ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/763

(2004/C 78 E/0811)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2885/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Application of the EU/Israel Association Agreement

In recent years the European Commission has begun to apply a policy of imposing customs duties on importers of goods which are known to have been produced in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories of the West Bank. The Commission also imposes duties when it is suspected that goods have been produced in the settlements.

The European Union has Free Trade Agreements with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority covering the whole area of Israel and the occupied territories without regard to the nationality of the producer. Does the Commission accept, therefore, that there should be no discrimination with regard to customs duties on produce produced anywhere in the region regardless of the legal status of the settlements? Does the Commission also accept that under the Oslo accords reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that Israel is responsible for customs administration in all settlement areas, and, if so, does the Commission believe that it is important for the EU to respect the Oslo accords even if it is not legally bound to do so? Finally, what progress has been made under the terms of the dispute procedures that have been activated to deal with this situation under Article 79 of the EU/Israel Association Agreement, and which were put into place after a meeting of the Association Council in October, 2002?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Union-Israel Association Agreement provides for the establishment of a free trade area between the Union and Israel creating a favourable environment notably for the development of trade, investment and economic co-operation. As regards the application of the rules of origin, the Union's interpretation of the Agreement is clear: products originating from the Israeli settlements (West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) are not entitled to benefit from preferential treatment.

As regards the reference made by the Honourable Member to the Oslo accords, these agreements do not deal with the issue of preferential treatment of goods entering the Union since they regulate the bilateral relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Following the ‘Notice to Importers’ issued by the Commission in November 2001 and the measures adopted unilaterally by the Union, the ‘rules of origin’ issue has been discussed in the appropriate fora (i.e. relevant Association Committees and Association Councils) where the Union reasserted its position and the Israeli authorities expressed their willingness to explore appropriate technical measures in this respect. This matter is still under discussion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/504

(2004/C 78 E/0524)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3259/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Unpleasant odours from waste disposal site in Ano Liosia

Not only the local residents but also the municipal authorities of Petroupoli have recently expressed concern regarding unpleasant odours emanating from the Ano Liosia waste disposal site, affecting the surrounding area and in particular the municipality of Petroupoli, causing serious public health hazards and in many ways detracting from the quality of life and development of the locality. The concern felt by local residents is all the greater because of the uncontrolled disposal at Ano Liosia of effluent from the Psyttalia and the Metamorfosi treatment plants, while plans are also being considered for the storage of waste at the Mousama quarry in the immediate vicinity.

Is the Commission aware of the above situation? What action does it intend to take pending the provision of new sanitary legal waste burial sites (HYTA), with a view to resolving the problem?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

From the complaints it has received, the Commission has learned of the operation of the landfill site in Ano Liosia and the problem of the disposal of sewage sludge from the urban waste water treatment plant in Psittalia.

The operation of the landfill site in Ano Liosia is directly connected with the discharge on this site of sewage sludge from Psittalia. The Greek authorities have been asked to give the Commission information on the operating conditions at the site and explain why piles of waste collapsed on 10 March 2003. The Commission is still investigating the complaint to check for any incompatibility with Community environmental legislation.

Regarding the treatment of sewage sludge from the Psittalia plant, the Commission does not believe the Greek authorities have taken all necessary measures to ensure that the sludge is reused on the site where it is produced in order to ensure recovery or disposal without endangering human health or harming the environment.

On the grounds that the method of disposing of the sewage sludge from Psittalia, which consists of transferring it to the Ano Liosia landfill site, already almost full to capacity, is not compatible with the requirements of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 on urban waste water treatment (1) or of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (3), the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. A reasoned opinion was sent to Greece in July 2003. The Greek authorities replied, giving their comments on the Commission's allegations. The reply is now being examined. The Commission will take all the appropriate measures to ensure that Community environmental law is observed.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(3) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/97

(2004/C 88 E/0102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2558/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject: Human rights in Peru

Is the Commission aware of the arrest and detention of Walter Cubas Baltazar in Peru? Concerned constituents have contacted me in response to reports of alleged torture of Mr Walter Cubas Baltazar during the course of his detention.

Can the Commission assure my constituents that it monitors reports of human rights abuses in Peru and uses the opportunities arising from its official relations with the country in order to highlight instances of concern?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the arrest and detention of Walter Cubas Balthazar in Peru and the Commission Delegation in Lima is closely following events relating to the arrest.

In line with the Working Paper on the implementation of the Guidelines to Union policy towards third countries on torture of December 2002, EU Heads of Mission in Lima have recently reported on the situation with respect to torture in the country and are monitoring Peru's progress towards the complete eradication of torture.

Human Rights issues occupy a permanent place on the agenda of the Union-Peru political dialogue, carried out at the level of the Andean Community (CAN). The Union is supporting in particular the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación Nacional) amongst whose tasks is the investigation of serious human rights violations during the period of 1980-2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/35

(2004/C 88 E/0037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1492/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Coffee negotiations

Would the Commission clarify the progress which is being made in the ongoing negotiations between the European Union and the European Coffee Federation on the setting up of an independent system to monitor the quality of coffee entering the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission has supported the adoption of Resolution No 407 on minimum standards for exportable coffees by the International Coffee Council (ICO) at all levels of the negotiation.

For the proper implementation of the above Resolution, each member must make its best endeavour to support the objectives of the programme and co-operate in the field of data communication, particularly regarding those imports that do not correspond to the agreed standards. Therefore, with a view to ensuring comprehensive and transparent information, the Commission and the European Coffee Federation (ECF) agreed that the latter should inform the Commission on a quarterly basis about imports that do not conform to Resolution 407. On the basis of this, the Commission will forward the information to the ICO in London.

The Commission has reminded the ECF on several occasions of the need to provide data, drawn the attention of its Secretary General to the commitment it has assumed and the role that the private sector must play in this context.

The Commission notes with regret that no information has been provided since the end of the first quarterly period after the implementation of the Resolution.

The Commission is in constant contact with the ECF and still hopes that a satisfactory solution can be rapidly found on the side of the coffee industry. Should the present situation persist, the Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member that its services will act within the ICO in order to introduce a more binding system to achieve transparency and proper implementation of ICO Resolution 407.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/642

(2004/C 78 E/0681)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3758/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pisa

In its answer to question E-1025/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pisa had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/678

(2004/C 78 E/0722)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3953/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject: Wheelchair design specifications

Can the Commission inform me whether there is a European standard for wheelchair design specifications?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Wheelchairs are medical devices and, as such, fall under the scope of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (1).

The following European Standards exist for wheelchairs.

When complied with, they give presumption of conformity with the relevant essential requirements.

— EN 12183: 1999 rev, on manually propelled wheelchairs — requirements and test methods;

— EN 12184: 1999 rev, on electrically powered wheelchairs, scooters and their charges — requirements and test methods;

— EN 12182, on technical aids for disabled persons — general requirements and test methods.

In meeting the requirements of the Directive, technical files must be available which include design information.

(1) OJ L 323, 26.11.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/105

(2004/C 78 E/0106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/03

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

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Galicia and CAP reform

What will be the situation of Galician agriculture when the CAP reform approved by the Council is implemented, bearing in mind that the Galician farming industry is characterised by the predominance of milk production, land-based family farms and a clear vocation and capacity for modernisation and, on the other hand, that the milk quota is totally inadequate to allow aspirations of non-Malthusian development? How will the measures taken as regards rural development affect Galician society? The Galician Government has stated that, in order to offset the fall in milk prices, Galicia will receive a sum of EUR 530 million in direct aid for the milk sector between now and 2014: what will be the significance of these funds, and where will they come from?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission considers that the latest CAP Reform offers to European farmers a clear, long-term planning framework for their business decisions, which allows them the flexibility to respond to future market demands, while at the same time contributing substantially to the stability of their incomes. The Commission believes that the reform will enhance quality, will make prices more a reflection of market demand and will allow the CAP to respond better to societal concerns regarding the environment and animal welfare. This will increase the support of consumers and taxpayers for the CAP, thus improving the image of farmers in European society.

Regarding the reform of the milk sector, the Honourable Member will recall that Commission's proposal to increase quotas by 1 % in each of the years 2007 and 2008 was turned down and that the Council decided to postpone, by one year to 2006, the 1,5 % increases already foreseen in the Agenda 2000 reform of 0,5 % in each of the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. However, the additional cuts agreed in the intervention price for butter have been compensated with higher levels of dairy premiums and additional payments to producers, now up to EUR 35,5 per tonne, which will be incorporated in the single payment scheme from 2007. These dairy premiums, which will be granted to dairy producers, are calculated from the payment rate multiplied by the individual reference quantity for milk available on the holding on 31 March of the calendar year concerned.

As for rural development, the CAP Reform package includes a number of new or reinforced measures that could be useful for Galician agriculture, during the transition to the new economic conditions expected. These measures include support for participation in food quality schemes and temporary support for compliance with new statutory standards and entry into the voluntary farm advisory system. In addition, support measures for young farmers will be reinforced and Community support for agri-environment measures strengthened. Extra funding for rural development will be made available as from 2006 by means of the compulsory modulation mechanism.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/14

(2004/C 84 E/0014)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2103/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Cross-border investment

Does the Commission consider that the introduction of the euro has boosted cross-border investment for the participating states? Could the Commission also give the figures for Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

As stated in the reply by the Commission to the Honorourable Member's written question E-1350/03 (1), available data for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) indicate that the introduction of the euro has had a favourable effect on cross-border investment for the participating countries. FDI data compiled by Eurostat show a much larger increase of FDI inflows in 1999 and 2000 for the euro area than for other Member States. This can be interpreted as an evidence of a positive impact of the Economic and Monetary Union on cross-border direct investment. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that EMU is only one of the factors that have affected euro-area FDI flows in recent years. In 2001, the slowdown in merger activity and depressed economic conditions entailed a sharp drop in FDI inflows for both the euro-area and other Member States.

The figures for foreign direct investmen (2) for Sweden are as follows:

(million euros) 1999 (3) 2000 2001 From EU-15 to Sweden 45 185 12 061 8 646 From eurozone to Sweden 8 839 8 496 7 090 From non-eurozone to Sweden 36 346 3 565 1 556 From extra EU 15 to Sweden 5 370 8 280 2 715

(1) See page 8.

(2) Excludes reinvested earnings.

(3) The merger between Astra and Zeneca and Ford's acquisition of Volvo Personvagnar boosted FDI inflow to Sweden by about EUR 34 062 million (SEK 300 billion) in 1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/205

(2004/C 78 E/0209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2982/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject: Stability pact

In reply to my Oral Question H-0564/01 (1) to the Council on the Greek stability and development programme I was informed that ‘on 12 February 2001, the Ecofin Council discussed Greece's initial stability programme which relates to the 2000-2004 period (...). The Ecofin Council was of the opinion that, under normal circumstances, the budget estimates provide sufficient guarantees against exceeding the shortage threshold of 3 %’.

It has been reported that, after carrying out exhaustive checks on the budgets for projects in connection with the Olympic Games in cooperation with the ‘Athens 2004’ organisation, the Greek Government has now concluded that an additional sum of around EUR 2,3 billion will be required in 2003-2004 to complete the projects. To what extent does the Commission believe that Greece will not exceed the safety margin and that its deficit will remain stable? Does the Commission still take the view that Greece has not deviated from the constraints set by the stability pact in the two years that have passed since the Ecofin Council first assessed Greece's financial situation?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments in the Greek public finances all the more that the increasing costs of the preparations for the Olympics as well as the cost of the announced social package seem to add significant pressures to the State budget. In fact, the Greek Government has recently revised the figure for the general government deficit to 1,4 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2003. In spring, the Commission forecasted the government deficit at 1,1 % of GDP in 2003 and 1,0 % of GDP in 2004. Recent developments imply that these estimates will be certainly revised in the Commission Autumn forecasts, which, however, are not completed as yet. Under these circumstances, it is certain that the Commission will examine with the closest attention budgetary developments in Greece in case clear signs of deterioration would emerge; it should be reminded that the Council in its Opinion on the 2002 updated stability programme (January 2003) recommended to Greece to implement stronger and more robust medium term budgetary adjustment; it was stressed that this effort was required taking into consideration the still very high level of the government debt and its insufficient decline in the recent years.

(1) Written answer of 4.7.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/245

(2004/C 84 E/0290)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3526/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(20 November 2003)

Subject: The difference between unanimity and consensus

The Convention's draft EU Constitution lays down that, except where the Constitution provides otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus. (Article 20(4)). Could the Council please state whether a single country can block the taking of a decision by consensus in the European Council, and what the precise definition of a decision taken by consensus is?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it cannot express a view on matters falling within the ambit of the Intergovernmental Conference.

However, as the question also concerns the present treaties and, in particular, the way the European Council works, the following brief reply may be made.

In the present treaties (as in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe) only three voting arrangements for adopting an act or a decision requiring a vote by the Council (or the European Council in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution) are legally defined: simple majority, qualified majority and unanimity.

Consensus is not a voting rule and has no legal definition. It is the way the European Council already agrees on conclusions or other texts of a political nature which are not in the form of an act having binding legal effects on third parties.

In its most usual sense, consensus means that a text is generally acceptable, with no delegation having any formal objection, although some delegations may have reservations on the substance or on certain aspects of the text without standing in the way of a consensus.

The Honourable Member might also like to refer to the outcome of proceedings of the Working Party of Legal Experts of the Intergovernmental Conference (1). The Working Party suggests amending the text drawn up by the Convention so as to specify the applicable voting rule explicitly in all cases where the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe confers on the European Council the power to adopt binding legal acts.

(1) See CIG 50/03 and the report by the Chairman of the Working Party, 51/03, available on the Internet site of the Intergovernmental Conference.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/176

(2004/C 78 E/0181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2845/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject: EU enlargement and air transport

Can the Commission state whether, on the basis of the Treaty of Athens, air routes between the airports of the 10 new Member States and the airports of current Member States will, from 1 May 2004, be considered intra-Community air routes as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1) of 23 July 1992?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (2) will apply fully to the ten new Member States as of 1 May 2004, the date on which they are due to accede to the Union. As of that date, routes to/from the airports of those States will be considered to be intra-Community routes within the meaning of the Regulation.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.

(2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.