ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/144

(2004/C 33 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1611/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Marketing of cereals

Apart from in France, the marketing of cereals in the European Union is not regulated; farmers can sell their produce freely and can ensure that it is perfectly traceable, in contrast to the produce of giant silos.

In France, the marketing function is a monopoly held by the storage agencies licensed by the National Cereals Trades Board (ONIC), and it is compulsory for all cereal trade to be channelled through them. The approved collectors deduct the parafiscal charges which are needed, amongst other things, for the operation of ONIC, which gives them financial support.

This situation means that producers and users of French cereals are penalised both financially and in respect of their ability to trade freely. For example, a French cereals producer is not allowed to sell his produce directly to a breeder.

The rules imposed by ONIC therefore appear to constitute a barrier to Community trade and freedom of trade.

What does the Commission think of this typically French situation?

Does it have any suggestions for resolving it?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission's information is that the system of approved collectors as introduced by Order No 67-812 of 22 September 1967 to replace the storage agency system in order to enable France to comply with her obligations under the common organisation of the cereals market following entry into force of Regulation No 120/67/EEC (1) sets non-discriminatory terms of access to the activity of collector aimed at the general interest and does not interfere with the purposes of the common organisation of cereal markets.

The system is designed both to protect the weaker of the contracting parties, i.e. the grower, by guaranteeing immediate payment for the cereals and correctness of transactions and to ensure that cereal quality is preserved during the subsequent marketing stages. It also affords reliable statistical monitoring of the cereals market and is a means of securing payment of the parafiscal charges owed by growers. Lastly, in retaining the grower's freedom to choose the buyer, given that the approved collectors are in competition, and in retaining freedom of prices, which remain dependent on supply and demand, the system remains without influence on price formation and affects neither intra-Community trade nor the free provision of services by users established in other Member States.

The parafiscal charges levied to finance action in the cereals sector (FASC) are not imposed on imports from other Member States or non-Union countries and do not compromise the policy on cereal growers' incomes implemented through the common market organisation. In their present form they were approved by the Commission on 19 October 2000 as an aid system compatible with the common market (State Aids/France No 514/2000).

(1) Regulation No 120/67/EEC of 13 June 1967 on the common organisation of the market in cereals, OJ 117, 19.6.1967.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/71

(2004/C 33 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Investigation into protection of the ink cartridge market

In mid-May 2002, in the course of a meeting with the assistant attorney-general at the US Justice Department, Mr James, Commissioner Monti indicated that the European Commission would be launching an investigation into the high prices for ink cartridges sold for use with printers. The sale of such cartridges linked to brands may represent a form of distortion of competition. The Commissioner indicated that the obligation to use ink cartridges of the same brand as a particular printer would be investigated very thoroughly.

Has an investigation since been launched into this potential form of distortion of competition?

If so, at what stage is the investigation, and is it already possible to draw provisional conclusions?

If not, why did the Commission not consider it appropriate to launch an investigation, contrary to its earlier intentions and despite the various complaints about high prices for ink cartridges that have been lodged with the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

The Commission can confirm that it has recently initiated a case concerning, amongst others, the inkjet cartridges and printers sectors. It is currently analysing the conduct of a number of companies in these markets in light of the Community's competition rules.

The case remains at a preliminary stage of analysis and therefore the Commission is unable to provide further detailed information with regard to its development or scope at this point in time. Nevertheless, were the case to be pursued, the Commission would naturally make public further details of its examination of this issue as soon as it were possible to do so.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/263

(2004/C 33 E/273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2411/03

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE), Willi Görlach (PSE), Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE), Christa Klaß (PPE-DE) and Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Food and kitchen waste from commercial undertakings

The Commission's reply to Written Question E-1154/03 (1) prompts the following additional questions:

— does the Commission currently have data as to the methods and channels whereby waste food and kitchen scraps from commercial undertakings such as industrial kitchens, restaurants, catering firms and public catering services throughout the EU are inspected, analysed, labelled, collected, transported, treated, processed, disposed of and/or destroyed, or does it first need to obtain the ‘information … from the Member States’ referred to in the reply to Question E-l 154/03;

— does the Commission not agree that the subject matter of this question constitutes an acute problem which, for reasons of epidemic control, must be dealt with without further delay? How can the Commission ensure that food and kitchen waste from commercial undertakings within the EU is not illegally fed to animals or otherwise illegally removed or disposed of;

— what measures can and will the Commission take in the event of individual Member States providing no information, or insufficient information, on the collection and treatment of former foodstuffs, and in particular on the analysis, inspection, processing, disposal and/or elimination of food and kitchen waste from commercial undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Further to the Commission's recent reply to Written Question E-1154/03 by the Honourable Members, the Commission can confirm that the information concerning the collection and treatment of former foodstuffs referred to in that reply is not yet available.

The competent authority in each Member State is responsible for enforcing the law, including ensuring that catering waste is not illegally fed to farmed animals and that it is safely disposed of. The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office will continue to monitor the situation to ensure harmonious implementation of the law.

In line with Article 35 of the Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (2), Member States are expected to inform the Commission of the measures taken to ensure compliance with the Regulation within one year of its entry into force. The Commission will take appropriate actions to ensure that such information is communicated in due course.

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 177.

(2) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/79

(2004/C 33 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0770/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Suspected infringement procedures and recording of infringements notified to the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 8 5 of the EC Treaty

With reference to Article 8 5 of the EC Treaty:

— will the Commission give details of the number and nature of the suspected infringement proceedings notified to the Italian Republic and, in each case, will it say when the procedure was opened and for what infringement, whether it was initiated at the request of a Member State or automatically and what stage it has now reached?

— will the Commission say whether infringements have been recorded for which the Italian Republic has not yet adopted the necessary corrective measures and, in each case, will it say when the procedure was opened, and for what infringement, whether it was initiated at the request of a Member State or automatically, and what measures the Commission asked to be adopted and when?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2003)

The Commission took one formal decision within the meaning of Article 85 (2) of the EC Treaty in 1987 with regard to Alitalia.

For the rest, the Commission does not have sufficient details of the matter to be able to investigate the problem raised and is not, therefore, in a position to answer the question at the moment. It would ask the Honourable Member to specify its question. Article 85 of the EC Treaty does not provide for any notification to Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/107

(2004/C 65 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1964/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty for failure to comply with Article 292 of the EC Treaty

Could the Commission list all the legal proceedings that it has initiated against Member States over the past five years under Article 226 of the EC Treaty for failure to comply with Article 292 of the EC Treaty which provides that Member States shall not submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the EC Treaty to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

In the last five years, the Commission has opened two infringement proceedings for failure to comply with Article 292 of the EC Treaty. The infringement proceedings were launched against Ireland. For further information on this subject, the Commission refers to its reply to oral question H-0256/03 made by the Honourable Member during question time at Parliament's May 2003 session (1).

(1) Written reply, 13.5.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/66

(2004/C 65 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1217/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Pesaro

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 Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/241

(2004/C 33 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2267/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Discrimination against women

1. On 24 June 2003, the Financial Times reported that the Commission was preparing further proposals to combat discrimination against women, which would include a ban on ‘degrading’ images of women on television and in newspapers and proposals for banning discriminatory insurance premiums. Is this correct?

2. If these plans are being prepared, who is to decide what is ‘degrading’? Will a ‘bad taste’ committee be set up for the purpose?

3. Is it true that the proposals in question would result in women's paying lower pension contributions but higher car insurance premiums?

4. Is it more appropriate for such rules to be adopted by the European Union rather than the Member States? If so, why?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that a large body of Community legislation already exists to implement the principle of equal treatment for men and women in the area of employment and work.

Since the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force in May 1999, a new legal basis, Article 13 of this Treaty, exists, empowering the Council, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, to take appropriate action in the areas of Community competence and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaty, to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on sex.

It should be remembered that, in 2000, on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty, the Council adopted a directive to combat all discrimination based on race or ethnic origin (1) in employment, access to goods and services, including housing, social protection, social advantages and education.

In this context, the Commission is looking at ways of implementing Article 13 in order to combat sex-based discrimination in areas other than employment and work.

(1) Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/126

(2004/C 65 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2283/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Development of cod nurseries

Has the Commission considered the possible benefits of rearing cod, produced from the spawn of wild cod, in nurseries for release into the sea? What plans does the Commission have to promote research into the feasibility and the implications, both positive and negative, of such a practice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

The rearing of cod in nurseries for release into the sea may have different objectives: sea ranching, i.e. releasing cod into the sea in areas where there are none or very small natural cod resources, stock enhancement, i.e. trying to improve existing cod populations, and stock recovery, i.e. helping depleted stocks to recover.

Historically, interest has focused on stock enhancement and a few attempts have been made, mainly in Norway. At the marine biological station near Arendal in southern Norway there is a 100 year long history of releasing reared cod. The experience from this was summed up in an international symposium in 1993 and it was concluded that there were no measurable benefits. A workshop organised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 1994 (‘Workshop to evaluate the potential of stock enhancement as an approach to fisheries management’), partly funded by the Commission, concluded that stock enhancement of cod in general was unlikely to be successful. This workshop also evaluated a proposal from Canada to rear cod to restore the depleted Newfoundland stock, but the conclusions were negative also in this respect.

The reasons for the lack of success in cod enhancement are not fully understood, but a number of factors may be involved, e.g. problems of reared cod to adapt to natural conditions, competition with the natural populations and limits to the capacity of the ecosystem. It should also be noted that even if stock enhancement of cod should lead to some improvement, it would be virtually impossible to separate this effect from natural stock fluctuations. Furthermore, cod rearing is expensive and the cost benefits of an enhancement program are questionable even if it were successful.

Based on the available information on stock enhancement, as described above, the Commission has not considered it a priority to promote research in this area.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/42

(2004/C 65 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0687/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) and Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Measures to safeguard EU-grown walnuts

Catalan annual whole walnut production averages between 20 000 and 25 000 tonnes, which, if compared with the annual 600 000 tonnes produced in Turkey, is a relatively small figure.

The EU Association Agreement signed with Turkey in 1998 committed Turkey to refraining from putting the total quantity of walnuts available after each harvest on the EU market forthwith. This guaranteed a price of between ESP 500 and ESP 600 per kilogram of whole walnuts between 1998 and 2001.

The devaluation of the Turkish lira in 2001 induced Turkey not to hold back part of its walnut production, but to increase exports. Increased exports to the EU have caused prices to fall.

We are aware that the Spanish Government has requested the Commission to apply safeguard measures for walnuts, as provided for by Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (1) establishing the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables. Various months have now elapsed.

Does the Commission intend to introduce safeguard measures for EU-produced walnuts, which are suffering from extreme prejudice thanks to the increased imports of walnuts from Turkey?

When will these measures be introduced?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

The examination and evaluation of the Spanish official request for implementation of safeguard measures on hazelnuts originating in Turkey, as well as the analysis of the supporting statistical dossier, are in progress.

Due to the complexity of the dossier and the need to respect the obligations that stem from the international agreements signed by the Union (Article 37,4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables), the Commission has carried out consultations with the Turkish authorities, and a series of contacts with different Community operators in the hazelnut sector.

On the basis of the information provided until now by the Spanish authorities, the statistical data currently available, and taking into account the results of the consultations previously mentioned, the Commission has elaborated an exhaustive file on the subject. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that, following the examination of this file, it may be deemed necessary to request additional information from the Spanish authorities.

Following the completion of this assessment, the Commission will decide whether measures need to be taken on the matter at issue to avoid the objectives of Article 33 of the EC Treaty being put at risk.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/167

(2004/C 65 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2520/03

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Council

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Linguistic plurality of Spain with regard to 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 that of ‘European Union’.

In connection with this adjustment, a proposal was tabled in the Spanish Parliament that centred on recognising the plurality of official languages in passports of citizens resident in autonomous communities where there is more than one official language. However, the Spanish Government rejected this proposal, citing the Resolution of 23 June 1981 (2).

Since Article I-3 of the Draft EU Constitutional Treaty states that ‘The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity’ and Article II-22 thereof adds that ‘The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity’, thus echoing the Charter on Fundamental Rights, and given the conclusions of the European Year of Languages established by decision of the Parliament and the Council, does the Council intend to amend the said Resolution to include all the official languages of EU Member States in their passports?

(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 33/259

(2004/C 33 E/267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2386/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: Funding of health promotion projects

Under the European Community Health Promotion Programme, the Commission has funded 20 projects dedicated solely to health promotion, to a total in excess of EUR 9,5 m. Can the Commission provide a breakdown by project of both total costs and its own contribution? Have arrangements been made to monitor the results of individual projects? Can the Commission supply a full and properly documented analysis, rather than just an Internet reference?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/156

(2004/C 33 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1712/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Community funding of works and provision of rolling stock in Greece

Is the EU funding (whether directly or indirectly, through grants or loans, such as through the EIB) the building of Olympic sports facilities in Greece or the construction and completion of projects connected with facilitating the 2004 Olympic Games? If so, is the Commission satisfied with the progress made?

Is the EU funding (again directly or indirectly, through grants or loans) the provision of new rolling stock (for buses and trams) for public transport in Athens or other Greek cities? If so, should there not be a mention of this fact (for example in the form of information panels) on the vehicles purchased with Community part-financing?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2003)

The Union is contributing to certain Olympic sports facilities via a loan made available by the European Investment Bank (EIB), in particular for the renovation of the Olympic Stadium in Maroussi and the press centre located nearby.

The Union is also contributing to the construction of various public transport facilities in the greater Athens area under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

The projects concerned areas follows (figures are the indicative ERDF contributions):

— the extension of the ‘blue’ subway line from the Defense Ministry to Spata Airport (EUR 90 million);

— the construction of two tram lines, from the Zappeion to Paleo Faliron and from Neo Faliron to Glyfada (EUR 173 million);

— the construction of the suburban railway from Spata Airport via Stavros to the ‘SKA’ railway node close to Acharnes (EUR 342 million);

— the completion of the ‘Attiki odos’ ring road, from Spata Airport via Stavros and the northern suburbs to Eleusina (EUR 476 million);

— the renovation of the ‘green’ subway line Piraeus-Kifissia (EUR 42 million);

— the renewal of the Athens bus and trolley fleet (EUR 79 million).

The purpose of these projects is to contribute to the modernisation and extension of infrastructure endowments in Greece. However, their timely completion could greatly facilitate the handling of the expected traffic increase related to the Olympic Games. The realisation of the projects in time for the Olympic Games is a priority for the Greek authorities.

Concerning the co-funding of the renewal of the Athens bus and trolley fleet, the normal requirements relating to information and publicity apply.