ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/246

(2004/C 78 E/0249)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3268/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Commission employees

Will the Commission state the proportion of employees by nationality in each of the top ten grades within the Commission establishment plan?

Will it further state the number of employees by nationality in each of the top ten grades within the Commission establishment plan?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission interprets the question as referring to the entire A category (grades 8 to 1) and the two highest grades in the Β category (grades 1 and 2) to be the ‘top ten’ grades of its career system.

Table 1 which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat shows the number of personnel in the A category together with the two highest grades of the Β category by nationality. Table 2 which is also sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat gives the proportion of this personnel against the total of each grade within the establishment plan for operation and research budgets.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/519

(2004/C 78 E/0540)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3321/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Malta's temporary landfills

To comply with the EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC (1)), the government of Malta announced, on 8 July 2003, that two quarries for the dumping of domestic and organic waste are to be set up as temporary landfills, until an engineered landfill at Tal-Ghallis is built by 2005. The choice of the two identified quarries has raised serious objections, since they are only a few hundred metres away from the Unesco World Heritage Site Mnajdra and Hagar Qim Megalithic temples and this area has been earmarked as a Heritage Park for a long time.

Can the Commission confirm whether it has been informed by the Maltese government about the choice of the two temporary sites and whether it considers that this temporary solution complies with the (current and future) Member States' commitment to safeguard and enhance Europe's cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission has not been informed by the Maltese governance about the planned landfills in Malta.

In the accession negotiations, Malta gave its commitment to meet the provisions of the Landfill Directive (2) from 1 May 2004. In the run-up to this date the Commission will be monitoring Malta's progress with the transposition and implementation of the Landfill Directive and the commitments given during negotiations.

Concerning the protection of nature and cultural patrimony in the area of the temporary landfills, the decision of where to locate the landfills remains with the national authorities but must meet the general requirements given in Annex I of the Directive.

Once Malta becomes a Member State then the Commission will ensure compliance with this Directive in the same way as it does for all other Member States.

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/48

(2004/C 84 E/0053)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3053/03

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

(9 October 2003)

Subject: HIV/AIDS in China

On 8 September 2003 Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report entitled Locked Doors: People Living with HIV/AIDS in China, which describes how discrimination, lack of information, cover-ups, and lack of treatment for many patients are causing the spread of HIV/AIDS in China.

On 30 September 2003 the Spanish daily El Pais published the dramatic story of Zhang Xiaqing, an HIV-positive 11-year old, who contracted the virus from a blood transfusion in 1995 at the age of nine. His parents cannot afford treatment and he has been refused admission to school. His case is one of more than 250 000 according to Beijing — but more than one million according to organisations working to combat the disease — where infections were caused during the 1990s as a result of blood-purchasing networks in Henan province.

Although China has admitted the blood transfusions scandal and taken a number of measures, according to HRW it still allows provincial and local authorities to cover up the situation, preventing NGOs and journalists from visiting people with HIV/AIDS. According to the report, no officials have been prosecuted for the scandal, although some of those who tried to reveal its existence have been arrested for breaching state secrets.

The United Nations has warned that 10 million people will be infected by 2010 unless urgent measures are taken.

Will the Commission include on the agenda for the Fifth EU-China Summit, to be held at the end of October, the question of respect for the human rights of these sick and abandoned people and attempt to ensure at least that cases are brought to court in order to establish responsibility so that compensation can be paid to these persons, who will otherwise be inexorably condemned to suffer and die for want of treatment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

As stated in its recent Communication on EU-China relations, the Commission believes that the current spread of AIDS in the country poses a serious threat to China's long-term development and accordingly requires determined action. The Commission itself is engaged in efforts to combat the epidemic through its financing, from 1997 to the present day, of a new vaccines testing programme coordinated by the University of Regensburg's Institute for Medical Microbiology.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns regarding the situation of AIDS sufferers in China. At the 6th EU-China Summit in Beijing on 30 October, the Union once again raised the general issue of human rights. However, the bilateral dialogue on human rights conducted by the EU with China since 1996, whose next session is in Beijing on 25/26 November, seems the most appropriate forum for tackling the subject of AIDS victims.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/280

(2004/C 84 E/0326)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3995/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: Projects relating to the information society

An action was proposed, under the fifth framework programme for research, relating to measurements and tests, with five calls for proposals over the period July 1999 to March 2002, to be covered by a total budget of EUR 46 million.

Can the Commission supply the names and nationalities of the successful candidates, and state the number of projects rejected and the grounds for rejection? Can it also state whether the results obtained have been verified?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The ‘Competitive and sustainable growth’ specific programme (5th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD) 1998-2002) generated over 2 400 contracts of which 245 were in the Generic Activity Measurements and Testing.

The Honourable Member's question relates to the five dedicated calls published in the Generic Activity Measurements and Testing with an indicative budget of EUR 47 million.

In total, 75 projects with a total Community contribution of EUR 56 million have been funded as a result of the five consecutive dedicated calls of the 5th Framework Programme for RTD. Details of all the projects are given in the projects database on the Cordis website (http://www.cordis.lu).

Sixty proposals have not received funding either because the independent evaluators judged them to be of insufficient quality or because a competing proposal for the same topic was judged to be of better quality.

Most of the contracts are still active and the outcome will be included in an on-going exercise that is examining the results and the socio-economic impact of finished projects from the Competitive and Sustainable Growth programme.
4.

With regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, hereafter ‘Habitats Directive’, it is recalled that this directive makes explicit references to habitat types and not to land use. The habitat types and species listed in Annexes I and II should be included in the Natura 2000 network of sites, following the procedure set out in Article 4 and the selection criteria established by Annexe III of the Directive. The designation of Sites of Community Importance under the Directive is therefore based on the ecological quality of the habitats and species existing in a site and not on the site's land use classification. The recently tabled Greek forest law will not modify the classification of the habitat types included in the Habitats Directive and the list of Sites of Community Importance proposed by Greece. Since the Greek proposal of Sites of Community Importance was based on the selection criteria of Annexe III and not on land use criteria, this list is not expected to change. The list of selected sites of Community Importance for the Mediterranean region is expected to be adopted by the Commission by the end of 2004. As regards the identification of proposed Sites of Community Importance, it should be borne in mind that Member States have a general obligation to act in such a way as to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States authorities must at least abstain from all activities that may seriously compromise the integrity of a site on the national list, that may cause the deterioration of a natural habitat or significantly disturb species. Furthermore, it should be stressed that the provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14, which cover certain plant and animal species, are applicable from the date of implementation of the Directive, i.e. 10 June 1994. Regarding management of the sites, within six years of the adoption of the list of sites of Community Importance for the Mediterranean region, each Member State concerned should designate them as Special Areas of Conservation and establish relevant priorities. Following the adoption and the implementation of the Greek law, the Commission will assess the impact that the possible changes in land use classification may have on the proposed Sites of Community Importance and will take all appropriate measures to ensure the application of Community environmental legislation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/530

(2004/C 78 E/0551)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3367/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Laser technology and radiation emissions

Laser technology has developed dramatically over the past 10 years for the manufacture of steel parts for the engineering sector. Is the Commission aware that such laser technoogy is generated by means of Light Amplification by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation and that the substances included in the process with electromagnetic dust are expelled into the atmosphere.

By comparison, ‘Waterjet’ uses only water and sand to carry out exactly the same process, only more slowly. However, this process is totally environmentally friendly and produces no exhaust fumes.

Can the Commission indicate whether any funding is available for such environmentally friendly engineering processes or indicate any further avenues which might be explored for funding opportunities.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Concerning Laser and Waterjet cutting applications, the Commission is well aware of the benefits and drawbacks associated with both technologies.

A search through the Cordis projects database (http://dbs.cordis.lu/search/en/simple/EN_PROJ_simple.html) reveals that a significant number (more than 20) of waterjet technology related projects have been financed in various programmes of the past Framework Programmes. Due to the relative maturity of the laser and waterjet cutting applications, the currently on-going activities in the Industrial Technologies Directorate are few and they concentrate on more specialised areas (e.g. G1ST-CT-2002, Development of abrasive water jet removal method for hard coatings to replace environmentally dangerous chemical stripping; G1RD-CT2002-00746, (Laser) Machining of transparent materials by multiple absorption).

In the Sixth Framework Programme, the Nanotechnologies and nano-sciences, knowledge-based multi-functional materials and new production processes and devices (NMP) priority could provide funding opportunities for further Waterjet technology related research, provided that the Research and Technological Development (RTD) proposals are able to demonstrate sufficient innovation and significant progress beyond the current state-of-the-art. More generally, the NMP priority work programme includes a dedicated research domain to improve sustainability of industrial manufacturing as well as to reduce environmental and health impacts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/242

(2004/C 84 E/0287)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3495/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Colombia — ELN hostages

In a video recording released by Reuters, the Colombian guerrillas of the Ejército de Liberación National (ELN) has 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 Council, 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 Council:

— 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?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that, at the present time, all the hostages but one have been released.

The EU expects that the only remaining UK hostage will be released as soon as possible.
1.

As indicated in the answer to Written Question E-l570/03 from Mr Meijer (1), the Commission raised objections, under the public procurement rules, to a number of agreements/measures awarded without prior invitation to tender by the local and regional authorities in the Flemish region relating to certain actions in the field of environmental policy. A dialogue is being conducted with the Belgian authorities in order to reach an out-of-court settlement. It is only if the Belgian authorities should refuse to comply with Community law throughout the entire infringement procedure that the matter would be referred to the Court of Justice under the strict conditions laid down in Article 228(2) and the Court could impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the Belgian authorities. In the meantime, the possible bankruptcy of certain firms involved in this dossier does not seem to be a relevant factor in the analysis conducted by the Commission, which seeks to ensure compliance with Community law and thus require of the Belgian authorities that, when they decide to entrust the conduct of certain economic activities to a third party, the choice of this third party is made after a competitive tendering process.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/862

(2004/C 78 E/0916)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3837/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Privatisation of the Post Office Savings Bank

Acting on behalf of the Greek government, the Greek Finance Minister, Mr Christodoulakis, has announced the decision to privatise the Post Office Savings Bank.

Has the Commission been informed about this matter by the Greek government?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

As regards privatisation, the Commission notes that Article 295 (ex-Article 222) of the EC Treaty guarantees the neutrality of the Community concerning public or private ownership of undertakings. There is no obligation for the Member States to inform the Commission of their intention to sell or to buy undertakings, nor does the Commission ever require or impede privatisation of public undertakings.

If the privatisation process involves the grant of State aids, Member States must inform the Commission in accordance with the notification requirement of Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty.

The Greek authorities have not informed the Commission so far of any intention to grant State aids in the framework of the privatisation of the Post Office Savings Bank.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/270

(2004/C 84 E/0317)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3941/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Discrimination over issue of housing permit in Rotterdam

According to recent press reports (see the Portuguese newspaper ‘Expresso’, 6 December 2003), the city council of Rotterdam (Netherlands) has decided that in future housing licences in the city will be issued only to persons who earn at least 120 % of the minimum wage and, if they are immigrants, have taken an ‘integration course’ and passed the relevant examination.

These proposals are unacceptable and contrary to the principles of the European Union, notably those of solidarity, non-discrimination, action for social inclusion and the free movement of persons.

1. Is the Commission aware of this decision by the Rotterdam city council, aimed at securing the expulsion of the less-favoured from the city?

2. What measures will the Commission take to stop this decision being implemented, given that it amounts to an attack on human rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Tampere European Council (1999) set the guidelines for a common EU asylum and immigration policy. This policy includes the fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally on the territory of Member States. The European Council conclusions state that the legal status of legally resident third country nationals should be approximated to that of Member States' nationals. Third country nationals should be granted a set of uniform rights, which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens.

This is concretised by Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents. Article 11(f) of the Directive provides that third country nationals entitled to long-term resident status should enjoy equality of treatment with nationals as far as access to goods and services are concerned. This includes in particular access to procedures for obtaining housing. The Member States must transpose this Directive by 23 January 2006 at the latest.

For other migrants, who are not long-term residents, there is no legal provision at EU level for the moment which guarantees the equal treatment in terms of access to housing.

For migrant workers who are nationals of Member States, it should be underlined that, according to Article 9 of Regulation 1612/68/EEC, they shall enjoy all the rights and benefits accorded to national workers in matters of housing including ownership of the housing they need.

In the case of the measures taken in Rotterdam, the situation described seems, however, to demonstrate that no discrimination is being made between nationals and third country nationals as far as the attribution of housing permits is concerned, because the level of 120 % of minimum wages is applied to both.

As far as the general conditions for granting housing permits are concerned, this falls clearly within the exclusive competence of the Member States. The Commission is, therefore, not competent to assess such measures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/450

(2004/C 78 E/0474)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3240/03

by Thierry Cornillet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Abolition of operating grants for Europe Info-Points

The Commission recently decided to abolish the operating grant for Europe Info-Points despite the fact that the present juncture will be decisive for the future of the European Union.

Given the current context, i.e. the Intergovernmental Conference, national campaigns for the adoption of the future Constitution and the forthcoming European elections, is the Commission aware that its decision could not have come at a more inappropriate time?

Does the Commission fully realise how valuable the Europe Info-Points are in terms of providing information and serving as communication channels with a view to bringing Europe closer to its citizens?

Moreover, in view of the new Financial Regulation, as well as the size of the grant allocated by the Commission, why did it not provide for a gradual reduction rather than a sudden stop, which is plunging these offices into financial difficulty, forcing them to reduce staff and, in some cases, to close down?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/29

(2004/C 84 E/0032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2516/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Eurostat Task Force and OLAF independence

On 9 July 2003 the Commission decided to set up a task force to investigate the complaints against Eurostat. Commission Press Release IP/03/979 states: ‘A multidisciplinary Commission Task Force will be set up to take rapidly forward the internal and external sides of the enquiries currently managed by OLAF alone. The Task Force will also carry out a full-scale administrative enquiry aimed at assessing the personal responsibilities of other staff involved with any financial irregularities. The Task Force will be managed by Mr Peter Zangl, currently Deputy Director-General of DG INFSO, and under the authority of Mr F.-H. Brüner, Director-General of OLAF.’

This decision conflicts with the Commission Decision of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (1), by which the Commission handed over to OLAF its powers to carry out internal and external administrative investigations (Article 2 of the Decision). It also conflicts with Article 3 of this Decision, which expressly guarantees OLAF's independence in exercising its investigative powers. In particular, the appointment of an official who does not belong to OLAF to lead the Task Force conflicts with the stipulation that the Director of OLAF may not take instructions from the Commission.

In these circumstances, has the Commission looked into the risk that officials and firms affected by the Task Force's investigations may challenge their legality?

What conclusions does the Commission draw in this connection from the recent Court of Justice rulings in Cases C-11/00 and C-15/00, which stressed the particular importance of OLAF investigations being independent?

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20.