ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/451

(2004/C 78 E/0475)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3265/03

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 October 2003)

Subject: Info-Points and Carrefours

In its resolution of 13 March 2002 Parliament called on the European institutions to step up and improve support for the existing information networks, including the Info-Points and Carrefours. On 10 April 2003, in a follow-up resolution, Parliament drew attention to the need for extra efforts to be made in 2004 in the area of communication and information about European policies.

The Info-Points and Carrefours are the information centres which are closest to hand for the general public. In view of the elections, the enlargement and the adoption of the new European Constitution, all of which are set to take place in 2004, it is essential that these centres should be working flat out. However, the Commission has decided to abolish the operating subsidies for these centres as from 1 January 2004.

Can the Commission state why the annual operating subsidies for the Info-Points and Carrefours are being discontinued as from 1 January 2004?

Can the Commission give valid reasons for taking this step at such short notice?

Has the Commission made provision for transitional arrangements to help the Info-Points and Carrefours cope with 2004, which will be a difficult year?

When does the Commission plan to put forward practical proposals regarding support for the information centres in the future?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/525

(2004/C 78 E/0546)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3341/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Albania

Can the Commission say whether the observers at the recent elections in Albania pointed to any significant anomalies, in particular whether:

— the new electoral lists were corrected, following numerous complaints, in time to ensure transparent elections with full participation by the population;

— the procedure for the reorganisation of the central electoral committee was followed correctly;

— the rights of the opposition were respected?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

Significant shortcomings have been identified during the last local elections in Albania, most notably during the post-election period and the issuing of the results. The re-run of elections in the Himara region on 16 November demonstrated that Albania still needs to make considerable efforts in order to guarantee full compliance with electoral standards. In early December, the Albanian Electoral Court requested the re-run of the elections in 118 voting centres in Tirana (over 30 % of the voting centres of the capital). The re-runs will take place on 28 December.

A major issue identified during the elections has been that of the voters' lists. On request of the opposition parties, the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) made last minute amendments to these lists. However, these amendments were not sufficient to guarantee satisfactory accuracy of the lists. In addition, changes were made too late, and voters were not properly informed. This led to a certain degree of confusion on the Election Day.

The reorganisation of the CEC in the run-up to the elections was controversial. Although the CEC seemed to have taken generally balanced positions during the elections, the recent decision of the Electoral Court as regards the elections in Tirana casts a shadow on the CEC's performance.

There have been efforts to respect the rights of the opposition, and the appeal procedures have been used. The request for re-runs in Tirana and the CEC's decision to change results in Himara due to serious manipulations are good examples. However, it is clear that all political actors in Albania need to be more willing, more determined and more committed to guaranteeing the successful conduct of democratic elections in the country.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/854

(2004/C 78 E/0907)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3750/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the LIFE III programme by the municipality of Florence

In its answer to question E-1049/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted projects and secured funding under the LIFE III programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted but they had not been funded.

Can the Commission say why the projects submitted were not considered suitable?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the two proposals submitted by the municipality of Firenze under the LIFE III Programme for 2002 were not co-financed.

Proposal LIFE02 ENV/IT/000074 failed criterion 3 ‘Coherence and quality’. The beneficiary was informed in the Commission's letter of 2 September 2002.

Although proposal LIFE02 ENV/IT/000087 passed the selection criteria, its score was insufficiently high, relative to other proposals to qualify for co-financing. The beneficiary was informed in our letter of 2 September 2002.

The municipality of Firenze did not submit any proposals in 2000 or 2003.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 104.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/546

(2004/C 78 E/0580)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3432/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

The reasons adduced to explain the situation Eurostat finds itself in include the fact that there are not enough staff to tackle the increased responsibilities. Can the Commission justify the requests for more staff submitted by Eurostat and the provisions approved by the budgetary authority?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/419

(2004/C 88 E/0426)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2576/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: ‘Enlargement Weekly’ only in English

The Commission web site quite correctly pays attention to the enlargement process that the European Union is currently undergoing. A separate home page is even devoted to enlargement, which includes a feature entitled ‘Enlargement Weekly’. In its own words, the newsletter provides ‘an overview of where European enlargement has got to, who's doing what in the EU, in the institutions and the candidate countries, and how the main challenges are being met’.

Unlike the remainder of the web site which, quite correctly, appears in all the official languages of the European Union, ‘Enlargement Weekly’ is, however, available only in English.

What are the grounds for this linguistic restriction?

Is the Commission planning to have the newsletter translated into all the official languages? If so, when will the relevant texts be available in the other official languages of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Increasing the multi-lingual nature of the Enlargement website has been a priority since its relaunch in 2002. The first priority was to provide in all Community languages the main pages, main texts, and those parts of the website, which are not subject to continuous revision, as is the case in much of the enlargement process. This is an ongoing process. The Enlargement Weekly Newsletter to which the Honourable Member refers is not an official document of the Commission, but an element of the Communication Strategy on enlargement that the Commission makes publicly available as it is specified in the text at the bottom of the web page. It is produced every week on Monday in order to give a continuous and rapidly available account of the main developments in the enlargement process. A summary of the main items is e-mailed the following day to approximately 20 000 persons around the world who are subscribed to it. Therefore, it requires a rapid production, which would inevitably be delayed and more expensive if more than one language version were required. It is only because of these reasons that the production in only one language is used in this specific case.

There are no plans to produce any other linguistic versions of the newsletter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/48

(2004/C 84 E/0054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3060/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Cost of Turkey joining the EU

The Osteuropa-Institut, the Munich-based Institute for East European Studies, estimates that Turkey's membership of the European Union would cost EUR 5,2 billion a year at the start of EU membership. The amount would increase to EUR 14 billion a year by the time Turkey was fully integrated into the Union.

Has the Commission seen the preliminary results of this study?

Has the Commission made its own calculations of the cost of Turkey joining the EU? If so, what were its findings? How do the costs of Turkey's membership compare with those for the ten new accession States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the study to which the Honourable Member refers but has not seen the detailed results. Such estimates depend on a large number of hypotheses, such as the timing of possible accession, rates of economic development and the outcome of accession negotiations. The Commission considers that it is not possible to define in detail a number of hypotheses which would be necessary for any such calculation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/904

(2004/C 78 E/0955)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4049/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: GM products

Is there any rule requiring establishments serving food to the public to indicate the use of products containing GM substances when the latter exceed the threshold laid down by the relevant legislation?

If not, does the Commission consider that legislation imposing such a requirement should be introduced in the interests of fair trading and food safety?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Neither the Community legislation in force (1) nor the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (2), which will apply from April 2004, include any obligation on restaurants or mass caterers to label as such foods obtained from, or containing ingredients obtained from, genetically modified organisms.

The new rules on labelling of foods containing GM material, and in particular Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, apply to foods delivered as such to final consumers or mass caterers. This means they apply only to foods which are delivered by mass caterers to consumers in their original state; on the other hand, the labelling obligations do not apply to foods subjected to processing or preparation.

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides the possibility of adopting, through the committee procedure, specific rules concerning the information to be provided by mass caterers supplying food to final consumers. As yet, no such action has been taken.

The broader question of the information to be provided to consumers by catering establishments is being addressed as part of the general review of food labelling legislation.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced by genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC, OJ L 6, 11.1.2000.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/543

(2004/C 78 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3416/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

With reference to recent developments in the Eurostat scandal, is the Commission's commitment to pursuing a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ towards those responsible still valid?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/136

(2004/C 78 E/0138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 1998. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data.

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201):

(a) the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1998: — 346 233 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 233 566,63 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,67/kg;

(b) the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1998: — 314 600 kg were exported from Holland, 240100 kg from Italy, 329 600 from Ireland and 74 700 kg from Belgium to the VCS;

(c) this indicates that: — unwarranted aid of EUR 21 339,43 was paid on an additional 31 633 kg not shown in the OECD data; — no application was made for aid of EUR 434 708,24 for the export of 644 400 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

(1) OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/107

(2004/C 88 E/0112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2615/03

by Philip Claeys (Nl) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject: New responsibilities for Commissioner Verheugen

Commissioner Günther Verheugen is being given a new area of responsibility. His duties will now include relations with the EU's new neighbouring states, namely Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Morocco. This was formerly the responsibility of the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten.

Why has this area of responsibility been transferred from Commissioner Patten to Commissioner Verheugen?

Does the Commission also intend to combine relations with other neighbouring states under the heading of ‘enlargement’ rather than external relations?

Does the Commission not fear that placing relations with the above countries under the aegis of Commissioner Verheugen, who is generally known as having special responsibility for EU enlargement, could raise misplaced expectations among the countries concerned? Such a step may give the impression that they, too, might qualify for accession to the EU. In what terms were the countries concerned informed of Commissioner Verheugen's new responsibilities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Following the conclusion of accession negotiations with ten Acceding States at Copenhagen in December 2002, the Commission has set out an ambitious vision for upgrading political and economic relations with the Eastern and Southern neighbours of the enlarged Union (1). This was welcomed by the Council, as well as by the European Council in Thessaloniki in June 2003. On 9 July 2003, the Commission decided on internal arrangements for its work in this regard. Relations with all countries neighbouring the enlarged Union remain the responsibility of the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations. The Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement will lead the Commission's work on Wider Europe, and provide political guidance to a task force consisting of officials from the Directorates-General for External Relations and Enlargement. This will ensure the Union's contribution to the creation of an area of shared prosperity and stability around the enlarged Union, making use of the experience the Commission has gained in assisting Acceding States to prepare for accession wherever applicable. It reflects the Commission's view that, in return for concrete progress demonstrating shared values and effective implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms, all these neighbouring countries should be offered the prospect of a stake in the Union's internal market, as well as other advanced forms of co-operation in key fields of mutual interest.

The countries concerned have been informed through diplomatic channels.

(1) COM(2003) 104 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/544

(2004/C 78 E/0568)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3420/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Can the Commission clarify the meaning of the statement it made on 25 September regarding Commissioner Solbes, who it said was guilty of passivity in the Eurostat case? Can it say whether this is to be considered as a lack of political control? How many times, since 1999, has Commissioner Solbes had contact with the Directorate-General for Eurostat?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/88

(2004/C 88 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2504/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Double taxation of returning migrants

In April 2001 Frits Bolkestein drew attention to double taxation of pensions and, citing one specific instance in which discrimination arose, mentioned the different taxation practices applying to Finnish and Swedish pensions in particular. Has the Commission acted to remedy the shortcomings and what results has it achieved since 2001?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

In its Communication on pension taxation of April 2001 (1), the Commission identified the elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions as a priority. The Finnish and the Swedish rules on taxation of pensions have since been subject to preliminary rulings by the Court of Justice (2). In both cases the Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer, striking down on rules restricting the taxpayer's right of deduction for cross-border pension contributions in comparison to domestic contributions. The Commission will closely monitor which modifications Finland and Sweden will be making to their tax legislation following the rulings.

In this context, it should also be mentioned that the Commission has decided to refer Denmark to the Court of Justice and has opened infringement procedures against seven other Member States (3). Two of these seven have already informed the Commission that they will take steps to modify their legislation.

(1) OJ C 165, 8.6.2001.

(2) The Danner case C-136/00, judgement of 3.10.2002, and the Skandia/Ramstedt case C-422/01, judgement of 26.6.2003.

(3) See IP/03/179 and IP/03/965.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/142

(2004/C 78 E/0146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2639/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1998

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

(a) the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1998: — 110 kg were exported from France to the VCS with a refund of EUR 44,18, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,40/kg; — 727 700 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 315 365,71, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,43/kg;

(b) the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1998: — 1 371 000 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that: — unwarranted aid of EUR 44,18 was paid on an additional 110 kg not shown in the OECD data; — no application was made for aid of EUR 278 789,01 for the export of 643 300 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

(1) OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/339

(2004/C 88 E/0345)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1180/03

by Marco Pannella (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Secret Vietnamese prison set up next to the Cambodian border for the detention of Montagnards repatriated after having requested asylum; cases of arrest, torture and disappearance

Various independent observers have reported that the Vietnamese government has set up a secret prison on the border with Cambodia in Mokdeng district, Pleiku province, where the 773rd military division and the 721st military brigade are detaining 28 Montagnard (Degar) refugees repatriated by Cambodia.

On 12 February 2003, the Vietnamese police arrested, and took to the prison in Buonmathuot, N'Gran (39 years old, from Buon Dak R'la, Dak Mil district, Dak Lac province) because he was in possession of a mobile phone which, according to the government, was used to maintain contacts with Montagnards in the US; his physical condition is unknown.

On 13 February 2003, at about 10 p.m., the Vietnamese police arrested Y-Dhem Nie (36 years old, from Buon Ea Kao, Buonmathuot district, Dak Lac province) because he had given food to another two Degars who were in hiding in the jungle; his whereabouts and condition are unknown.

On 14 February 2003 the police arrested, in Buonmathuot, Y-Suar (33 years old, from Buon Jun Yuh, Dak Mil district, Dak Lac province); his physical condition is unknown.

On 17 February 2003 Y-Yan Buon Ya (37) and H'Powel Nie (31), a married couple, fled into the jungle to avoid being arrested by the security forces, leaving at home their two children H'Nong Nie (9) and Y-Le Nie (6).

On 22 February 2003, at about 11 a.m., the Vietnamese police arrested and took to Buonmathuot prison Y-Dhun Eban (42, from Buon Krue, Krong Ana district, Dak Lac province), who had gone into hiding to avoid arrest. On the following day his sister H'Nget Eban and her husband Y-Lia Ken, both 28 years old, were arrested and taken to Buonmathuot prison because they were suspected of having given assistance to Y-Dhun Eban.

In view of the foregoing detailed information, would the Commission state:

1. whether it intends to ask the Vietnamese Government to explain why Montagnards are being systematically arrested and maltreated by the security forces?