ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/244

(2004/C 78 E/0246)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3258/03

by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject: Garlic import scheme

In 2001 the European Union introduced a garlic import scheme with a view to placing permanent restrictions on imports from third countries and preventing the irregularities which have been detected for years in Chinese garlic sales. Within the World Trade Organisation it negotiated a 38 379-tonne ad valorem duty-payable quota which was split between Argentina, China and other countries. The new scheme permanently replaced the successive safeguard clauses which had been introduced in order to prevent fraudulent exports of Chinese garlic. The initiative has produced satisfactory results, since a significant reduction in the number of irregularities has been achieved.

Nonetheless, shortcomings still exist, as is apparent from the complaints submitted by Spanish garlic growers to OLAF.

Would the Commission say whether it intends to introduce internal improvements in order to prevent the problems which have given rise to the above complaints?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion on the importance of policing import arrangements, including those for garlic. It has received complaints from Spanish garlic growers and passed them on to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to be examined and dealt with.

As she will doubtless agree, if these claims are correct false certificates of origin are being used, possibly with the connivance of exporting countries' authorities.

Fraud of this type does not call into question the present policing system and attempts to perpetrate it are liable to be made regardless of the checks that the importing country can put in place.

To minimise the risk involved Commission officials regularly conduct retrospective examinations of operation of the garlic scheme.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/461

(2004/C 84 E/0536)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0806/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: Violations of Community law in EU Member States

Could the Commission provide a comparative table showing the violations of Community law committed by each EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission's Nineteenth annual report to Parliament on monitoring the application of Community law (2001) (1).

(1) COM(2002) 324 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/521

(2004/C 78 E/0542)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3326/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Emoluments of Commissioners

Further to the Commission's answer to question E-2235/99 (1), will the Commission provide an update of all the figures previously requested, giving the most recent figures available?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

Pursuant to previous Parliamentary answers:

— The basic salary to which Commissioners, the President and Vice-President are entitled on a monthly basis (twelve times a year) is EUR 17 341 (calculated as 112,5 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6) for the Commissioners, EUR 19 268 (calculated as 125 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6 official) for the Vice-Presidents and EUR 21 272 (calculated as 138 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6 official) for the President. These sums are, of course, subject to the taxes and deductions payable by officials of the European Communities.

— The family allowances to which Commissioners, the President and the Vice-Presidents are entitled — if qualified — on a monthly basis consist of a household allowance of 5 % of basic salary (if there is a dependent spouse), a children's' allowance of EUR 237,38 per dependent child, and education allowances which vary according to the child's age and stage of academic development (36 %, 50 % or 100 % of EUR 212,14 respectively for primary, secondary and university education).

— A residence allowance is paid on the same basis as expatriate officials and is equal to 15 % of the basic salary for non-Belgian Commissioners.

— There is a monthly representation allowance, currently EUR 607,71 for Commissioners, EUR 911,38 for Vice-Presidents, and EUR 1418,07 for the President. Expenditure incurred for reasons of representation is reimbursed after presentation of the relevant invoice and reason, and is subject to the stipulated maximum in any month. Reimbursement is limited annually to EUR 11 489 for most Members of the Commission. For the Vice-Presidents and Members with external relations responsibility, the annual ceiling is EUR 17 234 and for the President it is EUR 28 723.

— When first taking up duty, a Member of the Commission (unless he or she is a Belgian citizen) is entitled to an allowance to cover his or her installation expenses, equivalent to two months' basic gross salary (i.e. currently EUR 34 682 for a Commissioner), reimbursement for travel expenses for himself or herself and dependent family, and reimbursement of the cost of moving personal effects (insurance included).

— Similar arrangements exist under the relevant legal provisions for Presidents and Members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 19.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/281

(2004/C 84 E/0327)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3996/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: New work methods and development of e-commerce

The key action relating to the creation of new work methods and the development of e-commerce provided for under the fifth framework programme for research included a number of calls for proposals for the period 1999-2001.

Can the Commission state how many such calls were published, with the names of the successful candidates and the sums allocated to each project approved? Has action been taken to verify the success of the actions?

Answer given by Mr. Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

During the period indicated (1999-2001), there were nine calls for proposal related to key action II: new working methods and development of electronic commerce.

The information related to the projects resulting from these calls can be found on the Cordis website (1), where it is possible to carry out research by key action, by country, by contract type and by partner type.

Another address (2) provides access to another document giving an overview of the activities of key action II during the period concerned.

The impact assessment of the activities of the Information Society Technologies (IST) taken as a whole, including the key action II, is underway and the corresponding report will be available at the end of April 2004 in a preliminary form and at the end of October 2004 in the final version.

(1) http://www.cordis.lu/ist/projects/projects.htm

(2) http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ka2/report.htm#ar2001
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/61

(2004/C 78 E/0061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Recycling charges for household goods

What is the Commission's view of the charge that some, but not all, local authorities and private waste management companies in Ireland impose on citizens for returning household goods (e.g. radios, hairdryers, kettles, etc.) for recycling? Does the Commission believe that these charges are compatible with the recycling aims of EU waste management policies and with the WEEE Directive, which has to be implemented by August 2004? Would the Commission agree that such charges represent a disincentive to citizens to return goods for recycling?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission is aware that charging consumers at the point of return may have negative repercussions on the collection results for waste electrical and electronic equipment (1). This is the reason for the free take back obligation for household equipment in Article 5 (2a) of Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003, on waste electrical and electrical equipment (WEEE) (2). This Article provides that ‘for WEEE from private households, Member States shall ensure that by 13 August 2005, systems are set up allowing final holders and distributors to return such waste at least free of charge’.

However, until that date there is no Community legislation that would forbid charges on citizens for returning household electrical and electronic equipment.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/168

(2004/C 78 E/0172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2788/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Use of peat for electricity generation

Article 2 of Directive 2001/77/EC (1) on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources excludes peat from the specified list of renewable fuels.

Earlier this year the Swedish Parliament agreed that peat should be added to its country's list of fuels eligible for green certificates used as the basis for reporting progress on renewable energy production to the EU.

Use of peat by gardeners and for the production of electricity has led to peat bogs being ranked amongst the most threatened natural habitats in Europe.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that peat is not permitted to be eligible for green certificates in Sweden?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission agrees that peat is not regarded as a renewable energy source according to the definitions in Article 2 in Directive 2001/77/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market.

Consequently, electricity produced with peat as fuel cannot contribute to the Swedish fulfilment of the target defined in the Directive. Furthermore a Member State cannot issue a guarantee of origin for electricity produced from peat in the context of the Directive.

According to Article 3 and 6 in the Directive Member States shall publish before 27 October 2003 reports including an analysis of success in meeting the national targets and an evaluation of the existing legislative and regulatory framework.

The Commission has not yet received these reports. If the Swedish reports indicate that the implementation into national legislation is not in compliance with Directive 2001/77/EC the Commission will take the necessary steps towards the Swedish authorities.

Directive 2001/77/EC does not prevent a Member State from using peat for electricity production nor from establishing a system of certificates for certain types of electricity. If such a system of certificates includes economic support the system must be in compliance with Community regulations on state aid. The use of peat for electricity production must also comply with the Community Directives concerning protection of nature such as the Habitat Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2)). The Commission will also react regarding these regulations if a Member State is not in compliance.

(1) OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 33.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/456

(2004/C 78 E/0483)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: EU funding for marine conservation

Given that Ireland lacks any dedicated facility, in the form of a publicly accessible marine conservation area, through which it can play a full role in an EU network of marine mammal rescue and oil spill response, and given that consequently it is ill-equipped to fulfil its international responsibilities.

Can the Commission advise on whether there are any EU funds available for the purpose of developing such a conservation centre to service the country?

Can the Commission advise on the availability of EU funding to support the work of the Irish Seal Sanctuary, a wildlife conservation NGO run entirely by volunteers for the past 20 years in this area but now without sources of finance to continue its operations?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, a number of International and Community measures and policies require Ireland to take adequate provisions to conserve or restore the marine environment. In principle, funds provided by the Community and managed by Ireland could be used to honour these responsibilities, provided that the legal framework allows for this.

There are limited possibilities for direct support from the Commission for nature conservation projects. The key financial instrument is the LIFE Regulation (1) nearly half of which is devoted to nature conservation projects. The key objective of LIFE Nature is to support the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas.

There are certain rules and criteria that need to be met for LIFE funding. Applications for financial support under LIFE are considered each year and must be submitted via the national authority for nature protection. The deadline for submission of applications to the Commission under the final round of the present LIFE Regulation was the end of October 2003.

Unfortunately, the number of applications received by the Commission considerably exceeds the financial possibilities of this instrument.

In regard to the Structural Funds, the Commission understands that the Irish Seal Sanctuary is currently examining the possibility of seeking funding under the Tourism Measures of the Regional Operational Programmes.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE), OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/738

(2004/C 84 E/0832)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3574/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: European Agreement on the transmission of applications for Legal Aid

What problems has the Commission uncovered as a result of Monaco not being a signatory to the 1977 Strasbourg Agreement on the transfer of Legal Aid applications? Will the Commission put pressure on Monaco to sign the Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Monaco is not a member of the Council of Europe, but has applied to join, and is not indeed a party to the 1977 Agreement. It is not for the Commission to put pressure on Monaco.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/661

(2004/C 78 E/0704)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3861/03

by Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject: Export guarantee by the German Federal Government for Finnish nuclear reactor

Following the decision of the Finnish Government to build a fifth nuclear reactor in Finland, at Olkiluoto, a decision is to be taken before the end of 2003 as to which firms apart from the Finnish TVO consortium (Teollisuuden Voima) are to be involved in building the reactor. In order to guarantee the possible involvement of the German Siemens group in Olkiluoto, the German Federal Government intends to approve an application by Siemens for a ‘Hermes guarantee’. A State guarantee of this kind — which is generally only available for the promotion of exports outside the EU — would substantially reduce the commercial risk borne by Siemens in connection with this project and would above all make it possible for Siemens to borrow money for its participation in the building of the Finnish reactor at significantly lower interest rates. The French group Framatome is also bidding to build the reactor.

Does this State guarantee for Siemens' proposed export transaction within the EU violate the relevant European provisions on State aid, particularly Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever’ is incompatible with the common market? Does the Commission know, furthermore, whether the French Government is likewise supporting the commercial plans of Framatome in Olkiluoto by means of an export guarantee? If so, is this compatible with EC law on State aid? Have the Commission or the Court of Justice of the EC in the past issued any rulings on similar cases (relating to export guarantees)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

As for the first part of the question, Siemens has announced that it will not apply for the State guarantee referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is not aware of any support by the French Government in favour of Framatome by means of a similar export guarantee.

Neither the Commission, nor the Court of Justice have ever taken position on export guarantees in the nuclear field. Under the EC Treaty the Commission has always considered export aid within the Union incompatible with the State aid rules and other fundamental principles (e.g. Article 10 of the EC Treaty) as it is considered as one of the most distortive types of aid (see, e.g. the Communication of the Commission to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance (1)). As for the Euratom Treaty, it does not foresee specific provisions on export aid.

(1) OJ C 281, 17.9.1997, as amended in 2001, OJ C 217, 2.8.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/81

(2004/C 84 E/0086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3677/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Prato

In its answer to question E-1114/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city had applied but had not been been selected for funding.

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

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/345

(2004/C 88 E/0352)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1290/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Anti-dumping measures applicable to the import of ferroalloys; the problem of the firm Ferroatlántica, located in Cee and Dumbria on the Costa da Morte in Galicia

The development of the business of the firm Ferroatlántica, which manufactures ferroalloys and is of fundamental importance for the economy of the Costa da Morte in Galicia, is affected by the EU's importing these products at dumping prices from countries such as China, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine. In view of the non-legitimate interests of the steel producers promoting these imports — quite apart from the unfair competition involved — ferroalloy manufacturers such as Ferroatlántica are urging the Commission to impose effective anti-dumping measures. The Commission started proceedings aimed at the adoption of anti-dumping measures, which did not meet with the approval of European ferroalloy manufacturers, since they seem to favour the steel manufacturers who use cheap imported products. What progress has been made on this issue, which affects the viability of companies like Ferroatlántica?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Commission pays careful attention to problems of unfair trade suffered by the Community industry, and initiates investigations and proposes the imposition of remedial measures if the legal conditions are met. In the case of anti-dumping investigations, measures may be imposed by the Council if it is found that dumped products materially injure the Community industry, and that such measures would not be against the global interest of all economic operators concerned.

Based on duly documented requests by the Community ferroalloy industry, the Commission initiated 37 anti-dumping investigations concerning unfair trade in ferroalloys over the last ten years. This has led to the imposition of measures in 30 cases, seven of which continue to be under measures. The last investigation was initiated in October 2002 regarding imports of silicon metal originating in Russia—and in the same month a review investigation of the measures on the same product originating in China. These investigations are on-going, and it is expected that they will be concluded within 15 months after initiation. Should they confirm that unfair trade practices exist, the Commission will propose the extension of measures for five years for Chinese products, and the imposition, equally for five years, of remedial measures against Russian products.

Should any other unfair trade problems occur, the Commission remains, as always in the past, disposed to examine substantiated claims by the Community industry.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/134

(2004/C 84 E/0172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4029/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Euro-dollar exchange rate

The rise of the euro against the dollar is reaching levels which threaten the recent timid resumption of economic growth in the EU. The 6 % fall in German exports registered from September to October 2003 is seen by analysts as a clear consequence of the euro's appreciation.

Some experts think the ECB may be obliged to reduce its rates if the European currency goes on rising. The Commission, in its autumn forecasts, had to scale back its growth forecast for the Community economy, to 0,8 % for 2003 and 2 % for 2004.

Does the Commission believe the euro will continue to appreciate over the coming months? Does it believe that a level exists for the euro-dollar exchange rate which would reflect the real bases of both EU and US economies? Are the Commission's most recent economic growth forecasts for the next two years still valid?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission believes that a stable exchange rate is in Europe's interest. The Commission also shares the concerns of the euro-area Finance Ministers and the President of the ECB concerning excessive exchange rate movements (as expressed in the Eurogroup statement of 19 January 2004).

The euro has undergone an appreciation of around 25 per cent against the dollar since the start of 2003. However, the euro-area real effective exchange rate — which is what matters for competitiveness — has only appreciated by around 8 per cent since then (when deflated by nominal unit labour costs). The real effective exchange rate is based on the evolution of the euro against a basket of currencies, weighted according to their importance in the external trade of the euro area. It also takes into account differences in inflation rates.

Both survey data and hard indicators confirm that the Commission services Autumn 2003 forecast is still on track. Indeed, the euro-area real effective exchange rate has only appreciated by around 4½ per cent since the forecast was published. It is also worth noting that the latest available (January 2004) private-sector Consensus forecast for GDP growth in the euro area in 2004 is the same as that given in the Commission Services forecast — 1,8 %.

The Commission does not have an official position concerning whether or not the euro will continue to appreciate over the coming months. Similarly, the Commission does not have an official position concerning what exchange rate of the euro against the dollar would best reflect the economic fundamentals of the United States and euro-area economies.