ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/755

(2004/C 84 E/0850)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0053/04

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

(20 January 2004)

Subject: The suspension of work at the Inzar shipyard (Fene, Galicia) arising from the ban on building merchant vessels: action of the Commission and the Spanish government

The suspension of work at the Inzar shipyard (Fene, Galicia), arising from the ban on building merchant vessels which has affected it since 1988 and the dearth of orders for offshore rigs, in the building of which it was obliged to specialise under its previous name of Astano, with the consequent loss of thousands of jobs, once again points up the need for action on this problem from the Commission and the Spanish state, both of which are guilty of negligence on an issue that is crucial for the economy of the Ferrol area and of Galicia.

Can the Commission provide information on the present state of affairs? Has the Spanish government submitted the necessary request to enable the shipyard to recommence building merchant vessels? What is the Commission's position? What, at all events, needs to be done to enable this shipyard to build such vessels, as it did in the past when it had a worldwide reputation in the field?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

As the Commission recently replied to the Honourable Member in its answer to written question E-3828/03 (1), the Commission, in 1997, decided that Fene (ex-Astano) should be closed for shipbuilding in order to ensure the production restriction on public Spanish shipbuilding. This was, therefore, a counterpart for the approved restructuring aid (2) authorised in 1997. Furthermore, the Council requested, in its Regulation (EC) 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring (3), on which the Commission decision mentioned above was based, that Fene should be kept closed for shipbuilding.

The Commission is currently examining the issue of allowing Fene to restart shipbuilding and is therefore not able to prejudge what its final position will be.

The Commission is actively pursuing a policy to defend EU shipbuilding from unfair international competition, by a World Trade Organisation (WTO) action against South Korea and by having proposed a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding. Shipyards in all Member States, including Spain, may benefit from this approach specifically designed for this industry.

(1) See page 104.

(2) OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.

(3) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/326

(2004/C 84 E/0385)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/04

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

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

What measures has the Commission taken to improve the drafting quality of the Commission's Financial Report and the Consolidated Financial Report of the European Institutions?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/184

(2004/C 84 E/0224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0256/04

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Open call for proposals VP/2002/6 for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)

Section 4 of the open call for proposals for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality, entitled ‘Who can submit a proposal?’, stipulates what kind of organisations may present a proposal as a promoter and what kind may act as partners in a proposal.

The wording of section 4 suggests that NGOs wishing to participate as promoters must be in one of the two following situations:

— according to paragraph 1, the NGO must be ‘organised at European level’; in the absence of specific European legislation governing associations, the only way for NGOs to demonstrate their ‘European dimension’ is by having offices in three or more Member States;

— according to paragraph 4, promoters must be a transnational network of organisations which are ‘legally established or equivalent’; this requirement creates legal uncertainty since ‘transnational networks’ as such do not figure in national or European law and therefore cannot be ‘legally established or similar’.

Does the Commission not think that this restriction based on size and the accompanying uncertainty could become a real obstacle to participation by NGOs and could even prevent women's organisations from becoming promoters of proposals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

In accordance with the Programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) (1), Community actions are implemented with a view to achieving the objectives referred to in the above programme within a transnational framework. The types of action to be taken under the programme are set out in three strands, the third of which, ‘Strengthening capacity’, provides for transnational exchange actions involving a range of players from at least three Member States. These actions ‘may be undertaken by NGOs or social partners at European level and transnational networks of regional or local authorities and of organisations which aim to promote gender equality’.

The call for proposals (VP/2002/6) mentioned by the Honourable Member was issued as part of this approach. The Commission decided to highlight the transnational aspect in the actions it cofinances by establishing eligibility, selection and award criteria which encourage NGOs, public authorities and women's organisations, even small ones, to aim at forms of association which strengthen the European added value of their projects.

(1) Council Decision 2001/51/EC of 20 December 2000 establishing a Programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality, OJ L 17, 19.1.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/452

(2004/C 84 E/0527)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0849/04

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Late payment in commercial operations

8 August 2000 saw the publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions.

Article 6 of this directive lays down a deadline of two years from its publication for adoption by the Member States of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive. This deadline expired on 8 August 2002.

The directive makes it clear that late payment represent a failure to fulfil a contract, to the financial benefit of debtors. In addition, the existence of late payment on a larger scale in some Member States than others creates a distortion of free competition in the internal market.

In early July 2003 the Spanish government presented a draft law instituting measures against delayed payment in commercial transactions. However, the draft text, which appeared in report form in the Official Bulletin of the Spanish Parliament on 3 December 2003, has yet to be adopted.

Can the Commission ask the Spanish government to account for this delay and insist that Spain implements the directive as a matter of urgency?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission is conscious of the negative effects of late payments and accordingly is pursuing infringement proceedings against the relevant Member States (i.e. Spain and Luxembourg), as fast as possible. Infringement proceedings against Spain began on 30 September 2002, and the second stage was opened on 6 February 2003, when the Commission sent to the Spanish Government a Reasoned Opinion giving a time limit of two months for adopting all necessary national measures of transposition. On 9 September 2003 the Commission initiated proceedings against Spain before the Court of Justice (case C-384/03). There is no ruling yet, but it is expected in 6 to 12 months.

Unfortunately infringement proceedings tend to take a long time to reach a decision. The Commission hopes that Spain will now fulfil its responsibility under the Directive as quickly as possible, in order to avoid further proceedings before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/854

(2004/C 84 E/0946)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0712/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject: Increasing the Portuguese annual sugar quota

On a recent visit to DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento agro-industrial, SA — in Coruche, Portugal, I learned that in 2002, the company succeeded in obtaining from Portuguese farmers all the raw material necessary to produce mainland Portugal's allocated quota of white sugar.

But the annual quota assigned to DAI, some 70 million tonnes of white beet sugar, accounts for a mere 23 % of the Portuguese market's needs. Currently, DAI has the capacity to produce over 100 000 tonnes of white sugar, and in the Alqueva dam area, suitable conditions exist for Portuguese farmers to produce more sugar beet.

What measures are being investigated, given the proposed review of the COM in sugar, and the need to raise mainland Portugal's quota to 100 000 tonnes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

In accordance with Article 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), refineries established in Portugal are guaranteed supply by preferential imports of raw cane sugar from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, comprising a quantity of almost 300 000 tonnes (t). That quantity, imported at an average price of almost EUR 500/tonne, corresponds to Portugal's sugar consumption.

That provision enables the refineries to continue operating on the basis of Portugal's traditional supply of sugar from certain African countries.

Although not previously a producer, since accession Portugal has also had a beet sugar production quota of some 70 000 tonnes. Despite relatively high production costs, cultivation has become established and gradually expanded such that from now on the quota will be attained.

Concurrently with the expansion of production, Portugal's sugar exports have increased from zero to their present figure of 90 000 tonnes.

Almost half that quantity is exported to third countries with Community refunds whose unit amount currently exceeds EUR 500/tonne. The refunds make it possible to reduce the price of surplus sugar on the Portuguese market to the world price level of less than EUR 200/tonne. The balance of surplus sugar is sent to other Community countries, mainly Spain.

The Portuguese market's specific supply characteristics are such that any increase in the beet sugar production quota would result in the need to increase Community sugar exports with refunds, which cannot be justified in budgetary terms.

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/417

(2004/C 84 E/0487)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/04

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: National obstacles to the application of Directive 98/5/EC

The adoption of European Parliament and Council Directive 98/5/EC (1) of 16 February 1998, whose purpose was to facilitate the permanent exercise of the profession of lawyer in an EU Member State other than that in which the lawyer had acquired his or her qualifications, aroused great expectations. In many cases these have been severely disappointed.

Several Member States have put maximum red tape in the way of the effective application of the Directive, since following transposition into national law, the lawyers' colleges of various countries have raised numerous obstacles to the establishment of lawyers from other Member States, particularly with the excuse that the lawyer does not know the official language of the host country, something which with regard to certain countries, such as Luxembourg, really constitutes a barrier which is extremely difficult to overcome.

Does the Commission believe that the fact that someone does not speak a national language such as Luxembourgish, for example, is a reason for that Member State to refuse to enter a lawyer from another Member State in the country's College of Lawyers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The lack of knowledge of an official language of the host Member State for the establishment of lawyers under their home-country professional title poses a problem with regard to Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained. Besides, practise in that State under a home-country professional title ensures that consumers are properly informed (2).

In the case of Luxembourg, the Commission asked it so submit its comments on this requirement. Luxembourg's reply is being examined in order to determine what action should be taken in this case. The Commission will certainly inform the Honourable Member of any action taken.

The Commission has no knowledge of similar requirements in other Member States, but is prepared to examine any information the Honourable Member might submit concerning this matter or any other obstacles.

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36.

(2) As pointed out in recital 9.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/954

(2004/C 78 E/1010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0542/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Active publication of information about subsidies and ratios between payments to large and small farms under the CAP

1. Is the Commission aware of the report by the British organisation Oxfam which indicates that seven large land-owners in Britain receive an average of GBP 285 714 per annum in cereal subsidies from the EU, while 15 181 small farmers in Britain receive an annual average of only GBP 3 632 in EU cereal subsidies?

2. Can the Commission confirm that a very large proportion of these subsidies goes to the affluent regions of Eastern England and Lincolnshire and that this allocation ratio, which benefits large farmers, also will not change significantly after the proposed agricultural policy reform?

3. Is the Commission aware of similar situations in other EU Member States, particularly those where there are big disparities in the size of arable and livestock farms? Are such situations most extreme in the southern Member States?

4. Can the Commission outline the distribution of EU farm subsidies to Dutch farmers in 2001, 2002 and 2003, broken down according to farm size? If so, how soon can it do so? If not, why not?

5. Can the Commission tell me which ten Dutch legal persons received most in EU farm subsidies in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and how much farm subsidy they received? If so, how soon can it do so? If not, why not?

6. Does the Commission agree that the European public have a right to complete information about where EU farm subsidies go, who receives them and what kind of farms benefit most/least from them? If not, why not?

7. Will the Commission, in consultation with the Council, take measures to try to make such transparency possible in every EU Member State? If so, what steps will it take, and how soon? If not, why not?

Sources:

— Dutch newspaper ‘de Volkskrant’, 23 January 2004: ‘Rijkste Britten innen meeste landbouwsubsidies’ (Rich Britons receive most farm subsidies).

— http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/subsidies220104.htm

— http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/subsidies220104_facts.htm

— http://www.minlnv.nl/infomart/parlemnt/2003/par03100.htm

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 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 84/612

(2004/C 84 E/0687)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0522/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Prize draw mailing scams

Companies across Europe are sending people letters advising them that they have won money in prize draws. Some citizens then send money, as they have been instructed to, but they do not receive the reward promised in the literature.

Has the Commission considered this matter recently? Will it submit proposals to protect citizens from such fraud?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

As already stated in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3814/02 (1), the Commission is fully aware of the widespread practice of fraudulent prize-winning draws where rogue traders seek to take advantage of the freedoms of the internal market. It has proposed legislation to tackle some of the problems involved with this.

Under current legislation, the practice in question appears to clearly infringe Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (2) as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertisement (3). In future, misleading advertising harming consumers' economic interests will be regulated by the proposed Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices (4), which will put in place a common, EU-wide framework providing a high level of consumer protection from such unfair practices.

However, the Commission cannot itself take action against the organiser of these prize-draws. The enforcement of national and Community consumer law is the task of the designated national courts and authorities.

Further to this previous answer, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has adopted a proposal for a Regulation on co-operation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (5). This Regulation is designed to address this type of problem through rapid cooperation between public authorities. Once adopted, this Regulation will allow the authority in charge of consumer protection to seek and receive the assistance of its counterpart in another Member State to cease business practices infringing Community consumer law that target consumers cross-border.

The so-called ‘qualified entities’ (6) may already seek an injunction requiring the cessation or prohibition of an infringement of Community consumer law under the terms of the Directive 98/27/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998, on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests (7). In a concrete example, the qualified entity of one Member State could ask the competent court of the Member State from which the mail originates to stop sending out misleading letters to its citizens.

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.

(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(3) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(4) COM(2003) 356 final.

(5) COM(2003) 443 finai.

(6) OJ C 159, 8.7.2003.

(7) OJ L 166, 11.6.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/812

(2004/C 84 E/0907)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0575/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Electioneering activities of Mrs Diamantopoulou

According to press reports, Mrs Anna Diamantopoulou plans to resign temporarily from the Commission so that she can campaign in the parliamentary elections in Greece. The Commissioner is apparently to play an important role in the socialist party PASOK. Press reports suggest that during the campaign she will no longer receive her salary as a Member of the European Commission. In the intervening period, her duties in the Commission would be taken over by somebody else.

Is it usual for members of the European Commission to leave office temporarily in order to take part in election campaigns in their home country? Are there precedents for this and, if so, what are they?

Does the Commission regard situations of this kind as good for its work?

Is there any truth in the reports that Mrs Diamantopoulou will receive no salary from the Commission during the Greek election campaign?

During this period will she have access to the facilities afforded to her in her capacity as a Commissioner (official car and driver and so on)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission has always held the view that the exercise of the duties of a Member of the College is incompatible with active participation as a candidate in an electoral campaign for a national parliament or the European Parliament. This means that throughout such a campaign the Member of the Commission must not take part in the work of the latter (1).

The aim has been to prevent conflicts of interest and to ensure that the Member of the Commission in question enjoys complete freedom of action and speech while complying with the principle of collegiality.

Precedents were set by the Vice-President of the High Authority, Mr Etzel, in 1956, the Vice-President of the EEC Commission, Mr Marjolin, in 1962, the President of the High Authority, Mr Malvestiti, in 1963, the Vice-President of the EEC Commission, Mr Caron, in 1963, the Member of the EC Commission, Mr Deniau, in 1968, the Member of the EC Commission, Mr Hellwig, in 1969, the Member of the EC Commission, Mr Spinelli, in 1976, and the Member of the EC Commission, Mr O'Kennedy, in 1982, all of whom did not take part in the work of the Commission during their participation as candidates in electoral campaigns.

Since suspension of her duties on a Commission decision, Ms Diamantopoulou has not received a salary or any other kind of remuneration from the Commission.

(1) See, in particular, answers to Written Questions E-0124/68, OJ C 83, 23.8.1968, E-0858/76, OJ C 70, 21.3.1977 and P-2752/94, OJ C 88, 10.4.1995.