ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/448

(2004/C 84 E/0523)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0787/04

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Problems relating to the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/2/EC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs

On 29 January 2004 I received an answer from the Commission to my Written Question P-4074/03 (1) concerning problems relating to the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/2/EC (2) on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs. The Commission indicated that it was aware that the implementation of national measures had been suspended in three Member States.

Proper administration entails adopting sound legislation and regularly evaluating and where necessary adjusting it. In this specific instance, problems have arisen even before the transposed provisions have been published or, in certain Member States, have entered into force. It may perhaps be that the consequences of the decision on indicating percentages on labels of compound feedingstuffs were misjudged.

In the light of the problems which have already arisen in a number of Member States: Does the Commission envisage submitting a proposal to amend Directive 2002/2/EC in order to drop the compulsory indication of percentages on labels? Or does the Commission still stand fully behind the Directive, and does it intend to put forward a proposal for amendment only if legally obliged to do so as a consequence of the ruling of the Court and in the meantime to allow the implementation of the relevant measure, which is leading to distortion of competition, to continue?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2004)

As already stated in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-4074/03, the Commission still supports the legitimacy of the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/2/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feeding stuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC. It is waiting for the preliminary ruling to be given by the European Court of Justice on this issue.

Without prejudice to the Commission's intention to propose, in the medium-term, a recast of the feed labelling legislation, the Commission does not intend to propose an amendment to Directive 2002/2/EC in view of the current situation.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2) OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 23.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/767

(2004/C 84 E/0863)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0267/04

by Juan Ferrández Lezaun (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Projects offering alternatives to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (SNHP)

In November 2001 the Spanish ministries for science and technology, agriculture and the environment signed a protocol for studying and financing a project for desalination in Almeria as a possible way of remedying the water shortage in that region. In 2001 CIRCE (centre for research on energy resources and consumption) also drew up another report for the Ministry for the Environment.

The research findings support the desalination option and conclude that desalination plants, as well as offering optimum energy yield by using new technologies, would make it possible to supply 82 cubic hectometres per year at a price of EUR 0,30 per cubic metre in Almeria, whereas 90 cubic hectometres per year are supposed to be delivered under the National Hydrological Plan. The area's water needs could thus be covered with less impact on the environment and the water would cost less than the water diverted under the SNHP (EUR 0,34 per cubic metre).

Does the Commission know about these reports? If not, does it not consider that the SNHP project and its funding should be suspended until existing alternative projects have been assessed, such as those submitted by the government of Aragón or the aforementioned desalination plants, which have a lesser social, economic and environmental impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the specific studies referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission has received extensive information in the context of the ongoing discussion/reflections on the Spanish Hydrological Plan, concerning the efficacy and decreasing costs of desalination techniques. The thrust of much of this information is that the most recent advances in desalination technology enable the production of water with lower financial and environmental costs than other water supply alternatives.

The information on the potential of desalination will be taken into account by the Commission in the context of future decisions relating to the requests for Community funding (structural funds and cohesion fund) recently submitted by the Spanish authorities in relation to the proposed Ebro transfer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/573

(2004/C 88 E/0585)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1141/04

by Göran Färm (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: European patent rights in the USA

Some years ago I drew the Commission's attention to the systematic protectionism practised in the American legal system, which unfortunately still persists. Several cases brought by European researchers and inventors before US courts in defence of their patent rights have been obstructed, more or less openly, by those courts. This may be a breach of the TRIPS agreement, to which the USA is a signatory and which guarantees foreign patent holders the right to bring proceedings before the signatories' courts. The case which the Swedish inventor, Dr Håkan Lans, is still forced to pursue in the US courts after several years is a clear example of the US protectionism referred to above. Is the Commission prepared to take up Dr Lan's case with the US Administration as a warning and a clear indication that the EU will not tolerate such discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission makes extensive efforts to closely monitor the conduct of its trading partners to ensure their compliance with the stipulations of the TRIPS Agreement.

Regarding the unfortunate circumstances faced by the Swedish inventor Dr Håkan Lans, the Commission has undertaken a thorough evaluation of the issues involved in the case in conjunction with Dr Lans himself. Unfortunately, the conclusion that has been reached is that there are no viable legal avenues that could be pursued in the area of trade policy in this instance.

Obviously, the Commission will thoroughly investigate any other cases brought to its attention which would call into question the way that the United States' legal system treats European researchers' and inventors' patent rights pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/562

(2004/C 88 E/0573)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/04

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Increase in European School fees

The Board of Governors of the European Schools met in Brussels on 15 March this year. The topics discussed at the meeting included the increase in fees paid for each pupil each academic year.

It was decided by 12 votes in favour to increase the fees for the 2005/2006 academic year by 11 %, plus the average rate of inflation in Europe. Italy Greece, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands voted against.

Parents are extremely worried, since such decisions do not encourage broad access to education.

At the meeting the parents' representative expressed his concern at the planned increases, since they would lead to the elimination of category III pupils, i.e. those not automatically entitled to attend a European School. What will the Commission do to ensure that access to the European Schools is not restricted in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to the written question E-0237/04 by Mrs Miet Smet (1) concerning fees in European Schools and the reasons for the increases decided by the Board of Governors, the body of representatives from all Member States on which the Commission has one place and one vote.

The fees agreed by the Board of Governors on 15 March 2004 for all Category III pupils (that is, pupils whose parents are not employed by any EU Institution) for the 2005/2006 school year amount to EUR 2 400 for nursery school, EUR 3 300 for primary school and EUR 4 500 for secondary school. These fees are well below the real average cost of almost EUR 11 000 per pupil. A Working Group is being set up by the Board of Governors, at the Commission's suggestion, to examine the issues of fees, fee exonerations and access for Category III pupils in future years.

(1) OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 339.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/428

(2004/C 84 E/0499)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0563/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Ireland

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC (1)), was adopted by the Council on 12 December 1991 and should have been implemented in full by all Member States by 1995 at the latest.

What action has the Commission taken, or is it considering taking, to ensure that Ireland complies in full with its commitments under this Directive?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0561/04 and E-0563/04

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

In response to Written Question E-561/04, the Commission confirms that Ireland has not negotiated a derogation from Council Directive 91/676/EEC.

In response to Written Question E-563/04, the Commission confirms that it has taken legal proceedings in the Court of Justice against Ireland for non-compliance with the requirements of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
2.

The Commission has estimated, as have a number of independent studies, that the income effect of the 2003 CAP Reform is largely neutral. While for EU-15 the quantitative analysis projects a slight decline of income of 0,5 %, for EU-25 income development under the CAP reform is projected to remain virtually neutral (+0,1 %). The Commission has not published detailed analyses about the income effects for different farm size categories because income effects will strongly depend on the national implementation of the Single Farm Payment scheme. In Member States, which intend to implement regionalised area payments, redistributions of income from dairy and beef farmers, currently receiving high levels of direct payments per hectare, to arable crop farmers, may take place. Implementing the Single Farm Payment on an individual basis does not entail redistributions of income and income effects would remain neutral, along the lines estimated by the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/302

(2004/C 84 E/0350)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0051/04

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

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Consequences of the letter to the Commission from six Member States following the failure of the Brussels IGC

In view of the letter sent addressed to the Commission by six Member States (Germany, the UK, France, Holland, Sweden and Austria) following the failure of the Brussels IGC and calling for the EU's budgets for the next six years not to exceed 1 % of the Union's GDP, can the Commission state how it intends to respond to this perplexing and unfortunate request?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Commission has presented its proposal for the new financial framework, covering the period 2007-2013, on 10 February 2004 (1).

In this Communication, more specifically on pp. 27-29, the Commission addresses in detail the legacy of existing commitments and concludes that ‘a ceiling around 1 % of GNI, would fail to meet the European Council commitments on agricultural payments, would undermine the phasing-in of cohesion policy in the 10 new Member States, and would jeopardise the existing levels in other policies, let alone to implement the new policies.’

(1) COM(2004)101.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/911

(2004/C 84 E/1006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: To Serve and Protect — Netherlands Railways

The Dutch newspaper Het Parool reported on 11 March 2004 that, as of 1 April 2004, the security firm To Serve and Protect is to lose its contract to a competing firm. Using unorthodox methods, To Serve and Protect has achieved outstanding results in making Amsterdam's railway stations safe, to the complete satisfaction of all parties.

Netherlands Railways (NS), which has employed it hitherto, says that To Serve and Protect is no longer eligible because it does not comply with European public procurement criteria. The firm's excessively small size is a particular problem according to the NS. The latter's spokesman says that a business must have a turnover of at least EUR 4,5 million per annum and employ at least 400 staff.

1. If a firm is doing a good job and is competitive but too small, surely this last point cannot be grounds for debarring it from bidding for a contract? What does the Commission think about this?

2. What is the true state of affairs?

3. Can the Commission appreciate that such reports give newspaper-readers a negative impression of Europe and makes them angry at Europe?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The EU rules on public procurement do not include an obligation to exclude companies from participating in invitations to tender because of their size. However, the awarding bodies are permitted to require participants in the procedures for the award of contracts to have the technical, economic and financial capacity necessary for the performance of the contract in question, such as a minimum turnover and/or a minimum number of employees. In order to avoid negative consequences for small companies, under EU rules groups of companies are allowed to tender. In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member it was Netherlands Railways (NS) which considered that a minimum annual turnover of EUR 4,5 million and a staff of at least 400 people was necessary to carry out the contract in question.

The Commission is aware of the negative impact of information which does not give enough explanation in order to be understood and correctly assessed. It therefore regrets the biased way in which information has been given to the public on this subject.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/446

(2004/C 84 E/0520)

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.

In view of the above, can the Commission state:

1. 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?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/361

(2004/C 84 E/0419)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0325/04

by Willi Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 2002/25/EC

Directive 2002/25/EC (1) of 5 March 2002 amending Council Directive 98/18/EC (2) on safety rules and standards for passenger ships states that its provisions are to be applied from 1 January 2003, unless otherwise specified in the Annex.

1. Which Member States have correctly transposed this directive into national law so far?

2. Are the Member States having any difficulties in transposing it?

3. If so, what kind of difficulties and what will the Commission do to help solve them?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Commission Directive 2002/25/EC of 5 March 2002 amended the technical provisions (Annex 1) of Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships, in order to take into account the developments at international level (revision of the SOLAS Convention (3)).

The deadline for the transposition of this Directive was 1 January 2003 and today all Member States have transposed it into their national law.

Regarding earlier problems faced by Member States in the transposition of the Directive, the Commission can report the following:

— after the adoption of Directive 2002/25/EC, a number of Member States requested further clarity with regard to the provisions of a particular section of Annex 1 to the Directive (Chapter III, Section 5-1);

— this section, referring to the life saving appliance on board roll-on, roll-off (ro-ro) ships, had to be improved in order to make a clear distinction of standards applicable to ro-ro ships built before 1 January 2003 and those built after 1 January 2003, in line with the relevant international provisions;

— this issue was addressed in the context of Comitology [Committee established by Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002, establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (4)] and lead to the adoption of Commission Directive 2003/75/EC of 29 July 2003 amending Annex I to Council Directive 98/18/EC (5);

— the Commission is not aware of any other problems relating to the implementation of this Directive by Member States.

(1) OJ L 98, 15.4.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 144, 15.5.1998, p. 1.

(3) International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.

(4) OJ L 324, 29.11.2002.

(5) OJ L 190, 30.7.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/550

(2004/C 84 E/0627)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/04

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Selection procedures of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

In Official Journal (1), the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work announced that it would be organising a series of selection procedures to recruit staff. According to the announcement: ‘These procedures will be published in English and French only’.

However Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 (2) of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work states that: ‘The language arrangements of the institutions of the Community shall apply to the Agency’.

Under Article 22 of this Regulation, the Commission examines the legality of the Agency's acts.

Does the Commission believe that the Agency is acting legally by publishing the above selection procedure in English and French only?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission pays careful attention to the selection procedures applied by the various Community Agencies, including respect for the provisions relating to the use of, and fluency in, official languages.

It takes the view, however, that in certain circumstances the service interests of an Institution or Agency, including its own internal needs, may justify the requirement for a knowledge of certain languages. This will obviously be the case if the field of activity of a post (or posts) to be filled means that the specific duties involved call for knowledge of one particular language or another.

(1) OJ C 8 A, 13.1.2004.

(2) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/151

(2004/C 84 E/0188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0019/04

by Juan Ferrández Lezaun (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Júcar-Vinalopó project

On 16 December 2003, Commissioners Barnier and Wallström informed Parliament of the approval of the Júcar-Vinalopó hydrographic project, subject to it being totally independent of the diversion of the Ebro and compliant with the framework water directive.

On 18 December, at a press conference, Mr Pascual Fernández, the Spanish secretary of state responsible for water, said in reply to a question that the only option ruled out was that of ‘using the Júcar-Vinalopó channels to transport water to the Ebro’, and that, in any case, ‘there are many other rivers in the Júcar basin and the document refers only to the Júcar, not the basin’.

What is the Commission's position on these statements by the Spanish government? Can it confirm that diversions of water from the Ebro basin to the Júcar basin could be financed using Community funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission has re-checked the position with the Spanish authorities and can confirm that there will be no transfer of water from the River Ebro into the catchment/river basin of the river Jucar. However, the Jucar river basin district which contains many rivers in addition to the river Jucar, is still scheduled to receive water from the proposed Ebro transfer. The confusion on this issue arises from the mixing up, on the one hand, of the term ‘the Jucar catchment/river basin’ which covers the river Jucar and its tributaries and, on the other hand, the ‘Jucar river basin district’ which is an aggregation of river basins which have been grouped together for administrative reasons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/874

(2004/C 84 E/0968)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0761/04

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

(11 March 2004)

Subject: European passport and the sale of financial products in Europe

Will it be possible for a Member State to oppose the sale of a financial instrument with a European passport under the Prospectus Directive, in particular if it regards the instrument as too risky for the target public among which it is to be marketed?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The fundamental point is that the principle of complete freedom of movement of capital is embodied in the Treaty itself. Articles 56 to 60 of the EC Treaty established new rules on movements of capital. Article 56, which is directly applicable, introduced the principle of complete freedom of movement of capital and payments, both between Member States and between Member States and third countries, while Article 58 defines the areas where Member States are allowed to retain provisions on information, supervision and tax law provided that capital movements are not hampered.

Community law requires prior information to be provided when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market.

Directive 2003/71/EC (1) does not authorise host Member States to oppose a sale or require further information on the grounds that documentation is incomplete or insufficient concerning the risk factor involved in the investment if that documentation has been approved by the competent authority in the country of origin.

On the other hand, the Directive does not prohibit host Member States from laying down specific rules on the use of advertising when securities are offered to the public.

(1) Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, OJ L 345, 31.12.2003.