ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/495

(2004/C 84 E/0573)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2572/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Attacks on freedom of religion in Georgia affecting members of Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic and Orthodox confessions and Jehovah's Witnesses

Knowing that:

— Over the last four years, religious minorities in Georgia have been subjected to unprecedented levels of violence from ‘vigilantes’.

— Members of Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic, and Orthodox confessions, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, have been attacked by mobs orchestrated by self-styled Orthodox ‘vigilantes’.

— Over a hundred attacks on religious minorities have been identified in these four years, and the public and the police are well aware of who their authors are; despite this, no-one has ever been prosecuted.

— The religious violence in Georgia has been condemned by such figures as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and by Pope John Paul II.

And considering that:

— On 15 June 2003, in the village of Akhalsopeli, a Baptist church burnt down. The members of the Baptist community deny the claim made by the Governor of East Georgia district that they set their own church on fire. The villagers have threatened to deny the Baptists permission to rebuild their church and to destroy it again if it is rebuilt.

— On 13 July 2003, in Tbilisi, Orthodox vigilantes prevented a Pentecostal church from holding meetings for the sixth Sunday running, surrounding the house where the meeting was due to take place and chanting ‘Russians, go back to Russia and do whatever you want there’. According to Pastor Kalutsky, the demonstrators identified themselves as Orthodox and said their aim was to stop non-Orthodox religious services from being held.

In view of the excellent relations of cooperation existing between the EU and Georgia, can the Commission state whether it is aware of the above facts and indicate what initiatives, in the context of the cooperation relationship, could constitute an effective and workable means of inducing Georgia to ensure respect for freedom of religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2257/03 (1).

(1) See page 483.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/280

(2004/C 84 E/0325)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3994/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: Culture and languages programme

The framework programme for culture and languages, with a total budget of EUR 39 million, includes among its objectives the promotion of cultural dialogue and of mutual awareness, on the part of the peoples of Europe, of each other's culture and history.

Can the Commission enumerate and identify the projects funded in 2002, and provide information on their success?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that a full, detailed list of all projects supported by the Culture 2000 programme in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 (together with the beneficiaries, partners and amounts granted) is available on Internet at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/603

(2004/C 88 E/0619)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0982/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Macerata

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 Macerata, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Macerata has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/317

(2004/C 78 E/0318)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3765/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Carrara municipality

In response to my previous question E-1063/03 (1) asking whether the Carrara municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Carrara had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/98

(2004/C 84 E/0129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Livorno under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1093/03 (1) asking whether the city of Livorno had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/323

(2004/C 78 E/0337)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3804/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia

In its answer to question E-0984/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Perugia had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/319

(2004/C 78 E/0323)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3770/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Perugia municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1068/03 (1)) asking whether the Perugia municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Perugia had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.
3.

Sugar produced from Azorean beet may be marketed freely on markets outside the Azores. By contrast, sugar refined in the Azores, for which Sinaga is supplied under the specific supply arrangements, is intended to meet the requirements of the Azores themselves and may not be exported or shipped from the Azores, with the exception of traditional quantities. The Court of justice recently ruled on the concept of ‘traditional quantities’ in case C-282/00. It confirmed the correctness of the Commission's approach in considering traditional shipments or exports to be the average trade flows over the three years preceding the entry into force of the Poseima regime in 1992, i.e. 1989, 1990 and 1991. The Court of Justice ruled that the shipments had to be ‘ongoing, regular and significant’ … ‘at the time that the Poseima Programme was implemented’ and that ‘Sporadic and small-scale shipments made in the past cannot satisfy those requirements’. As regards the future development of the Community sugar sector, in the last quarter of 2003 the Commission will present a communication on the reform of the common market organisation for the sector. In its initiatives, the Commission will take account of the special situation regarding sugar production in the outermost regions, so that the new balance of production and supply in the European Union does not entail any deterioration for the regions concerned. Also, the support instruments for processing businesses in the outermost regions, including the Azores, will be reviewed in the report on an overall strategy for sustainable development in the outermost regions which the Commission must adopt by the end of 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/100

(2004/C 84 E/0135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3788/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Pistoia under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1100/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Pistoia had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/99

(2004/C 84 E/0134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1099/03 (1) asking whether the city of Pisa had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/447

(2004/C 78 E/0468)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2994/03

by Bernhard Rapkay (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: EU funding for Nordrhein-Westfalen for the years 2001 and 2002

1. What amounts of European Union funding were paid to Nordrhein-Westfalen in 2001 and 2002 from: — the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), — the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — Guidance Section, — the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — Guarantee Section, — the European Social Fund (ESF), — European Community research programmes, — European Community programmes for the environment, — other European Community programmes?

2. Who were the beneficiaries?

3. What amounts were made available by way of co-financing either with the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen or with the Federal Republic of Germany?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/324

(2004/C 78 E/0338)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3805/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Carrara

In its answer to question E-0979/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Carrara had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/735

(2004/C 84 E/0828)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3464/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: The use of Tetrapol technology in the EU

The Commission has acknowledged that there may be some effects on health arising from the use of GSM and TETRA, and that Member States are obliged to comply with Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (1) on limits of exposing the public to electromagnetic fields. The Commission has also acknowledged that the UK authorities apply health regulations regarding telephone masts in accordance with the Council Regulation. Could the Commission provide information on the use of the alternative Tetrapol technology within the EU?

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/32

(2004/C 84 E/0035)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2609/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 August 2003)

Subject: Products in respect of which payment of premiums is directly linked to per-hectare yield

The consequences of the persistent drought in Europe are becoming increasingly clear. As a result of the drought, European agricultural yields are well below the annual average. In anticipation of the decoupling scheduled for 2004 in respect of those products where payment of premiums is directly linked to per-hectare yield (such as starch potatoes), is the Commission prepared to make payment of the premium not dependent on per-hectare yield but to make payments on the basis of average harvests in previous years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The reform of the common agricultural policy adopted by the Council in June 2003 will enter into force in 2005.

Therefore, the specific provisions on decoupling, the detailed rules for the application of which are currently being drawn up so that the Commission can adopt a decision in the near future, may not be applied before then.

It should be pointed out that, with the exception of starch potatoes, all arable crops already qualify for per-hectare aid decoupled from actual yield.

The Honourable Member's suggestion to anticipate the decisions on decoupling in the case of starch potatoes cannot be followed. On the one hand, farmers would receive higher premiums but on the other, farmers with few or no historical reference amounts would be heavily penalised.

It should also be pointed out that the Commission proposed that the reform should apply from 2004. However, the Council insisted on postponing it by one year, with the possibility of extending this to 2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/92

(2004/C 78 E/0091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2207/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Labelling of animal, including poultry, products and problems posed for members of religious minorities eating these products

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) has recently urged the Commission to cap the amount of water that may be added to chicken products to 15 % and to ban the use of non-chicken proteins such as beef and pork in those products. This follows the carrying-out of two surveys during December 2001 and March 2003 which revealed that some chicken pieces had as much as 55 % added water. There is no other use for these additional non-chicken animal proteins except to retain very high levels of added water. This practice, in turn, is liable not only to deceive consumers but to cause problems for members of religious communities such as Jews, Hindus and Muslims who do not eat beef or pork even if they do not specifically buy meat products prepared and approved by their respective religious authorities.

Can the Commission indicate whether or not it is correct that there is no limit to the amount of water that can be added to chicken and poultry products, and, if so, whether the Commission believes that some kind of limit should be set? Further, does the Commission accept that this would be entirely compatible with WTO rules, given that Article 2.2 of the Agreement to technical barriers to trade (TBT) require only that labelling requirements be ‘not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create’ and that such objectives include inter-alia ‘the prevention of deceptive practices’?

Can the Commission also clarify whether or not it is compulsory or voluntary to indicate on the label of any food product whether or not animal ingredients have been added to the product or, in the case of livestock, nurtured on food containing animal protein? If not, does the Commission believe that consumers have a right to be informed in this way?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/132

(2004/C 33 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1554/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Afghanistan Coordination Return Group

This question is with reference to the meeting of the Afghanistan Coordination Return Group (ACRG) which is taking place on 30 April.

In light of the fact that the President of the UK Afghan Association is no longer invited to take part, please could the Commission inform us:

— Which organisations are the Commission and Council consulting on the issue?

— How many Afghans or Afghan organisations themselves are directly involved in Commission and Council discussions on the issue, as opposed to intermediaries?

— Does the Commission envisage any opportunities for Afghan associations (other than any already consulted) to be able to input to the discussion?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The meeting of the Afghanistan Co-ordination Return Group (ACRG) to which the Honourable Member refers did take place on 30 April 2003 with the participation of those Member States who are particularly concerned with the issue of return of Afghan nationals. Several International Organisations and nongovernmental organisations (NGO's) who are especially involved with return programs, human rights monitoring, and refugee protection issues including UNHCR, Amnesty International, representatives of the European Council of Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) also participated. The organisations informed the ACRG on developments in Afghanistan and presented their recommendations regarding return to Afghanistan this also been the case at most of the previous four meetings thus providing the Group with helpful insights.

The Commission has never invited Afghan representatives from the Member States to the ACRG but has relied on informal contacts with them and representation of their viewpoints by ECRE. In the case of this particular meeting, the statement provided by the British Afghan Association to the Commission was circulated among the ACRG and comments were invited thereon.

With regard to Afghans directly involved in the discussion on this issue, it needs to be pointed out that the Commission fully consults with representatives of the Afghan government on all return issues. Both the Union Special Representative together with the Head of the Bureau of the Commission in Kabul and the Director General of the Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs of the Commission in Brussels, have had meetings with the Afghan Minister of Refugees to this end. Furthermore, the Afghan Ambassador to the Community has made use of our standing invitation to attend ACRG meetings several times.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/242

(2004/C 33 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2268/03

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 July 2003)

Subject: Heavy metal traces in wild mushrooms

There has been a substantial increase in recent years, in Italy and elsewhere, in the marketing and consumption of edible wild mushrooms. According to data supplied by AIIPA (1) in 1998, Italy imports some 20 000 tonnes per annum of non-cultivated mushrooms (fresh, dry, frozen, canned, etc.), of which almost half belong to the Boletus edulis group (B. aereus, B. aestivalis, B. edulis, B. pinophilus). These latter originate mostly in Europe, but growing quantities are now coming from Africa (especially South Africa), China and Central America. In Italy, there are approximately 1000 businesses operating in the import, processing and distribution sectors.

Regulation (EC) No 466/2001, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 16 March 2001 (2) and based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF), lays down the admissible thresholds for certain pollutants in food products, including cultivated mushrooms. The threshold for all cultivated mushrooms is 0,2 mg/kg (fresh weight) for cadmium and 0,3 mg/kg (fresh weight) for lead.

Is the Commission aware that no such thresholds for wild mushrooms exist in Community law?

What measures will the Commission take concerning cadmium and lead thresholds for wild mushrooms, given that studies by authoritative researchers have revealed dangerous levels of those metals in wild mushrooms that are freely marketed in the EU? (3)

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Legislation on contaminants in food sets maximum levels for lead and cadmium in all cultivated mushrooms. Wild mushrooms are presently not covered because, at the time these levels were set, no data were available to indicate that the dietary intake of lead and cadmium from wild mushrooms was a concern for public health.

The Member States have recently gathered new data on levels of lead and cadmium in different foods. It is expected that the report will be finalised before the end of 2003. This report will be used for the review of maximum levels for lead and cadmium in foods.

(1) The Italian Association of Food-Producing Companies — circular dated 20 April 1999 addressed to the member companies on ‘Italy's external trade in mushrooms in 1998’ (Milan).

(2) OJ L 77, 16.3.2001, p. 1.

(3) L. Cocchi et al., 2001 — ‘Metalli pesanti e isotopi radioattivi nei funghi: aspetti igienico-sanitari’ (‘Heavy metals and radioactive isotopes in mushrooms: health and hygiene aspects’, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Mycotoxicology, Viterbo, 6-7 December 2001 — Associazione Micologica Bresadola — Centro Studi Micologici, 2002, 17:73-91.