3468/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), Phillip Whitehead (PSE), Catherine Stihler (PSE) and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Council

(21 November 2003)

Subject: Post-polio syndrome

During two meetings of the Council of the European Union, the 2384th (Health, 15.11.2001, Brussels) and the 2470th (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs, 2-3.12.2002), the Council took note of statements made by the Belgian Presidency and the Irish delegation on the need for action at EU level to provide an adequate response to sufferers of post-polio syndrome (PPS).

Can the Council comment on the kind of action which has already been taken on this matter, more specifically, on the level of:

1. information about the incidence of PPS within the EU, its onset, and availability of current research;

2. treatment available in the Member States for PPS sufferers to rehabilitate them and remedy their condition.

3. What funds for research and treatment have been made available from the Community budget? In the absence of any such action hitherto, what is the justification for this lack of follow-up?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Honourable Members' attention is drawn to the fact that the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care is the Member States' responsibility and that therefore the Council is not competent to comment on any action already taken on post-polio syndrome at the national or regional levels.

As regards any information on the incidence of post-polio syndrome and funding for research at the European level, the Honourable Members may wish to address their specific questions on this matter directly to the Commission, which is responsible for, inter alia, the implementation of the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008). The scope of this programme includes actions and support measures aimed at improving health information and knowledge.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/811

(2004/C 78 E/0860)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3410/03

by Joan Valivé (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: The NHP subsidies and environmental impact

On 1 November 2003, the Spanish Official Journal published the resolution setting out the environmental impact statement for the National Hydrological Plan's water transfers scheme authorised by Spanish Law 10/3001.

It is a fact that the transfer of water from the River Ebro to other catchment areas will alter the river's own ecological conditions, and also those of the Ebro delta. The Law in question provided for the drawing up of an Ebro Delta Integral Protection Plan.

The Ebro delta contains a nature reserve classed as a Natura 2000 Network special bird protection area, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and Directive 79/409/EEC (2).

Furthermore, the same Law provides for the possibility of incorporating transfers other than those envisaged in the scheme. The Catalan Autonomous Government carried out a study of an alternative transfer of water from the River Ródano to Catalunya's interior catchment areas, and forwarded this to the Spanish Government.

Does the Commission know that no assessment has been made of the environmental impact resulting from the future water transfer as provided for in the Ebro Delta ‘Integral Plan’.

Will the Commission make the granting of any EU subsidies to the National Hydrological Plan scheme conditional on the carrying out of assessments of the environmental impact on the Ebro delta and the establishment of the minimum guaranteed ecological flows?

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

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/738

(2004/C 78 E/0786)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2428/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject: State aid to Italian milk producers

Will the Council explain how its decision to approve Italian State aid to Italian milk producers is consistent with the provisions of Article 12 of the Treaty concerning equal treatment of European citizens and, therefore, including milk producers?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/455

(2004/C 88 E/0466)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3190/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject: Promotion of the pilot responsible for the Cermis tragedy

On 3 February 1998, a US Maríne Corps aircraft, stationed at the Aviano base as part of the ‘Deliberate Guard’ operation, took off for a low-flight training mission. Shortly after take-off, the aircraft struck the cables of a cable-car linking the village of Cavalese (Trento) with Mount Cermis, at a height of 300/400 feet above the ground, as the descending passenger cabin was at a distance of some 300 metres from the arrival station.

The impact caused the carrier and driving cables to snap immediately, the cabin fell to the ground and all 20 passengers died.

In the proceedings opened to establish who was responsible, the case was entrusted to a US military tribunal, which decided not to punish nor hold responsible the superiors of the four crew members. On 4 March 1999 the eight Camp Lejeune court-martial jurors, all Maríne Corps officers, then found the pilot himself not guilty. This ruling caused surprise, bewilderment and indignation in Italy and other European countries because it seemed to contradict all the evidence and to accept that such a cruel tragedy could occur during a peace-time training flight, without any failure that might cause the aircraft to get out of control and without any criminal liability.

The Italian press has recently revealed that Captain Chandler Seagrave, who acted as navigator during the mission to Mount Cermis and has already been condemned for this multiple killing by the Italian parliamentary committee responsible for investigating the case, has not only remained unpunished for the tragedy which he caused but has recently been promoted to major by the US army.

In view of the extreme affront which this decision represents to the memory of the 20 victims and to members of their families, will the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Will the European Union take a stand on the seriousness of these events?

2. What power does the European Union have to investigate these facts and to show the US army in an effective manner that it is appalled at this decision?

3. Can the European Union in any way help to ensure that those responsible for this tragedy do not go unpunished?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

This matter raised by the Honourable Member is for the relevant judicial authorities in the United States and Italy. The Commission has no grounds on which to express an opinion.
The Commission has discussed with the Panel (which is finalising its final report for October 2003) the coltan moratorium proposal and they consider it is not possible to implement and that comparison with the Kimberley process is not appropriate. The Panel is not going to propose such a moratorium.

The Transitional Government in DRC has not yet established full and effective control over its vast territory. However, the United Nations Organisation Mission in the (MONUC) forces are now present in large parts of Eastern Congo and with the warring parties' agreement on the Army establishment, it is only a question of time before effective control is established.

It is the Commission's view that a permanent body might have been appropriate at an earlier stage of the conflict. However, it is now for the Transitional Government to take appropriate measures to control the exploitation of raw materials in the country.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/531

(2004/C 78 E/0553)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3370/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Mr Prodi's comments on the outcome of the Swedish referendum on EMU

On 21 September 2003, the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published comments made by Romano Prodi on the outcome of the Swedish referendum on EMU. Mr Prodi reportedly said that the Swedes voted against because they are afraid of new developments and because they believe that their democracy is superior to others'. Mr Prodi went on to say that the result of the vote mirrored the general feeling in a country and that the Swedes' rejection was also a reflection of our sense of distinctive character and a distance between the Swedish and European peoples, as well as showing a lack of knowledge about Europe.

Do Romano Prodi's comments also represent the views of the Commission? If so, can the Commission explain in greater detail why the Swedes are afraid of new developments and elaborate on the significance of the distance referred to between the Swedish and European peoples?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

At Parliament's plenary session of 16 January 2002, the President of the Commission said that ‘to millions of European citizens, the euro notes and coins in their pockets are a concrete sign of the great political undertaking of building a united Europe. As a symbol of that unity, the euro is having an even greater psychological impact than the abolition of passport controls at Europe's internal borders. So the euro is becoming a key element in people's sense of shared European identity and common destiny. It is tangible evidence that European integration is now irreversible. … We must take this as a valuable lesson in our step-by-step progress towards enlargement’.

This well known position is that of the whole Commission, and there was no reason to modify it during the campaign prior to the referendum on the adoption of the euro in Sweden.

As for the remarks reported by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, they would seem to have been based on an interview with President Prodi which appeared in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on 15 September 2003.

In fact the President of the Commission did not make the remark attributed to him by the Swedish newspaper; he did say, in accordance with the Commission line on the subject: ‘It is a pity, because many Swedes understand the advantages of the euro for growth. But a majority of public opinion is still afraid of change. This was the political choice of those who want to emphasise what distinguishes them and who fear losing what they consider to be their essential identity — even losing economic advantages. … Every nation has the right to express its views. And it is our duty to respect the beliefs revealed in any democratic consultation.’ And: ‘In northern Europe, part of the population remains firmly convinced that a given social model can defend itself better by concentrating on its own chosen identity in politics rather than economics.’
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/145

(2004/C 78 E/0150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Amendment of Article 25(1) of the Kyoto Protocol regarding entry into force

The Kyoto Protocol will enter into force when it has been ratified by not less than 55 parties to the UNFCCC accounting for at least 55 % of the total CO2 emissions of the Annex I countries. At present the Protocol has been accepted by 113 states making up over 80 % of the world's population, but the proportion of emissions accounted for by the Annex I countries which have ratified it stands at only 44,2 % and, even taken together, the remaining Annex I countries (Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Australia, whose combined total is 2,1 %) will not raise the figure above the 55 % threshold unless either Russia (17,4 %) or the United States (36,1 % of the Annex I countries' emissions) can likewise be persuaded to give its support. The US has already publicly distanced itself from the Protocol. Russia thus holds the key.

From a climate change perspective the Protocol naturally needs if nothing else to enter into force on schedule. It might in any case be strategically better for the purposes of the negotiations to be conducted with Russia and helpful to all sides if Russia agreed to participate, but as regards entry into force of Protocol this is not absolutely essential.

Has the Commission thought of taking immediate steps in order to amend Article 25(1) of the Protocol in accordance with the procedure under Article 20 with a view to replacing the requisite 55 % with, say, just 45 % of the Annex I countries' emissions, thus ensuring that, whatever happens, the Protocol can enter into force?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Amendment of Article 25(1) of the Kyoto Protocol is not feasible from a legal point of view. Article 20 of the Kyoto Protocol defines the procedure that has to be followed for amendments to the Protocol itself. As the responsibility for adoption of any amendments lies with the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, this procedure is applicable only once the Kyoto Protocol has entered into force. The conditions in Article 25(1) also underline the need to address the global problem of climate change by international action involving broad participation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/387

(2004/C 78 E/0410)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1832/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Substandard workmanship in Greece

From the Commission's answer to my Question (E-0807/03) (1) I gather that the problem of substandard workmanship in Greece continues to exist and that it is not always clear what steps have been taken by the authorities in response to this.

Since 31 May 2003 is the final date for settlement of amounts due under the second CSF, can the Commission indicate its general position regarding the problem of substandard workmanship affecting projects receiving funding under the second CSF in Greece and say what measures it will take to resolve the matter under the relevant European Union rules?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to his previous question E-0807/03 (2).

In addition at the appropriate moment in time, a closure proposal will be made to the Greek authorities on the basis of the information made available by these authorities to the Commission services. It should be noted that the date of 31 May 2003 refers to the deadline to be respected as a general rule. The experience from the closure procedure for the majority of programmes in almost all the Member States has shown that this deadline will be difficult to comply with in view of the quantity and quality of the dossiers submitted by the Member States. The closure proposal for Greece will take account, in due time, of the findings of Espel concerning any sub-standard works, and the extent to which the required remedial works are certified by the Greek authorities as having been subsequently carried out.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 122.

(2) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 122.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/669

(2004/C 88 E/0687)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4058/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject: Gun laws in Turkey

In the first five months of 2003, 1094 people were killed and 10 513 were injured by guns in Turkey. On 7 July 2003, two-and-a-half-year-old Alistair Grimason was shot by a stray bullet while sleeping in a pushchair in a café. The Turkish Government has since made moves to tighten its laws on firearms crime.

Is the Commission aware of these statistics, and can it confirm whether it will consider matters such as the prevalence of firearms and the legislation on firearm possession and gun crimes, when considering the application of countries for EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the disturbing facts mentioned by the Honourable Member and shares her concern regarding the number of gun-related deaths and injuries in Turkey.

The question of firearms control is not covered specifically by the Copenhagen political criteria. All Candidate Countries are required to accede to the 2000 United Nations (UN) Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (the Palermo Convention) and its Protocols. Turkey has acceded to the Convention and signed on 28 June 2002 the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition. Turkey has not yet ratified this Protocol. The Commission will continue to monitor progress on this issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/83

(2004/C 84 E/0090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3681/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pisa

In its answer to question E-1112/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pisa had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/104

(2004/C 84 E/0141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3828/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: The Izar de Fene shipyard and the possibility of regaining authorisation to build merchant ships

The Commission recently took steps designed to allow certain forms of aid for the European ship-building industry in order to withstand unfair competition from South Korean shipyards. The European Parliament has adopted a report on the ‘Prestige’ disaster, which included a resolution calling for the building of oil tankers in regions such as Galicia which have been seriously affected by disasters at sea.

In this context what reason can there be for banning the Izar de Fene shipyard in Galicia from building merchant ships? Has Spain requested that Izar de Fene (formerly Astano) should be allowed to build ships of this kind once again? What is the Commission's position, bearing in mind that the Ferrol district, in which Izar de Fene is located, lost thousands of jobs as a consequence of the ban imposed on the shipyard, which has had to confine itself to building off-shore platforms?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission, in 1997, approved (1) EUR 1 377 million of restructuring aid for the public Spanish shipyards. In this decision, it was stated that, in order to minimize the possible market distorting effects of the aid, the annual production for the Spanish yards should not exceed 210 000 cgt for a period of 10 years. Furthermore, the decision stated that the Astano [now called Fene] yard should not reopen for shipbuilding. (It was already closed to shipbuilding due to previously approved aid to Spanish shipbuilding).

The decision to keep Fene (ex-Astano) closed was in order to ensure the restriction on Spanish shipbuilding production and, therefore, a counterpart for the approved restructuring aid authorised in 1997. Furthermore, the Council requested, in its Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997, on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring (2) on which the Commission decision mentioned above was based, that Fene should be kept closed for shipbuilding.

The Commission is not able to prejudge what its position would be on the issue of allowing Fene to restart with shipbuilding.

(1) OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.

(2) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/135

(2004/C 88 E/0142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3185/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Duty free allowances in the Canary Islands

Why can the Canary Islands impose tighter limits on EU citizens importing and exporting duty free items than other parts of the EU?

If this activity is based on a derogation to normal EU rules, when is the derogation scheduled to end?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Certain territories, including the Canary Islands, are excluded from the fiscal territory of the Community (1), mainly for historical or geographical reasons. Being outside the fiscal territory, the Canary Islands may impose restrictions on the import and export of goods by travellers coming from the Union which are at variance with those otherwise applied within the Community.

The special status granted to the Canary Islands is not limited in time. It may however be brought to an end, either at the initiative of the Commission (2), presenting the necessary proposals, or, as far as excise duty is concerned, by notice submitted by Spain (3).

(1) See Article 3(3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977 and Article 2 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2) See Article 3(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive.

(3) See Article 2(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/45

(2004/C 78 E/0043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/03

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Shooting noise abatement

Shooting is a widely popular sport which has very solid long-standing traditions all over the world. One problem that has arisen, however, is the resulting noise, a considerable nuisance factor in the vicinity of shooting ranges, which are often situated close to built-up areas. Shooting noise has thus become an environmental problem.

In some Member States the problem has been effectively solved, in particular by adopting the use of silencers. In Finland, for example, the use of silencers was prohibited before 1993, but the authorisation to use them has since then brought nothing but benefits. Norway's experiences have been much the same as Finland's. Sweden is at the moment amending its law along similar lines.

The use of silencers is not allowed in every Member State. As a result, new types of silencers do not come onto the internal market, and product development is also made more difficult.

Does the Commission consider that any of the factors involved in this matter are likewise hampering the operation of the internal market? Secondly, does it think that any Community action might be conducive to environmental noise abatement at shooting ranges? Is there any way in which it could encourage Member States to remove legislative obstacles to the use of silencers, citing the favourable experiences in the Nordic countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The use of silencers is not subject to harmonisation at Community level. This question therefore falls directly within the scope of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty.

In this context, the Member States may adopt measures aimed at restricting the use and movement of certain products, provided that these are justified on grounds such as public order or safety. The question which arises therefore is to know whether the restrictions in some Member States, as mentioned by the Honourable Member, are covered by such grounds. As the Commission has no knowledge of the nature, scale and scope of the restrictions, it can only ask that the Honourable Member provide further details on the restrictions he mentions, and particularly on their justification.