ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/223

(2004/C 65 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2820/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Separate registration numbers for trailers

The Netherlands have introduced a new law requiring each trailer (i.e. large trailer, small trailer, caravan, etc.) to have its own separate and unique registration plate fixed in the usual place.

The UK is one of two EU Member States that does not have a separate registration system for trailers.

I understand that the Dutch authorities are to require UK hauliers to apply for a temporary Dutch registration number called a ‘BO number’ in order to carry goods/cargo through the country.

The UK has a perfectly good system of ID numbers, which are unique to each trailer, which permit the authorities to trace trailers and their ownership.

Does the Commission regard the imposition of extra registration requirements by Member States on hauliers who adhere to the registration requirements of their home Member States as a barrier to the free movement of people and goods within the EU?

If so, what does the Commission intend to do to stop this?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

The Commission was not yet aware of the new Dutch law requiring each trailer which is not separately registered, to obtain a temporary Dutch registration number in order to carry goods/cargo through the Netherlands. Moreover, it seems, on the basis of the information currently available, that the registration procedure is not accessible to hauliers established in another Member State.

The Commission needs to examine this new law more closely in order to check its compatibility with the principles of free movement of goods and transport services. If necessary, the Commission may start infringement proceedings against the Netherlands in order to remove any unjustified obstacles to the free movement of goods and transport services, which could result from this new law.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of any further important development in this matter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/187

(2004/C 65 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2673/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: VAT on repairs to old buildings

The trial period during which Member States may charge a lower VAT rate for highly labour-intensive services, including repair work on old buildings, is due to expire on 31 December 2003.

Given the current economic woes, and especially the rise in the Union's average unemployment rate, there are strong reasons to make the experiment an established practice. Competition among Member States has, moreover, hardly been distorted, because the type of services in question, which are essentially of a local nature, are difficult to relocate.

Can the Commission say whether, as seems desirable, it will submit a proposal at the end of the year whereby Member States would be authorised on a permanent basis to charge the lower VAT rate for building repairs?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2003)

The Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced VAT rates (1) on 23 July this year proposing that Member States be allowed to apply a reduced rate to the supply, construction, conversion, renovation, repair, maintenance or cleaning of private dwellings. Consequently, a reduced rate can continue to be applied to the repair of old buildings provided they are used as private dwellings.

The optional nature of these reduced rates has never been called into question and Member States are free to decide on the sectors to which they wish to apply these rates.

After Parliament has given its opinion the Council will have to decide by unanimity on the future scope of reduced VAT rates.

(1) COM(2003) 397 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/203

(2004/C 88 E/0211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0675/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Transfrontier Shipments of Waste Regulation

What reply, if any, has the Commission received from Ireland in response to the letter of formal notice sent to Ireland in April 2003, as announced in IP/03/544, regarding the Irish Government's failure to cooperate with the Commission's request for information on how Ireland has complied with the Transfrontier Waste Shipment Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1), following a complaint about irregularities in the required paperwork for waste exports from Ireland?

What action has the Commission taken or is it considering in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

An Irish response to the Commission letter of formal notice referred to by the Honourable Member was received in June 2003. This response was considered as having brought to an end the infringement for non-cooperation based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty, and no further action is currently contemplated on this ground. The Commission is still considering the substantive issues raised by the complaint.

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/848

(2004/C 84 E/0942)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Preserves and olive oil

The Community's Mediterranean countries are the world's largest olive oil producers. This sensitive product, one of the Mediterranean area's major agricultural crops, is used for a considerable range of preserved, semi-preserved and prepared fish and seafood, either as the liquid in which these products are preserved, or as an ingredient, since it has significant nutritional qualities, and on foreign markets, has become a synonym for quality and healthy eating.

1. The elimination of reimbursements for olive oil used in producing preserves will considerably increase production costs for preserved, semi-preserved and other prepared fish and seafood. Has the Commission actually quantified the prejudice and losses which this kind of measure will cause? If so, what are the figures?

2. What mechanisms has the Commission provided for in order to ensure that the possible elimination of these reimbursements does not mean a loss of competitiveness, production, jobs and immediate market share on the part of the Community preserves industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member himself indicates, foods using olive oil are increasingly valued by consumers for their nutritional and organoleptic properties and have now become a symbol of quality and healthy eating. The promotional campaigns mounted by the Community for many years have undoubtedly boosted this positive perception of olive oil.

Under present circumstances, with foods using olive oil in great demand by an increasing number of consumers ready to pay a higher price for them, granting a refund is no longer justified. The image of these products is now such that we consider that withdrawal of the aid will result in no reduction of sales and hence have no impact on Community manufacturers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/930

(2004/C 78 E/0984)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0095/04

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject: Public hospital INMI L. Spallanzani in Italy

According to reports in the Italian press, the ultra-modern public hospital in Rome, INMI L. Spallanzani, which specialises in infectious diseases, is gradually being converted into a ‘national security’ medical establishment. This means that it will be equipped — if it has not been already — with maximum security laboratories for combating level 4 bacteria and viruses (Ebola, bacillus etc.).

As the hospital is located in one of the most densely populated areas of Rome, will the Commission say whether the hospital has obtained the necessary certification to operate from international and European organisations, particularly in regard to storing level 4 pathogenic bacteria and viruses? Does the Commission know whether an agreement has been signed between Italy and the USA to combat biological terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Authorisation of hospitals and of their laboratories and any associated certification are matters for the Member States.

There are no requirements for authorisation or notification at European level on this matter; however Bio-Security Level 4 structures usually seek international certification.

A framework agreement concerning co-operation in research between Italy and the United States has been signed and ratified by ordinance DL/22 in January 2004. This framework agreement includes three fields: rare diseases, cancer and bio terrorism.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/371

(2004/C 84 E/0429)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0354/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Funding for the creation of a multi-purpose auditorium

The municipality of Fiuggi in the province of Frosinone is creating a modern multi-purpose auditorium with more than 2 000 seats where theatrical, musical and televised events can be held, as well as conferences and exhibitions.

The project involves the extension and conversion of the existing Teatro delle Fonti, located in the Fonte Anticolana park, and the environmental redevelopment and restoration of the site.

All year round the centre would constitute substantial added value for all the activities connected with the Fiuggi spa centre.

All this will create new jobs and enhance the value of this region of central Italy further, not least because of the above-mentioned park.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. what measures or programmes are envisaged to fund this kind of initiative;

2. whether there are similar initiatives within the EU;

3. whether the Commission itself may sponsor the initiative?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Reference to the Single Programming Document indicating the scope of European Regional Development Fund assistance for Lazio Region in the period 2000-2006 shows that operations of the type referred to by the Honourable Member (provision of cultural service structures of touristic interest) can be aided under Priority III (Development of local systems), specifically Measure III.2 on development of zones of touristic, cultural and environmental interest.

It is the Regional Administration that as managing authority for the Lazio programme is responsible for selecting and overseeing projects and that the Honourable Member will have to approach in connection with eligibility of this particular project for assistance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/861

(2004/C 84 E/0953)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0738/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Regions which are to lose their Structural Fund Objective 1 status

Would the Commission say which regions which currently come under Structural Fund Objective 1 now have an income exceeding 75 % of average Community GDP and will therefore be excluded from that Objective in future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

We adopted our Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion on 19 February 2003. It concluded that on the basis of the 1999, 2000 and 2001 figures available the regions with a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of more than 75 % of the Community (EU 15) average losing their eligibility after 2006 would be: Sterea Ellada and South Aegean (Greece), Castile-Leon, Valencia and Canary Islands (Spain), Border, Midlands and Western (Ireland), Sardinia (Italy), Burgenland (Austria), Madeira (Portugal), East Finland, and South Yorkshire (United Kingdom).

We draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that future eligibility for the ‘convergence’ objective will however be based on the average of the figures for the three most recent years available when the regulatory framework for the Structural Funds is adopted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/226

(2004/C 88 E/0229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0795/04

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Derrybrien wind farm bogslide

Further to the Commission's answer to my question P-3350/03 (1), the reports that were commissioned by ESB subsidiary, Hibernian Wind Power Ltd, and Galway County Council, just published, confirm the responsibility of the wind farm project for the major landslide, and also for several earlier small ones. They identify many areas of the site that are similarly at risk, thereby showing in particular that a landslide directly above the village cannot be excluded due to low stability levels. However, the two reports pay scant attention to the impact of dynamic forces on the peat, and most of the safety analysis appears to be based on static loadings only. Thus the effects of heavy truck and crane movements on floating roads, as well as those of explosives used on site, are effectively ignored. Furthermore, safety as examined is more concerned about on site risks, not off site. These reports are cross-referenced, and show a remarkable consistency, and it is known that the two sets of consultants met on this question, raising further doubts about their real independence.

To help secure the future of wind energy in Ireland, will the Commission now insist that the planning process be undertaken from the beginning, based on a proper and complete EIS relating to the actual project proposed, and also require that any continuation be conditional on a fresh planning approval? Will the Commission assist the locals in commissioning a truly independent study of the project and its impact, as they have proposed, with the primary aim of avoiding further environmental damage and injury or even loss of life, which would surely arise from a landslide above Derrybrien village?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission confirms that, in the framework of several complaints, it has received copies of the two reports referred to by the Honourable Member. It also confirms that it has received further extensive documentation relating to the various development consent procedures that have been followed in connection with the wind-farm project at Derrybrien. Pending the conclusion of its examination of these documents, it would be premature for the Commission to comment in detail on the appropriate next steps to take.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 528.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/954

(2004/C 78 E/1009)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0523/04

by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Second and Third Community Support Frameworks

Will the Commission give the take-up votes for the 2003 estimates for the Member States of the European Union in respect of the Second and Third Community Support Frameworks?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/601

(2004/C 84 E/0676)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0484/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Rural development: less-favoured areas

The European Parliament's report on the recently adopted reform of the common agricultural policy placed particular emphasis on boosting rural development aid for less-favoured areas. Even though the final decision incorporates many of Parliament's demands, it will bring about little improvement in the situation for such areas, since this did not figure among the objectives of the initial Commission proposal.

Bearing in mind that rural development should be one of the Community's cohesion policy instruments, will the Commission improve the treatment given to these regions with a view to the forthcoming reform of the structural funds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Under the reform the average compensatory allowance that can be granted in the less favoured areas has been increased, in cases where this is justified on factual grounds, to a maximum annual amount of EUR 250 per hectare instead of EUR 200 as previously.

Support for investment by young farmers has been boosted in the less favoured rural areas since they are a key factor in their development: under the new provisions of Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) the maximum total aid, as a percentage of the eligible investment volume, has risen from 55 % to 60 %. This provision is applicable for a period of five years from setting up.

Support under Article 16 for farmers in less favoured areas who are subject to restrictions in connection with the ‘Birds’ (2) and ‘Habitat’ (3) Directives can be raised to EUR 500 per hectare in warranted cases where specific problems are faced. This higher support is granted annually on a degressive basis for not more than five years from the date on which the new restrictions become mandatory in line with Community legislation.

All the rural development measures, including the compensatory allowance for less favoured areas, will be re-examined in preparation for the Regulation on rural development support during the programming period after 2006.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/325

(2004/C 84 E/0381)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0172/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Could the Commission confirm that general rules on the valuation of stocks are applied without any exception throughout the Commission?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/935

(2004/C 84 E/1033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1042/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Pensions: discrimination against private pensions

Can the Commission clarify why third pillar pensions (personal pensions, group personal pensions and stakeholder pensions) are to be included within the scope of the proposed directive on equal treatment between women and men in access to and supply of goods and services (1) when second pillar pensions (occupational pensions) are not? Will the Commission accept that this is discrimination against the private sector?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission's proposal for a Council Directive based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services prohibits the use of sex-based actuarial factors in insurance services and private (third pillar) pension schemes.

Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 27 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (2) (as amended by Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 (3)) permits the use of sex-based actuarial factors in occupational (second pillar) pension schemes. These Directives are based on Article 141 of the EC Treaty because they relate to matters of employment and occupation.

The proposal for a Council Directive based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty does not apply to second pillar pensions, because these are a matter for legislation adopted under Article 141 of the EC Treaty.

(1) COM(2003)0657 final - C5-0654/2003.

(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1986.

(3) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/717

(2004/C 88 E/0737)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Israeli nuclear arms

Can the Commission outline its position on Israel's failure to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the lack of scrutiny by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, IAEA, of Israel's nuclear programme?

What steps are the Commission and Member States taking to create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Signature of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is on a voluntary basis.

The EU Strategy against the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, adopted in December 2003, reflects the very high priority the Union puts on multilateral non-proliferation and disarmament Treaties and Conventions. One specific action of the Strategy refers to a diplomatic démarche to foster adherence, compliance and universalisation of Treaties and Conventions. The EU and the Commission use every opportunity to recall to Israel the importance of confidence building at regional level.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/183

(2004/C 88 E/0189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Bangladesh

Mindful of the amendment of the 2003 Human Rights Report concerning the Pakistani governments inaction over the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in that country, the Parliament called on the Pakistani government to prevent any further persecution of this minority in the future.

In light of this 2003 Human Rights Report amendment, is the Commission aware that the government of Bangladesh has similarly been appeasing extreme religious groups, who have initiated a campaign of persecution against the Ahmadi Muslim community?

If so, what action will the Commission take to prevent a repetition of what happened in Pakistan in 1974 (i.e. bowing to the demands of fanatical groups resulting in over three decades of sustained persecution and murder of the Ahmadi Muslims and destruction of mosques) from occurring in Bangladesh today?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

Both the Commission and the Member States are very concerned by the deteriorating human rights situation of minorities in Bangladesh, including the Ahmadia Muslims. Following the attacks on the Ahmadia Muslim community at the end of 2003, a local EU Troika called on the Government on 23 December 2003 to express the EU's concerns regarding the violation of minority rights.

As the promotion of democratic principles and the respect for human rights constitute essential elements of the Commission's relations with the country, it intends to raise the issue at the next Commission-Bangladesh Joint Commission Subgroup meeting, tentatively scheduled in May 2004. Such meetings provide a formal platform for a structured dialogue on Human Rights and Governance issues. Furthermore, the Commission expects the international donor community to voice its concerns at the next annual Bangladesh Development Forum, also to be held in May 2004.

The Commission also plans to increase its support to specific human rights and governance activities in 2005 and 2006, in the framework of the review of the National Indicative Programme for Bangladesh. At the same time, it continues to monitor very closely the human rights situation through its Delegation in Dhaka.