ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/615

(2004/C 78 E/0649)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3626/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Opening up the labour markets in the Member States

The accession treaty with the candidate countries includes transitional measures relating to the access which EU citizens from the new Member States will enjoy to the labour markets of the present Member States.

Member States are permitted to open up their labour markets earlier than agreed.

This could result in very different situations from one Member State to another, which could distort competition between businesses.

Would not some coordination of the positions of the Member States in this regard be desirable? Will the Commission assume a coordinating role here?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

According to the transitional arrangement agreed in the Accession Treaty, for the first two years following the accession of the new Member States, free movement or workers under Community law will not apply, and access to the labour markets of any present Member State will depend on the national law and policy of those States, as well as on the bilateral agreements they may have with the new Member States. This means that during the transitional period Union citizens from new Member States who want to work in the Union might need to obtain work permits, depending on the national law of the Union country where they want to work. Some Member States have indicated that they intend to fully open their labour markets to workers from all the new Member States. Other present Member States intend to allow more restrictive access, which will differ depending on the new Member State in question. This transitional arrangement does not apply to Cyprus and Malta.

The Commission believes that such agreement provides the present Member States with the possibility to continue to apply the provisions currently in force vis-à-vis each of the new Member States. Therefore, the situation concerning possible distortion of competition would not worsen the present situation in this respect. Furthermore, according to the provisions of the Accession Treaty, before the end of the two-year period following the date of accession, the Commission will have to address a report to the Council on the functioning of these transitional provisions.

The Commission believes that a timely communication from the present Member States of their decisions on the applicable national legislation would help the citizens of both the present and the new Member States to better understand the conditions created by enlargement in this area. The Commission will closely monitor the implementation of the Accession Treaty provisions in this field.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/373

(2004/C 88 E/0378)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Child asthma and allergic diseases

A recent World Health Organisation Report has indicated that the number of European cases of child asthma and allergic diseases doubled between the 1970s and 1990s.

Does the Commission have its own analysis of the causes and does it include bad air quality and the impact of synthetic chemicals in water and food?

What is the Commission's view on why in at least two EU countries – the UK and Italy – child asthma and allergic diseases are now ‘easing’, according to the WHO?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Under the Action Programme on pollution-related diseases (1) in the context of the framework for action in the field of Public Health (1999/2001), the Commission funded several projects on asthma and respiratory allergies prevention. The list and the summary of these projects can be found on our web site at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health).

According to numerous scientific studies, the origin of asthma and allergic diseases is multi-factorial and therefore highly difficult to tackle.

The Commission does not have any particular information on a decrease of the incidence of asthma and allergies in Italy and United Kingdom.

The reduction of the number of people affected by such diseases is one of the priorities of the new Public Health Programme adopted in 23 September 2002 (2). In addition, asthma and respiratory allergies prevention is also considered as a priority in the Commission Communication ‘A European Environment and Health Strategy’ adopted on 11 June 2003, which can be found on our web site at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/press room/presspacks/health/pp health en.htm).

(1) Decision No 1296/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 1999 adopting a programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health (1999 to 2001), OJ L 155, 22.6.1999.

(2) Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) – Commission Statements, OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/463

(2004/C 88 E/0476)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3496/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Colombia — ELN hostages

In a video recording released by Reuters, the Colombian guerrillas of the Ejército de Liberación National (ELN) have shown that the seven tourists kidnapped on 12 September, whilst visiting Indian ruins, are alive.

Three of the seven are citizens of EU Member States (Spain, UK and Germany) and four are Israelis.

The ELM has agreed to the gradual release of the hostages, following the visit by a Humanitarian Commission to testify to the difficult living conditions of the inhabitants of Sierra Nevada, but has warned that it will kill them should the Colombian army attempt to rescue them.

The Commission:

— can it confirm that these hostages are alive and in good health;

— what approaches has it made or will it make to the ELN or humanitarian organisations with a view to encouraging their release;

— what approaches has it made to the Colombian Government to make it aware of the hostages' situation, and to protect their lives and ensure their release?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Since the Honourable Member asked his question, two of the three European citizens who had been abducted have been released by the ELN guerrilla through the mediation of the Catholic Church, with the assistance of the United Nations (UN). One European citizen is still detained by the ELN guerrilla, who has promised to free him before Christmas together with the other four Israeli hostages.

According to the persons already released, they were not mistreated by their captors.

The Commission strongly condemns these and all other kidnappings taking place in Colombia, and demands the immediate and unconditional release of the European citizen and the other persons still detained. Their captors are accountable for their health and safety.

The Commission has made no approach to the Colombian Government, humanitarian organisations or the ELN. Diplomatic and consular protection is a competence of the Member States, and not of the Community. Article 20 of the EC Treaty only establishes the right to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State, in the territory of a third country where the Member State of which the citizen is a national is not represented.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/784

(2004/C 78 E/0835)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3168/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Ban on dangerous dog breeds

Unfortunately, my previous questions concerning a ban on dangerous dogs have had no effect. It is true that one or two Member States, Italy and Austria for example, have already taken measures against violent and aggressive dogs by making muzzles compulsory in public places, such as bus stops and parks, and introducing training schools for puppies, but these measures do not go far enough. Recently, we have again been confronted with terrible headlines about pitbulls attacking children and adults. It is not enough that individual Member States or regions tackle the behaviour of some breeds of dog. There must be a European directive banning dangerous dog breeds.

How many more people need to be bitten to death or mutilated in the Council's opinion?

How much longer must we wait before action is finally taken at Community level?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council takes note of the problem raised by the Honourable Member in his question, but would point out that it is not able to respond, since the power of initiative lies with the Commission, which to date has not presented proposals to this effect.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/787

(2004/C 78 E/0837)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3188/03

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Harmonisation of civil status records in Europe

Having regard to:

— the principle of free movement for persons within the European Union, as enshrined in the Treaty of Amsterdam;

— the lack of a common system for establishing civil status in Europe and the inconvenience suffered by European citizens as a result of problems in updating civil status records on a day-to-day basis;

— the legal restrictions imposed by the existence of the International Commission on Civil Status, based on the principle of an international agreement which only eight current EU Member States (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Italy and Portugal) have thus far signed;

— the importance of that committee's work on the issuing of certain civil status documents intended for the authorities in other countries, in particular as regards the establishment of computerised civil status records guaranteeing the protection of personal data and sufficiently reliable registration methods;

— the cases where the non-inclusion of certain particulars on certificates (marriage, divorce, death) issued abroad may give rise to discrimination between European citizens;

1. How can provision be made for exchanges of similar records, such as those concerning marriage, divorce or even death, as regards certificates issued abroad, between the civil status authorities of the Member States?

2. What is the state of European law in this area?

3. Which procedures could be harmonised at European level with a view to ensuring compatibility between civil status systems, in the interests of European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

As at 1 December 2003, no Community legislation governed the establishment of civil status records in the Member States.

The work undertaken by the International Commission on Civil Status has produced effective solutions but, as pointed out by the Honourable Member, they apply to only a small number of Member States.

The mutual recognition programme that was adopted at the end of 2000 and drew up, on the basis of the conclusions of the Tampere European Council, the list of tasks to be undertaken by the Community in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters makes no provision for action in this area.

However, several petitions from European citizens relating to the difficulties encountered as a result of the disparity between the rules governing the establishment and updating of civil status records in the various Member States have been sent to the Commission.

As a result, the Commission could recommend that the matter be entered in a future work programme.

Since no study on the matter has been undertaken to date by the Commission, the nature of the current difficulties cannot be identified nor can solutions to remedy the situation be sketched out.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/214

(2004/C 84 E/0258)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2374/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Contracting and subcontracting by the Commission

In view of the recent OLAF investigation into the alleged misappropriation of about EUR 900 000 by senior Eurostat staff, the fact that the Commission has launched a reform of the accounting system, which is deemed to be inadequate, and that Eurostat subcontracted services to Eurogramme, Eurocost and Planistat, can the Commission specify what services have been contracted out and subcontracted in the last five years, how much they cost, and what the mechanisms for allocating contracts and selecting successful contractors are?

Supplementary answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

1. The OLAF investigations are into an allegation that Eurostat was keeping accounts outside the official accounting system.

2. The reform of the accounting system — in line with the new Financial Regulation — is proceeding according to schedule. It has the full support of the ECA and will put the Commission at the forefront of modern public-sector accounting practices.

3. The contracting-out of services is dealt with in the Financial Regulation. The IAS has looked into the contracts. As regards the number of contracts, the Commission would refer to Written Questions P-3457/02 by Mr Heaton-Harris (1), P-l 705/03 by Ms Stauner (2), P-l 724/03 by Mr Blak (3), P-l 807/03 by Mr Bösch (2), P-1890/03 by Mr Heaton-Harris (4), P-1978/03 by Ms Stauner (2) and P-2453/03 by Mr Meijer (5) and information sent direct to Parliament in 2003.

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003.

(2) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 58.

(3) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 89.

(4) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 153.

(5) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 156.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/121

(2004/C 78 E/0123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Subject: Linguistic coexistence as reflected in Spanish passports

The resolution of 10 July 1995 (1) requires all Member States to adjust the format of their passports by replacing the term ‘European Communities’ with ‘European Union’.

In connection with this adjustment, a proposal has been tabled in the Spanish Congress of Deputies to recognise the coexistence of official languages in the passports issued to citizens living in an autonomous community where there is more than one official language. The Spanish Government, however, refuses to accept that proposal, citing the resolution of 23 June 1981 (2).

Given that Article I-3 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe states that ‘The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity’ and Article II-22, moreover, stipulates that ‘The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity’, thus echoing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and having regard to the conclusions arising from European Year of Languages, as laid down by decision of Parliament and the Council: Will the Commission propose that the above resolution be amended so that, whenever the case arises, all the official languages in an EU Member State can be covered?

Joint answer to

Written Questions E-2521/03 and E-2548/03

given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2003)

The Commission would point out that, according to the Resolution of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on 23 June 1981, entries on passports must be made in the official language(s) of the Member State issuing the passport.

It is for each Member State to decide which is or are its official language or languages.

The Commission is not, therefore, planning to propose an amendment to that Resolution.

(1) OJ C 200, 4.8.1995, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 241, 19.9.1981, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/836

(2004/C 78 E/0890)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3616/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Setting fishing quotas for the new Member States

How does the Commission intend to set appropriate fishing quotas in the Baltic when the new Member States join the Union, and will it be possible, for example, to include in them obligations on the new Member States with regard to salmon restocking?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

The relative stability keys for the first allocation of fishing quotas to the new Member States are laid down in the Treaty of Accession. For the Baltic Sea, the allocation keys are based on current practice in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC). The total allowable catches (TACs) for the Baltic Sea in 2004 were agreed at the Annual Session of the IBSFC in September-October 2003 and the results are transposed into the Community legislation through the TAC and Quota Regulation for 2004.

As regards salmon restocking, there are currently no such obligations on the Member States in Community legislation and there will thus not be any for the new Member States either. However at IBSFC level, where the new Member States bordering the Baltic Sea are all involved, there is a series of Recommendations regarding the Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010, which includes that ‘wild salmon populations shall be re-established in potential salmon rivers’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/49

(2004/C 84 E/0056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3104/03

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL), Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) and Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Funding EQUAL projects and sexual orientation discrimination

Article 13 of the EC Treaty, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 1 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. At Community level there is an integrated strategy to combat discrimination and social exclusion. Focusing on the labour market, EQUAL forms part of that strategy. Member States shall formulate their strategy for EQUAL on the basis of thematic fields in the four pillars of the European Employment Strategy. Within these fields Member States shall ensure that their proposals principally benefit those subject to the main forms of discrimination (based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation) and inequality.

We are informed that under the current EQUAL programme, only four partnerships out of 1 400 are related to sexual orientation discrimination. Could the Council inform us whether this information is correct?

Could the Council inform us whether all Member States have included sexual orientation discrimination in the national call for proposals under the current EQUAL programme? If not, could the Council give us an explanation for these omissions by the individual Member States?

The next round of EQUAL will be launched in spring 2004. Could the Council inform us whether all Member States, including the accession countries, intend to explicitly mention in their national call for proposals discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation? If not, what action is the Council prepared to undertake to increase the number of applications focusing on sexual orientation?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

1. The EQUAL Initiative is implemented in the framework of the Structural Funds Regulations and, more specifically, through the European Social Fund. The Council would draw the Honourable Members' attention to the fact that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2) of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, the administration of those funds and therefore the Community initiatives is the shared responsibility of the European Commission and the Member States' governments working in close cooperation.

2. In accordance with the guidelines and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, the Commission, and not the Council, is responsible for monitoring, implementing and evaluating the interventions covered by EQUAL. Therefore, the Council is not in a position to confirm whether the information reported by the Honourable Members of the EP is correct and would suggest that they forward their question directly to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/617

(2004/C 78 E/0651)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Consultation with charities with regard to the proposal relating to the imposition of VAT on postal services

As the Commission is aware, the proposal to impose VAT on postal services (1) will have serious financial consequences for charities. What consultations did the Commission undertake with charitable organisations, particularly those from Ireland, concerning the implications of this move prior to the publication of its proposal in May 2003? How was the outcome of any such consultations taken into account in the Commission's final proposal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission was engaged in a long consultation process prior to making its proposal on postal services. The Commission would like to assure the Honourable Member that charities, as well as other customers of direct mail, were in fact consulted. Irish Charities were represented in that process. As early as mid 2000, Commission officials were already discussing the effects of introducing VAT on the postal sector with the European Committee on VAT (of which the Irish Cancer Society is a member), as well as with many other groups and bodies representing postal consumers. As a result of those consultations, the Commission included an optional reduced rate (which Ireland could set at 5 %) and widened the scope of that option in order to include direct mail, something of interest to charities. The possibility given to Member States of introducing a reduced rate together with the savings resulting from the right to deduct for public postal operators, would broadly neutralise any increase in postal prices.

(1) COM(2003)234.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/96

(2004/C 78 E/0096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2240/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Follow-up to an application for a driving licence in another EU Member State

On 15 May 2003 the Commission answered my Written Question E-1269/03 (1). However, the answer is incomplete. The Commission acknowledges that some applicants may not meet the 185-day requirement in any Member State, but fails to deal with the second part of my question, namely what steps individuals and Member States should take in such a case.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. In the situation outlined above, what should citizens and Member States do in order to comply with what the Commission sees as the clear requirement laid down in Directive 91/439/EEC (2)?

2. If a question consists of three parts, would it not be better for the Commission to answer each part separately, so as to ensure that none is forgotten?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

As the Commission has already indicated to the Honourable Member, the description of normal residence given in Article 9 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences constitutes a detailed definition of where a person has his or her normal residence. It also points to the solution to be adopted in specific cases, including where a person does not live for at least 185 days a year in any Member State. In this case, ‘the normal residence … shall be regarded as being the place of his personal ties.’ Each person thus has a normal residence in one of the Member States and will need to approach the authorities of that Member State in order to obtain a driving licence. Since the notion of normal residence is also useful in respect of other dealings with the authorities, e.g. in relation to tax matters, members of the public should in principle be in possession of such information.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 171.

(2) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.