ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2525/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Precious metals directive

Is the European Commission aware that the Italian Presidency is hoping to revive the dormant EC proposal on hallmarking(1), Articles made of precious metal) last discussed in the Council of Ministers in 1995?

Given the long-established traditions in certain Member States guaranteeing the quality of jewelleries sold to consumers, such as the ancient hallmarking system in the UK, is the Commission confident that the proposed Directive would not weaken quality standards?

Why should Member States with independent quality control mechanisms accept products tested under much weaker self-regulating systems by the industry itself in other Member States?

(1) COM(1993) 0322 final OJ C 318, 25.11.1993, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the initiative of the Italian Presidency to continue work on its proposal for a Directive concerning articles of precious metals, presented in 1993.

In its proposal, the Commission took great care in designing conformity assessment procedures that, whilst reflecting different national traditions, would be equivalent as to their effect. The purpose of the proposal is not to reduce protection, but to allow free movement of these articles on the basis of conformity assessment procedures, ensuring a high level of consumer protection.

Indeed, there is no indication that would confirm the suggestion of the Honourable Member that countries relying upon compulsory national hallmarking systems better guarantee the quality of jewellery. On the contrary, experience in other countries indicates that a system of manufacturer's declaration combined with efficient ex-post market surveillance is appropriate to guarantee adequate consumer protection.

Moreover, the Commission notes that the disparities in national legislation are at the origin of several complaints.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1523/03

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 May 2003)

Subject: The case of Oriel de Armas Peraza

At its April part-session the European Parliament adopted an urgent resolution on human rights in Cuba in which it vigorously condemned the Castro regime's abuses of power.

Since detainees are mainly accused of offences such as expressing disagreement with the Cuban Government's policies and practising freedom of speech (and hence of subversive activity under Law 88 on the protection of the country's independence), the Council's attention is drawn to the symbolic case of Mr Oriel de Armas Peraza.

The Cuban exile Oriel de Armas Peraza, who has lived for a year in Vicenza (Italy) with his wife and four-year-old daughter, is a militant within the Alianza Patriótica Cubana human-rights association and he is awaiting a decision on the application for political asylum which he has submitted to the appropriate Italian authorities. If he is sent back to Cuba he will undoubtedly be arrested on account of his political activities and his many attacks on the Castro regime.

Furthermore, his situation poses a particular problem, since he has no access to medical care and is unable to secure treatment for his daughter, who is asthmatic.

The residence permit granted to Mr Oriel de Armas Peraza expired on 8 August 2002 but it was extended by the authorities in Vicenza until 14 February 2003, pending a decision on whether or not he should be granted political asylum.

Can the Council (not least in view of the fact that Italy is soon to assume the Council Presidency) take steps in order to ensure that the Italian and German Governments tackle this issue, so that European political asylum can be granted in such cases of extreme human rights abuse, thereby enabling Oriel de Armas Peraza and his family to secure a renewal of their residence permit?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council cannot intervene in individual asylum cases in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2040/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject: Aid regime for nuts

Several districts in Catalonia are currently faced with a difficult situation regarding the production of nuts, especially hazelnuts.

On the basis of its legislative resolution (P5_TA-PROV(2003)0256) on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and support schemes for producers of certain crops, adopted in Strasbourg on 5 June 2003, the EP adopted Amendment 133 to the report by Mr Arlindo Cunha (A5-0197/2003) calling for an increase in the aid payable for nuts from EUR 100 to EUR 241,50 per hectare per year. Will the Commission take all steps to insist with the Council that it adopts the CAP reform measures in the form approved by Parliament in its vote of 5 June 2003?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the fact that several regions in Europe, and several districts in Catalonia, are currently faced with a difficult situation regarding the production of nuts, especially hazelnuts.

This is the reason why the Commission has proposed a new and permanent support scheme for nuts in its proposal of January 2003. The Commission has taken careful note of the legislative resolutions of the Parliament on this, and other issues related with its January proposals, and believe that they have been a very positive contribution to the final agreement achieved in Luxembourg.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0872/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Draft Regulation on trade in torture equipment

With regards to the draft proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; does the Commission take the view that the EU should have prior scrutiny regarding applications to competent authorities for authorisation for export transactions and other activities?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

On 30 December 2002, the Commission made a proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment(1). In March 2003, the Council made a decision on the attribution of this proposal to some of its working groups. These working groups are now examining the substance of this proposal.

The proposed legal base is Article 133 of the EC Treaty, which establishes exclusive Community competence for the common commercial policy. Fully in line with the notion of a common policy, the proposal, which is still to be examined in Council, foresees a written consultation procedure involving all competent authorities of the Member States and the Commission, for all decisions on applications for an authorisation to export or to render services. The proposal foresees that, if consensus cannot be reached, the Commission will have the power to decide, after consultation with the Member States in a management committee. That procedure is one of the procedures foreseen in a Council Decision on the exercise of implementing powers(2).

The procedural arrangements proposed by the Commission allow prior scrutiny of authorisations for export transactions by all competent authorities and the Commission. They should ensure that all available information about instances of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in third countries is taken into account.

(1) COM(2002) 770 final.

(2) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, OJ L 184, 17.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0845/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: EU development budget

Taking into account that the implementation procedure for the Budget 2003 has already started, and taking into account that the budget for development aid has to remain within the limits of Chapter 4, how will the Commission fulfil the request of the European Parliament voted in Plenary on 13 February 2003, to increase the budget for reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries from EUR 55,8 to EUR 73,95 million? (Budget line B7-6312).

From which budget line or from which fund will this money be taken?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

The Parliament proposed an increase in the financial framework for the period 2003-2006 for reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries from EUR 60 million (proposal by the Commission) to EUR 73,95 million. This increase implies that an additional EUR 4 to 5 million will have to be provided annually in the budget years 2004-2006. In its Annual Policy Strategy for 2004, which also adapts the programming under the remaining period of the Financial Perspectives up to 2006, the Commission decided to increase the allocation to the development policy area by more than EUR 50 million over the period 2004-2006, inter alia to cover the additional amount required for reproductive health. This increase comes from a decrease of the margins under heading 4 for the remaining years of the current Financial Perspectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1488/03

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Council

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Phone taps in the Justus Lipsius building

On 19 March the Council announced that its security services had discovered on 28 February 2003 that a number of delegations, including those of Spain, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Austria, had had their telephones tapped in the EU Council building in Brussels. This news is particularly serious and gives rise to the fear that phone tapping equipment has also been installed in other Community buildings. At the meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs the Council representative confirmed that an investigation had begun.

1. Does the Council now know who was responsible for installing these phone taps?

2. If not, what steps does the Council intend taking to find out?

3. What action will be taken against those responsible for installing the phone taps?

4. Can the Council say whether similar discoveries have been made in other Community institutions in the past?

5. What measures must be taken to prevent similar situations in the medium term?

6. Are systematic checks for phone taps made at meetings involving information which should not be made available to third countries?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1177/03 and E-1488/03

(2 October 2003)

There is little the Council can add to the press statement on this subject issued on 19 March 2003 since the matter is now sub judice.

The following clarifications are given in response to the specific points raised by the Honorable member:

1. The Council has not yet been able to determine who was responsible for installing the electronic devices linked to the certain telephone lines which were discovered in the Justus Lipsius Building on 28 February 2003.

2. Following a countermeasures operation and a preliminary internal investigation, the Council decided on 14 April to bring an action for criminal proceedings to be taken against person or persons unknown on the basis of the Belgian penal code. The Council will give full assistance to the Belgian judicial authorities in conducting their investigation.

3. Since this is now the subject of a formal criminal investigation, it will be up to the courts to determine the penalties to be applied to persons found guilty.

4. The Council is not aware of similar discoveries in other EU institutions in the past.

5. and 6. The Council has already put in place measures to prevent similar situations in future. The Honorable member will understand, however, that it would be inappropriate for the Council to comment publicly on these or any other security measures taken to protect classified or sensitive information handled in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0669/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Young farmers ignored under the new CAP

One voice has been missing from the passionate debate surrounding the reform of the common agricultural policy that of young farmers. Nor was there any tangible reference in the Commission document to what will become of these farmers, their problems and their expectations.

We have therefore not moved on from Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(1), which envisage higher percentages for the EAGGF premium, so that instead of the ceiling of 40 % of the volume of investments for ordinary holdings, the figure rises to 45 % for young farmers and 55 % for young farmers in disadvantaged areas.

Article 8 envisages a maximum amount of EUR 25 000 of setting-up aid for young farmers. This is not much as an incentive for a young person to set up a farm, faced with the forthcoming major reforms.

1. Can the Council therefore say why the draft CAP reform does not set aside a specific chapter devoted to young farmers?

2. Whether it is possible to incorporate in the draft reform an amendment to update Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, proposing at least a 100 % increase in the setting-up aid, raising it to EUR 50 000?

3. Whether it is possible to incorporate in the draft reform an amendment to increase aid as a percentage of the volume of investment from 45 % and 55 % to 65 % and 75 % respectively for young farmers in lowland and mountain areas?

4. Whether it is possible to incorporate in the draft reform an amendment to suspend the system of State aids as regards direct aid to young farmers from the Member States and regional authorities?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council is aware of the importance of young farmers to the Community's agriculture. Following the debate on the Commission proposals, the political agreement on the CAP reform package reached by the Council on 26 June 2003 provides, in Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 on support for rural development from the EAGGF, for the introduction of special measures for young farmers, in particular, greater support for investment purposes and increased aid to help them get started using advisory services related to their activities. It has also been agreed that the text of the regulation should specifically state that measures introduced for young farmers need to be more workable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1010/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Perugia

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Perugia, urgently need to use European funds to combat the abuse of women and children,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Daphne programme?

2. whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1004/03, E-1005/03, E-1006/03,E-1007/03, E-1008/03, E-1009/03, E-1010/03, E-1011/03,E-1012/03, E-1013/03, E-1014/03, E-1015/03 and E-1016/03given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

The Daphne programme received the following proposals in 2003 alone:

- two proposals from the muncipality of Florence Assessorato Pubblica Istruzione e Politiche Giovanili, Direzione Istruzione;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Pesaro Servizio sociale;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Siena Comitato di ente per le pari opportunita.

The Commission has not yet assessed these proposals and is, therefore, unable to provide the Honourable Member with details of the selection or funding at this stage. Information on the outcome of the assessment process will be sent in July 2003 to all parties which applied to the Daphne programme in 2003.

No proposal was received between 1997 and 2003 for the other municipalities referred to by the Honourable Member (Ancona, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato and Terni).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1446/03

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

(24 April 2003)

Subject: The European Union's position vis-à-vis the United states on administration of Iraq in the post-war period

As we receive daily reports of the deaths of children, innocent victims of British and US army bombings, and as journalists are murdered in the exercise of their profession, the Council representatives and the High Representative for the CFSP are tacitly accepting, without the slightest criticism, the aggressive, illegal and unjust action taken by the United states and the United Kingdom, submissively agreeing to a subordinate role for the EU in the administration of Iraq and coming to the help of the victors instead of demanding unambiguously that full responsibility be conferred on the UN, the only institution with the necessary legitimacy to carry out such duties.

What are the reasons for this attitude on the part of the Council and the High representative for the CFSP? Why are they not demanding unambiguously that the UN be given full responsibility, given that the unilateral action of the United States and the United Kingdom is contrary to international law?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

1. The Honourable Member might well be aware of the context surrounding the definition of the position about the legitimacy and appropriateness of military action against Iraq. As regards post-war Iraq and in particular the question of the role to be played by the UN, it is recalled that both the conclusions of the Brussels European Council of 20/21 March and the Presidency statement made at the European Council in Athens on 16 April call for a central role of the UN.

2. On the occasion of the Council meeting, on 27 May 2003, the Ministers discussed the situation regarding Iraq. They welcomed the tabling of the draft resolution on Iraq to the UNSC as a step that brings the debate on the post-conflict situation within the UN framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1383/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject: Statistics for immigration and asylum

Can the Commission please provide statistics or comparable figures of actual expenditure incurred by the Immigration and Asylum Departments or Directorates or Interior Ministries of the Member States in relation to their asylum, immigration and citizenship programmes in the last available financial year.

(Explanatory note: programmes refers to all the costs pertaining to welfare, accommodation and/or processing of applications.)

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that no such information is collected at Community level in a standardised way, that could provide set of comparable figures.

The Commission has adopted a Communication to present an Action Plan for the collection and analysis of Community Statistics in the field of migration. The action plan includes proposals to extend and improve the scope and quality of statistical data on asylum and migration. It does not, at this stage, forecast the collection of data on national expenditure of Member States on processing of asylum applications, or welfare and accommodation services.

The Communication will be transmitted to the Council and the Parliament, and during 2003 the Commission will prepare proposals for a legislative basis for the collection, processing and dissemination of Community statistics in the field of asylum and migration.
AnswergivenbyMrLiikanenonbehalfoftheCommission
(21October2003)
FrameworkDirective2002/24/EC(1)laysdowntheprocedureforCommunitytype-approvaloftwoor
three-wheelmotorvehicleswhichareintendedtotravelontheroad.Exemptedfromthescopeofthisdirectivearebicycleswithpedalassistencewhichareequippedwithanauxiliaryelectricmotorhavingamaximumcontinuousratedpowerof0,25kWofwhichtheoutputisprogressivelyreducedandfinallycutoffasthebicyclereachesaspeedof25km/h,orsoonerifthecycliststopspedalling.Electricvehicleswithacontinuousratedpoweroramaximumspeedabovethoselimitsfallwithinthescopeofthedirectiveandwouldneedtofulfilltherequirementsformopedormotorbikes,dependingontheircharacteristics.
The Commissionhas for the moment no intention to modify the Framework Directive nor has any
MemberStateproposedanamendmenttothedirectiveconcerningelectricbicycles.
(1) Directive2002/24/ECoftheParliamentandoftheCouncilof18March2002relatingtothetype-approvaloftwo
orthree-wheelmotorvehiclesandrepealingCouncilDirective92/61/EEC,OJL124,9.5.2002.
(2004/C58E/222) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2837/03
byAlexandrosAlavanos(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(25September2003)
Subject:CreationofanewairlinefromOlympicAirways
The Hellenic Parliament recently adopted a law regulating the form and operation of a new airline,
OlympicAirlines,derivedfromOlympicAirways.
Article11ofthenewlawannulsthecollectivelabouragreementsandproceduresforreachingagreement
concluded with the trade unions, following their termination by the Board of Olympic Airways andOlympicAviation,whileparagraphs4and5ofArticle9ofLaw1876/1990,whichgoverntheperiodofvalidityofcollectivelabouragreements,haveceasedtoapply.
Giventhatthesedevelopmentsconstituteachangeinindustrialrelationstothedetrimentoftheworkforce
duringthetransfertothenewcompany,willtheCommissionsay:
1. whether the annulment of articles of Law 1876/1990 governing compliance with collective
agreements andprocedures forreaching agreement (anarticle ofthenew law)isconsistentwithArticles3and4ofDirective98/50/EC(
1)relatingtothesafeguardingofemployees’rightsintheevent
oftransfersofundertakings,and
2. whether,intheeventofnon-compliancewiththearticlesofDirective98/50/EC,theCommissionwill
intervene,andinwhatmanner,tosafeguardtherightsoftheworkerswhoarebeingtransferredtothenewcompanyandtherightsofthoseremainingwiththeoldcompany?
(1) OJL201,17.7.1998,p.88.
AnswergivenbyMrsDiamantopoulouonbehalfoftheCommission
(23October2003)
TheCommissionhasaskedtheMemberStateconcernedforinformationregardingthefactsraisedtoby
theHonourableMember.Itwillinformhimofitsfindings.C58E/206 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion