ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/43

(2004/C 84 E/0048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: European market in car insurance

Although the common market has been developing for some time and in certain sectors has been completed, the internal market in car insurance has a long way to go, in particular as regards third-party insurance. For example, it is still impossible to insure a vehicle with an insurance company based outside the Member State in which the owner of the vehicle resides.

1. What initiatives has the Commission promoted to harmonise the internal market in car insurance?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/60

(2004/C 78 E/0060)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1961/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject: Ispra meeting to discuss the Spanish National Hydrological Plan

Further to Question No 39 by Alexander de Roo (H-0211/03), answered by the European Commission during Question Time on 8 April 2003, can the Commission give further details of the proposed meeting in Ispra with technical and scientific experts to discuss the Spanish National Hydrological Plan?

When will this meeting take place?

Which technical and scientific experts will be involved?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

With regard to the expert meeting to discuss certain aspects of the proposed Ebro transfer, the Commission at the moment is planning to hold the meeting in September 2003 at a date to be finalised.

The Commission expects that objective and expert knowledge should be made available to this meeting.

Within this framework, the Commission invites the Spanish Authorities to send appropriate technical experts to the meeting. Invitations are also extended to the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (Brussels), WWF (Spain), and Foundation for a New Water Culture, Platform for the Defence of the Ebro and the Region of Aragon.

All participants in the meeting will be expected to have an appropriate technical background and a detailed knowledge of the Ebro river and its delta.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/243

(2004/C 84 E/0288)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3499/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Romano Prodi — Manifesto

The President of the Commission has written a text entitled ‘Europa: il sogno, le scelte’ explicitly directed to the Italian centre-left parties, calling on them to unite in a single list for the forthcoming European elections and act unitedly in the ensuing Parliament.

This initiative produced an immediate reaction from the Italian opposition parties, and comprehensive criticism from the parties comprising the government majority, having already been repudiated by representatives of European political groups. Italian political commentators have even stated that the Commission President was positioning himself as the possible leader of the left in Italy, with a view to the elections next June.

The Council:

— How does it view the initiative taken by the Commission President? Does it believe it to be compatible with the nature of his duties, as set out in Article 211 et seq. of the EC Treaty? Does it think that Romano Prodi's behaviour compromises the impartiality of the Commission's political guidelines and interventions, which are legally the responsibility of its President, and undermines the proper application of the principles of separation of powers, independence, and general interest of the Community?

— Does it not believe that the stability and respectability of the European Institutions has been directly jeopardised? Does it intend to do anything about this, and with regard to the Commission President, whose actions can quite simply be viewed as constituting ‘intervention in the internal politics’ of a Member State?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council has not discussed the issues raised in the Honourable Member's question, nor has it expressed any view on them. It is not therefore in a position to respond to the Honourable Member.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/138

(2004/C 88 E/0146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3263/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Powers of the region of Wallonia to approve arms exports, and the use of such weapons to repress the people of Nepal

1. Is the Commission aware that the financing of 5 500 machine guns purchased by the state of Nepal from the Belgian arms manufacturer FN Herstal has been at the expense of measures to combat poverty, education, health care and the holding of elections, and that all of these weapons are ready for deployment just over a year after the placing of the order?

2. Is the Commission also aware that, since the delivery of these weapons, the Government of the Kingdom of Nepal and the army have ended the dialogue with the opposition begun in the first half of 2003, and that the weapons are being used on a massive scale in western Nepal for the killing of unarmed citizens suspected of possibly joining the protest against the conditions of inequality under which people traditionally live in this country?

3. Does the Commission regard the delivery of such weapons to an area of conflict like Nepal for such purposes to be compatible with the EU code of conduct on the export of arms?

4. Is it only the EU Member States that are bound by this code of conduct, or also the individual states of which they are comprised, such as the region of Wallonia, which has been delegated powers to export arms by the federal Belgian government and which bases its decisions primarily on the employment opportunities provided by arms production?

5. How is a repetition of this deplorable situation to be prevented, so that further weapons cannot find their way into use in internal extermination campaigns or summary executions in Nepal or other similar regions?

Source: Belgian newspaper ‘De Morgen’, 17.10.2003.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the ongoing conflict in Nepal and deeply regrets the interruption of the peace talks on 27 August 2003 and the increased violence and loss of life since.

The trade in arms is currently dealt within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Commission is fully associated. In June 1998, the Union adopted the Code of Conduct on arms exports under the CFSP on the basis of criteria that Member States are pledged to respect.

The Commission, while sharing the Honourable Member's concern, has neither the authority nor the means to monitor armament's exports. Full responsibility for the licensing of arms exports is an internal matter of the Member States to organise the way they see fit in order to fulfil the obligations they have undertaken under the code of Conduct.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/150

(2004/C 88 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3485/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: EEA, Norway and taxation of EU workers

Although Norway is not a Member State of the EU, it takes part in the internal market where the principles of free movement of workers and equal treatment of all citizens apply. Nevertheless, the Norwegian Government decided that, as of 1 January 2003, EU citizens, among others, working in Norway would be taxed on journeys between their place of residence and their destination (in this particular case a helicopter terminal/oil platform). Norwegian nationals working in Norway are not taxed in this way.

Foreigners in Norway are allowed a deduction of 15 % on the basic rate of tax because they do not use cultural and public social services to the same extent as Norwegians. Interest on loans, however, does not qualify as tax-deductible.

Will the Commission say in this context to what extent Norway is allowed to adopt different taxation rules for EU citizens and Norwegians working in Norway? Are the rules on the taxation of journeys consistent with Norway's agreements with the EU or does that country discriminate against workers from the EU? Finally, what action does the Commission intend to take in the event that Norway has introduced discriminatory rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission has not heard before of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. However, not disposing of the applicable legal texts, the Commission can only refer to the fact that a distinction between residents and non-residents is a basic and common feature in taxation, which the Court of Justice, in its judgement of 14 February 1995 (case C-279/93 — Schumacker), has accepted to be in principle not contrary to Community law. However, if non-residents are in a comparable situation as residents, they may not be taxed more heavily than the latter.

Since it is the particular charge of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority (ESA) to monitor and control the application of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement by the EEA/EFTA States, the Commission will forward the problem raised to the ESA and ask the ESA to give it the necessary follow-up.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/648

(2004/C 88 E/0664)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3391/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Negotiations between Turkey and the Commission on the case against Leyla Zana

A recent article by the Brussels correspondent of the Turkish daily newspaper Hurriyet mentions negotiations between Turkey and the European Commission based on the Turkish proposal for a favourable judgment in the case against Leyla Zana in exchange for the inclusion of KADEK on Europe's list of terrorist organisations.

Can the Commission either confirm this report or officially deny it?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the article referred to has no basis in fact. There are no negotiations between the Commission and the Turkish Government on the subjects mentioned in the question.

The Commission provided its assessment of the ongoing re-trial in the Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Dogan case in its 2003 Regular Report, which was published on 5 November 2003 (1), and will continue to monitor this closely.

(1) COM(2003) 676 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/560

(2004/C 78 E/0595)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3477/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Women in prison

Can the Commission supply details of the number of women currently in prison in each European Union Member State?

Can the Commission provide a total number of mothers with dependent children in prison in each European Union Member State?

What percentage of the total prison population do women constitute in each European Member State?

Per capita of the population, can the Commission list which Member States have the most women in prison in the European Union?

What is the most common offence committed by women imprisoned in each European Union Member State?

How do all the above contrast with the male prison population in each European Member State?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission does not have the statistics to give the Honourable Member an appropriate reply to her written question.

The Commission has obtained a number of statistical data on the prison population in the Member States and in the Accession Countries in the context of the preparation of two Green Papers, one on possible measures to be taken at Union level for safeguarding the rights of individuals in pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention and a second on the approximation, recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the Union.

At the request of the Italian Presidency, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the Member States, wherein they were asked to provide statistical data on their total prison population: They were invited to provide figures on people in pre-trial detention and convicted prisoners. Additionally, they were asked to supply — in each case — statistics for nationals and non-nationals and amongst the non-nationals, between those of other Member States, those of the Accession Countries and those of third countries. Questions regarding the number of female prisoners etc. did not enter into the scope of that questionnaire (as it does not have any relevance for the two above-mentioned Green Papers) and it is not the intention of the Commission to obtain information on this particular issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/379

(2004/C 88 E/0385)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Road transport managers

Is the Commission of the opinion that, in order to implement correctly Council Directive 96/26/EC (1) on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator [etc.], a Member State must require road transport operators to employ a road transport manager, in the strict sense of the term (i.e. have an employer/employee relationship according to national law), as opposed to having a different contractual relationship (such as a contract for services with a self-employed manager) that meets all the requirements imposed by the Directive?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 96/26/EC of 29 April 1996 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations, stipulates that where a transport operator is a natural person but does not himself possess the required professional competence, he must have a designated transport manager, who satisfies the Directive's good repute and professional competence criteria and who continuously and effectively manages the transport operations. If the transport operator is not a natural person, the good repute criterion and professional competence criteria must still be satisfied by the transport manager, who again continuously and effectively manages the transport operations.

The Commission notes that in all cases the transport manager must be continuously and effectively managing the undertaking's transport operations. It is by this criterion that compliance with the Directive's requirements is to be judged. The Directive is however silent as to whether this can be achieved by directly employing a transport manager or by a different contractual arrangement and hence neither option is automatically excluded.

(1) OJ L 124, 23.5.1996, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/399

(2004/C 78 E/0421)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos

In its reply to Written Question E-1551/03 (1) the Commission stated that it intended to contact the Portuguese authorities with a view to ensuring that appropriate action is taken in order to enforce Community legislation on asbestos — thereby justifying the concern felt by the author of this question.

Would the Commission say when it intends to ‘ensure that the Portuguese authorities] take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question’?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2003)

As indicated in its initial reply, the Commission has contacted the Portuguese authorities in order to check the allegations concerning a possible labelling error on items placed on the Portuguese market containing chrysotile asbestos (which was added intentionally).

After conducting an investigation of the sector concerned, the Portuguese authorities have informed the Commission that they have not discovered any asbestos-based items on the Portuguese market which have been wrongly labelled or whose labels infringed the Community provisions in force.

As a result, on the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission cannot at present support the argument that Portuguese items containing chrysotile asbestos have been incorrectly labelled.

(1) See page 37.
2.

Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/641

(2004/C 78 E/0678)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3755/03

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 Macerata

In its answer to question E-1021/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Macerata 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 78/82

(2004/C 78 E/0080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/03

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Update regarding of the Italian State and Campania Regional Government funding of the programme contract presented by Agrifuturo

In the Commission's reply of 5 June 2003 to Written Question P-1530/03 (1) (which was a follow-up to Written Question P-0126/03 (2)) it is stated that relevant information has been received from the Italian Government but has yet to be analysed.

Would the Commission state the eventual outcome of such analysis and indicate any action which it intends to take or which it has already taken?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

The Commission has received information on the funding of the programme contract submitted by Agrifuturo Scarl, which it is still analysing.

Once the analysis is complete, one of two things will happen:

— if it appears that the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have been met, the case will be closed,

— if it appears that some of the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have not been met, the Commission will open the investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 77.

(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 180.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/437

(2004/C 88 E/0442)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2727/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Telekom Serbia

Piero Fassino, formerly Italian Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs and currently Secretary of the Democrats of the Left party, has claimed that the European Union encouraged investment in Serbia during the leadership of the dictator Milosevic.

Can the Commission confirm this claim?

Which Community institution encouraged European businesses to invest in Serbia, and how did it do so?

Which Community institution is authorised to give the ‘go-ahead’ to investments outside the frontiers of the Union, in this case in the former Yugoslavia?

Is the Commission aware that the papers relating to the UN's investigations into the hidden wealth of Slobodan Milosevic, handed over to the court in The Hague, contain references to sums amounting to around EUR 500 million being paid by Italy to off-shore companies based in Cyprus?

Does the Commission know that the UN investigators think that these sums were part of the payment for the share in Telekom Serbia (29 %) purchased by Telecom Italia?

Is the Commission in possession of any data which might be of use to the investigations into the financial sources of Milosevic's secret wealth?

What steps will the Commission take to help to shed light on these matters?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

In the absence of economic and financial sanctions imposed by the European Community in line with a common EU position on a third state, European businesses are free to invest in that country. It is worth noting that in the period to which the Honourable Member seems to refer the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not subject to an investment ban under Community law. Generally, there is no specific ‘go-ahead’ or ‘authorisation’ or ‘encouragement’ by Union institutions for investments made outside the Union.

Although liaising closely with the respective institutions, the Commission is not in a position to comment on specific details of investigations undertaken by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and other law enforcement bodies on this matter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/87

(2004/C 84 E/0102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3707/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Florence

With reference to question E-0963/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Florence (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
3. and 4.

The Commission is monitoring, by inspections of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), that the Member States execute their competence in accordance with the relevant Community legislation. Article 7 of Directive 97/78/EC of the Council of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), states clearly that customs authorities shall not allow the importation of animal products unless proof is supplied that the relevant sanitary checks have been carried out with satisfactory results, and that the relevant veterinary entry document has been issued. The Commission has not identified important shortcomings concerning the co-operation between the custom services and the sanitary authorities in this respect. The Commission has also adopted a number of decisions to ensure that the Member States test certain products from certain third countries for some banned substances, such as chloramphenicol and nitrofurans, with an agreed frequency and that all Member States test for these substances to a very high level of performance. The FVO, at the end of 2002, has carried out a range of missions to Member States to inspect that Community legislation applicable to import checks and related safeguard measures is correctly applied. Through the RASFF, the Member State involved informs all the other Member States and the Commission of its rejection and the follow-up decision concerning the consignment. With this internal notification system, the inspections by the Commission, the described harmonisation and the obligation of Member States to destroy consignments in certain cases, the Commission is confident that the risk of circuitous routes at import as described in the question is contained.