ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/608

(2004/C 88 E/0628)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: EU/UN World Food Programme figures

What are the figures for EU cash given to the UN World Food Programme for emergency relief in southern Africa (Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Lesotho) for the years 2001 and 2002?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Direct cash allocations to World Food Programme (WFP) from the Food Security Budget Line (FSBL) (B7-20) for local and regional purchases of food aid to Southern Africa have been made since April 2002 for Zimbabwe and Zambia on 2001 and 2002 budget for a total amount of EUR 72,5 million worth 157 900 tonnes of food aid and detailed as follows:

Country/Budget year 2001 Budget (from FSBL B7-20) 2002 Budget (from FSBL B7-20) Total (from FSBL Β 7-20) (EUR) (million tonnes) (EUR) (million tonnes) (EUR) (million tonnes) Zimbabwe 10 500 000 19 300 42 000 000 93 500 52 500 000 112 800 Zambia 20 000 000 45 100 20 000 000 45 100 Total 2002 southern Africa 10 500 000 19 300 62 000 000 138 600 72 500 000 157 900

In Malawi, the Community food aid is allocated to the Government (direct aid) which is using WFP for distribution operations; in 2002, around EUR 6,0 million have been contracted locally to WFP by the Government of Malawi from Community contributions.

From the budget line B7-210 of the general budget of the Community an amount of EUR 10,4 million was provided to the World Food Programme in 2002 as humanitarian assistance. No humanitarian assistance was provided to WFP in 2001 to the five countries in question.

The 2002 humanitarian assistance can be detailed as follows:

— Malawi: EUR 320 000 was provided to WFP for the purpose of fortifying 1 000 MT of maize and distributing this to therapeutic feeding centers;

— Zambia: EUR 5 000 000 was provided to WFP for the purpose of supplying 12 000 MT of food assistance to 114 000 refugees in six refugee camps in Zambia;

— Zimbabwe:EUR 5 112 090 was provided to WFP for the purpose of strengthening the capacity of WFP and partners to distribute food, in particular the strengthening of targeting of beneficiaries, registration of beneficiaries, monitoring and post-distribution monitoring.

In addition, there have been cash contributions from Members States through WFP.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/55

(2004/C 78 E/0053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1910/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject: Underground storage of nuclear waste

On 6 November 2002 the Commission published a communication to Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Nuclear safety in the European Union’ (1). In it the Commission says that underground storage of nuclear waste is the safest solution. The Member States are required to have identified underground storage locations by 2008 and to have brought them into operation by 2018.

The Commission also says that storage must take place in geologically stable rock formations but the nuclear waste must be retrievable. In the case of underground storage in salt domes in Groningen and Drenthe in the Netherlands this is impossible because the clay and salt deposits in the Netherlands are not in geologically stable rock formations as referred to the communication.

On 12 May 2003 State-Secretary Van Geel gave a reaction to these proposals, on behalf of the Netherlands Cabinet, in a letter to the Second Chamber saying that there was no question of underground storage in the Netherlands over the next hundred years. He also said that the deadlines for implementing the proposals were unrealistic.

What is the Commission's reaction to the various points raised in State-Secretary Van Geel's letter, including the statement that there is no question of underground storage in the Netherlands in the next 100 years?

Can the Commission indicate how it intends to deal with salt and clay formations that do not have the geological structure referred to in the communication, such as the salt domes in Groningen and Drenthe?

Is the Commission prepared to revise its proposals?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The PAGIS study conducted within the Community Research Framework Programme showed the widespread distribution of suitable host rock formations throughout the Union. These are specifically clay, salt and crystalline rocks. The PAGIS study specifically mentioned the existence of potentially suitable salt formations in the Netherlands.

Concerning retrievability, as geological disposal is based on the ‘concentrate and contain’ strategy, the packages containing the radioactive waste could, under normal conditions, be retrievable for many years after emplacement of the waste in repositories in geological formations.

The Commission considers that the current proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (2) already offer significant flexibility to allow for differences between Member States. The Commission has made it clear that it is ready to continue the discussions on its proposals with the Member States in the Council to see if such flexibility might be further enhanced.

(1) COM(2002) 605 final.

(2) COM(2003) 32 final.
3.

The report says that ‘facilitating labor mobility between source and destination countries is perhaps the most crucial — and controversial — means of increasing remittance flows to developing countries’. This may be true, but this is not, in the view of the Commission in itself a reason to favour an increase of international labour mobility. Seen from the perspective of developing countries, international migration may lead to negative ‘brain drain’ phenomena, as it is already the case in several sectors and regions (e.g. the medical profession in African countries). While the net effect for developing countries does not need to be negative as output losses from the migration of skilled workers are to some extent offset by gains from remittances and network effects (business contacts, investments, technological help, support to education, etc.), migration needs to be managed very carefully. There are well known domestic reasons for the Union not to opt for a fully liberalised international labour market. Its migration policy is and will continue to be based on the concept of migration management, which allows, inter alia, for the creation of synergies between development and migration policy objectives. On the specific subject of migrants' remittances, one of the aspects where — e.g. in the context of development cooperation — meaningful support may be given is to make the transfer of remittances cheaper and more reliable. The report mentions the fact that the cost of transferring remittances often exceeds 20 %. Reducing such costs to less than 10 % would — according to the report — imply an annual saving of EUR 3,5 billion to migrant workers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/5

(2004/C 88 E/0005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0086/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Killing of children in Honduras

Can the Commission tell me what action, if any, it can take to address the killing of children in Honduras, following disturbing reports that 64 Honduran children and young people under the age of 23 were murdered during the month of December 2002?

Can the Commission please detail what aid it has offered or can offer and what practical steps it is taking or will take to stop the random murders of children and young people throughout the country, as there is evidence that the Honduran Government has not been able to protect its nation's children despite their promises to do so?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/760

(2004/C 78 E/0808)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2875/03

by Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 September 2003)

Subject: Situation of migrants and asylum-seekers in Malta

A number of reports from reliable sources, such as the Maltese Jesuit Refugee Service, suggest that asylum-seekers in Malta are being detained in deplorable, if not wretched, conditions for periods of up to 18 months.

According to official Maltese sources, about 400 people, most of them asylum-seekers, are incarcerated solely because they entered Maltese territory illegally. They are also being held without being given any information on the likely outcome of their cases.

Is the Council aware of the very worrying situation of migrants and asylum-seekers in Malta?

Does the Council recognise that such a situation is in breach of international law, and in particular the European Human Rights Convention and the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees?

Now that there are only a few months to go before Malta joins the European Union, what does the Council intend to do to ensure that Malta complies with its international obligations and the existing body of Union legislation in this sphere?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council is aware of the limited reception capacity for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers in Malta, which has led to overcrowding. The Council underlines, however, that although a suitable solution has yet to be found, the Maltese authorities are making efforts to ensure that reception conditions for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers are as decent as circumstances allow, given the sheer pressure of numbers. In this context, the conditions under which asylum-seekers are held must be evaluated in close connection with Malta's real (and limited) reception ability.

It should be noted, however, that the Council will monitor closely the situation regarding the reception conditions for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers in Malta, as it is doing for all the acceding States, in order to ensure that the requirements of the acquis are being met. This monitoring will continue until the day of accession. Furthermore, the situation in reception centres is also expected to be covered in the Commission's comprehensive monitoring reports on each acceding State's preparations for accession to be presented to the Council on 5 November 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/270

(2004/C 78 E/0270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3352/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Single Market rules

You will be familiar with the plans of the British Government to ban hunting with hounds in England and Wales (a ban of sorts already exists in Scotland). The likely effect of such a ban would be to drive hunt followers to visit other EU countries where fox-hunting is still legal, for example Ireland, to pursue their sport.

Given the considerable commercial implications of country sports like fox-hunting, there appears to be a ‘prima facie’ case that a hunting ban in England and Wales would create a serious distortion of trade, both in tourism and in the equestrian business, and thus breach the spirit if not the letter of the Single Market.

Please may I have the Commission's views on this question?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member in his question, the Commission does not see how any future decision by the British Government to ban hunting with hounds in England and Wales would be incompatible with Single Market rules.

More specifically, the mere fact that this type of activity is legal in other Member States and the economic repercussions that such a decision could have are not, as such, sufficient to identify an infringement of the Treaty in this instance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/363

(2004/C 78 E/0383)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1272/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Discrimination in the treatment of citizens of EU Member States by the Turkish government

Is the Commission aware that there is discrimination between Netherlands and German citizens with regard to the fee charged for a residence permit in Turkey, i.e. EUR 277 for by Netherlands citizens and EUR 60 for Germans for the same permit?

Does the Commission know how much the Turkish government charges citizens of other EU Member States for a residence permit?

If the Commission prepared to bring pressure to bear on the Turkish authorities with a view to ending this discrimination against Netherlands citizens, and possibly citizens of other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission is aware that different fees are charged for residence permits according to the nationality of Union citizens and intends to take this issue up in the context of its regular contacts with the Turkish authorities.

A new law on Work Permit for Foreigners' was adopted by the Turkish Parliament on 27 February 2003. The law states that Union citizens will be granted a work permit without any time limitation in Turkey. Union citizens with a work permit will automatically be granted a residence permit covering the same period. The law also sets fixed fee rates for work permits to be issued to all foreigners (regardless of their nationality). The provisions in the recently adopted law may have implications on fee rates applied for residence permits.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/663

(2004/C 88 E/0681)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Reform of the support system for ACP banana producers

It became clear during the debate held at Parliament's part-session in September 2003 on the report on the special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas (A5-0164/2003) that the current support system for banana producers in the ACP countries fails to meet the most basic requirements as regards transparency and objectivity, and that banana producers in Côte d'Ivoire are unacceptably placed at a disadvantage.

When will the Commission propose the necessary amendments to the rules in force?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The individual amounts being allocated annually to each traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) banana supplier are calculated in accordance with the criteria set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 (1). In particular, the cost, insurance, freight (CIF) price as shown in the Eurostat statistics is used as a benchmark to measure the competitiveness gap between ACP and third countries suppliers, whereas the importance of the banana sector in the economy of the countries concerned is reflected by fixed calculation factors listed in the Commission Regulation. This calculation basis is uniform for all beneficiaries and thereby ensures transparency and objectivity.

Recently representatives of the banana growers on the Ivory Coast have approached the Commission and expressed their concern about the method used when establishing the relevant data on import into the Community. The Commission is looking further into the matter and will also be discussing the issue with the Member States' customs administrations in the near future.

This has been communicated to the banana growers organisation on the Ivory Coast (OCAB) in recent correspondence.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 establishing a special framework of assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas, OJ L 190, 23.7.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/640

(2004/C 78 E/0677)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3754/03

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 Livorno

In its answer to question E-1020/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Livorno 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 84/58

(2004/C 84 E/0065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3234/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Export of lottery tickets from one country to another

Plans by some Member States to market their own state lottery tickets in other Member States and in non-EU countries presuppose a change in the nature of such export transactions, hitherto deemed to be illegal.

Some of these lotteries offer very attractive prizes, which is why citizens in other Member States seek to buy tickets for them in their own countries.

Can the Commission say which Community rules could be applied to the free marketing of state lottery tickets throughout the EU and what could be done to overcome the problem posed by the fact that the sale of lottery tickets outside the issuing Member State is currently considered illegal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

According to the judgement of the Court of Justice, marketing of a state lottery should be examined under Article 49 of the EC Treaty (free movement of services): in the Schindler case (C-275/92), the Court ruled in fact that the offer into a Member State of advertisements and tickets of a lottery operated in another Member State relates to a ‘service’ within the meaning of the EC Treaty.

It is not entirely clear whether it refers to restrictions from the country of origin to the export of national lottery tickets (in this case, it might be useful to make also reference, by analogy, to the Court decision in the Alpine case, C-34/93, concerning financial services) and/or to restrictions from a recipient country to the import of foreign lottery tickets (which was the case in the Schindler case).

A complete legal assessment of the issue can be carried out only on a case by case basis, according to the specific circumstances of each situation, however, it can be noted that the existing jurisprudence does not suggest, as the Honourable Member implies, that such activities would necessarily be illegal.

From a general point of view, it is true that the Court has recognised, in the Schindler case, that national authorities could have a degree of latitude to impose restrictions on the sale of lottery tickets issued by another country to protect consumers and, more generally, in the light of the specific social and cultural features of each Member State, to maintain order in society, as regards the manner in which lotteries are operated, the size of the stakes, and the allocation of the profits they yield.

However, it has to be considered that in that case the relevant national authority did not operate a national lottery and applied this ban to all such services in a non-discriminatory fashion. Moreover, the Court has recently refined its doctrine both in the Gambelli case (C-243/01), where it has stated that restrictions in the area of gambling must serve to limit such activities in a consistent and systematic manner, and in the Lindman case (C-42/02), where it has clarified the need for a Member State to demonstrate the appropriateness and proportionality of such restrictive measures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/132

(2004/C 78 E/0134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2597/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject: Natural disaster alert in Italy

The drought which has hit the Mediterranean area in the last few weeks is having alarming consequences in Italy: natural water resources are running low, with increasingly serious knock-on effects for agriculture and for the supply of hydroelectric power stations. The Italian civil protection authorities are about to submit a report to the government which will speak of a full-blown natural disaster.

The agriculture minister estimates the losses to agriculture at several million euros already, and the civil protection authorities predict that unless rain comes, by the end of July sprinkling by farmers will have exhausted the water reserves.

The water level of the large rivers and lakes which feed the hydroelectric power stations has fallen considerably: in some parts of the north, certain major tributaries of the Po have dried up completely. The regions of Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna have declared a state of emergency, and Lombardy and Veneto are about to follow suit.

The continuity of electricity supply can no longer be ensured at all times: rationing and blackouts are being resorted to, but such measures are not sufficient to guarantee electricity supply between now and the hoped-for autumn rains.

In view of the seriousness of the situation, and pursuant to the Council Regulation of 15 November 2002 setting up the Solidarity Fund for natural disasters, can the Commission state:

1. whether the present disaster alert in Italy qualifies for recognition under Articles 2 and 3 of that Regulation?

2. whether Italy meets the requirements for applying for a grant from the Solidarity Fund?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission is greatly concerned as to the scale of damage that is being caused by the ongoing drought in Italy. It sympathises with all the affected persons, including the regions referred of Piedmont, Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy and Veneto.

The Honourable Member is referred to her Written Question P-2591/03 (1). The response to this question explains in detail issues of eligibility and the necessary information that the national authorities must provide to the Commission when making an application for support from the Solidarity Fund.

(1) See page 131.
1.

The Commission is aware that the Government of the German Land of Northrhine-Westphalia is preparing a new Landesbank-law, which intends to convert the current Landesbank into a pure public development bank. The draft law has been examined by the Commission services and — after taking into account the Commission services' comments — found to be a correct implementation of the Commission Decision of 27 March 2002 (1). This has also been the case with the other submitted German laws on public development banks to be amended in the light of this Commission decision. In strict compliance with Commission Decision of 27 March 2002 recommending appropriate measures to Germany regarding ‘Anstaltslast’ and ‘Gewährträgerhaftung’, this amendment will allow the new pure public development bank to keep the state guarantees for the refinancing of its public developments tasks, in particular, the fulfilment of the public promotional activities in compliance with the state aid rules of the Community. On the basis of the information available, the new public development bank will then be in the same position to keep state guarantees for their public tasks as about a dozen other German public development banks, including KfW. Despite its name of Landesbank (which is actually envisaged to be changed), it will not, by its very nature, pursue commercial activities. The conversion does not circumvent the Commission's Decision of 27 March 2002. The State guarantees will be abolished for all Landesbanks and savings banks performing commercial banking activities with effect from 19 July 2005. The necessary legal changes have already been implemented.