ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/557

(2004/C 84 E/0635)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0252/04

by Raquel Cardoso (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Financing of the Natura 2000 network

Since 1992 Article 8 of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992) has provided for the co-financing of the Natura 2000 network. The Commission's work programme for 2003 included the submission of a communication on the financing of the Natura 2000 network in September.

A number of Member States have asked Commissioner Margot Wallström at successive meetings of the Environment Ministers' Council for details of the Commission's response to the Natura 2000 network's funding needs. The Commission's replies to these questions have clearly been unsatisfactory.

Will the Commission commit itself to submitting the communication on the financing of the Natura 2000 network by a specific date so as to meet the objectives set out in the Sixth Environment Action Programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

The Commission has committed itself to submitting a Communication on the Financing of Natura 2000 in 2004. This proposal has been carried forward from its 2003 working programme. The Communication is expected for the first half of 2004.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/534

(2004/C 84 E/0611)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0103/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Water for human consumption

Can the Commission tell me whether direct or indirect references in European legislation to minimum pressure levels for water for private consumption are being respected?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

There are no criteria set out in Community environmental legislation for minimum pressure levels for water supplied by distribution systems.

The Drinking Water Directive (1) of 1998 establishes clear and binding criteria for the quality of drinking water from the tap provided to consumers of water supply systems.

(1) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
2.

One criterion used for applying anti-dumping duties is the origin of the product, which must be established under the Community's non-preferential rules of origin. This differs from preferential origin, where imports of products originating in certain third countries may in some circumstances be eligible for preferential rates of duty. The origin of products subject to anti-dumping duties has to be established by the interested party and entered in box 16 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD) submitted on importing the products. As the rules do not expressly provide for the use of certificates of origin it is not possible to use any certificates that may have been presented in support of the import declaration as evidence. It is the interested party's responsibility to provide proof of origin by indicating it on the SAD. The customs authorities of the Member State of importation examining the declaration submitted by the interested party may perform any checks they deem necessary in accordance with Article 68 of the Community Customs Code (2). Under Article 220(2)(b) of the Code, post-clearance recovery of duties may be waived in certain conditions, for instance when the person liable for payment has acted in good faith in the case of an error by the competent customs authorities. In Mr van der Rijken's case the certificates lodged with the Dutch customs authorities were issued by the Chamber of Commerce of Espoo in Finland which cannot be considered as a competent customs authority within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) as it did not furnish information carrying legal weight and relevant to the recovery of the duties concerned. Acceptance of an import declaration does not stop the competent authorities performing post-clearance checks pursuant to Article 78 of the Community Customs Code, and Dutch customs' acceptance of the import declaration cannot be considered an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the Code. On the contrary it was quite in order for Dutch customs, as they had doubts about the origin declared by the interested party, to verify the origin of the products. The checks, indeed, confirmed that the goods were of Chinese origin.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/412

(2004/C 84 E/0481)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0478/04

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

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Commission Cars

Could the Commission confirm if spouses and families of Commissioners are entitled to use cars provided for the Commissioners?

Are there any instances where such use of a Commission car has taken place?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The Administrative Manual for the Members of the Commission stipulates that:

Only Commission drivers and Commission members are authorised to drive an official car.

This Manual further provides that:

Drivers must not be asked to provide services for private purposes where this creates overtime or involves the driver in mission expenses, except where there are security grounds for so doing. Where such grounds do not apply, the Member of the Commission may drive his official vehicle himself, particularly on non-working days.

To date, no instances where service cars were used in breach of these rules have been established.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/366

(2004/C 84 E/0424)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0344/04

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: ‘Conseillers hors classe’

Can the Commission state how many former officials are working for DG ADMIN as so-called ‘conseillers hors classe’?

How many of these officials temporarily suspended from work are to be found in the Commission's other Directorate-Generals?

Can the Commission confirm, in this context, how many officials are currently suspended as a result of ongoing disciplinary procedures, whilst continuing to be on the payroll?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

As an appointing authority the Commission may, under the provisions of the Staff Regulations and associated operational rules, decide to reassign an official from a management position to a non-management function at any time, if it considers this to be in the interest of the service. In this context, the non-managerial function for Directors General and Deputy Directors General is ‘hors classe adviser’. An assignment to these functions can be for various periods of time and the tasks and responsibilities of these officials are defined by the relevant appointing authority.

As the Commission has previously made clear, a ‘Conseiller hors classe’ is not a ‘former’ official and such a designation certainly does not carry the meaning that the official is ‘suspended from work’.

In the case of suspension, which a provisional measure of a disciplinary nature and not an administrative measure, the official concerned ceases to exercise any function in the institution for the duration of the suspension. Under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority may decide to suspend an official only when allegations of serious misconduct are brought against that person

Currently, two ‘hors classe advisers’ are working for Directorate General (DG) Personnel and Administration and three others are employed in DG Development, DG Regional Policy, and in the Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements respectively.

Four Commission officials (who are not ‘hors classe advisers’) are currently suspended from their functions in the context of ongoing disciplinary procedures being conducted because of allegations of serious misconduct.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/324

(2004/C 84 E/0377)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/04

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.

Has the Commission implemented the prudence principle for all risk capital operations? Can the Commission confirm that the net results will be published separately in the annual financial report?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/688

(2004/C 84 E/0774)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0860/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: The Constitution and funding

In your answer to my Written Question P-0524/04 (1), you detail the constitutional position of a region of the current EU, if it were to become a fully independent state. Could you clarify the position of such a state, in relation to EU funding?

Specifically, if a region within the EU were to become an independent state (therefore outside of the EU), what would happen to the European funding it had been receiving? Would the funding stop immediately, or would it continue to the end of the funding programme, for example the 2000-2006 Structural Funds programme?

What EU funds would a newly independent state be eligible for?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

If part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be part of that State, for example, because that territory becomes an independent state, it would no longer covered by the Treaty of accession. Accordingly, the EC Treaty will no longer apply to that territory, including Article 158.

Article 15 8 of the EC Treaty states that the Community shall aim at strengthening its economic and social cohesion. Article 159 provides for that action to be supported through the Structural Funds. This article clearly rules out the use of the Structural Funds outside the territory of the European Union.

The principal instruments for Community support for countries outside the Union are found under Heading 4 of the budget, ‘External Action’, or, in the case of aid to candidate countries, under Heading 7, ‘Pre-accession instruments’.

(1) See page 421.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/914

(2004/C 84 E/1011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0925/04

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Medical treatment for haemophilia sufferers

Haemophilia, a hereditary and congenital disease characterised by uncontrolled bleeding, is still incurable despite the enormous progress of genetic engineering and biotechnology. Tailored drugs for alleviating its effects on sufferers are extremely expensive, and the conditions of those drugs' use are not the same across the EU Member States.

This disease causes severe physical pain from the first year of age, and leads to irreversible paralysis if it is no treated at a tender age with the above-mentioned drugs.

Can the Commission state whether, after enlargement, the new Member States will have sufficient stocks of the drugs concerned to meet needs, or whether there will be significant variations in their use?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology are helping to improve the treatment of many diseases and the latest progress is encouraging. This is the case for medicinal products used in the treatment of haemophilia.

In principle, the Commission does not see a particular reason for concern in relation to the accessibility to medicinal products for the treatment of this disease after enlargement. On the contrary, in accordance with the European centralised system for the authorisation of medicinal products, as established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1), medicinal products authorised on this basis will be accessible to the market in the new Member States under the same conditions of use as in the rest of the EU. The way in which haemophilia is treated in the Member States is a national responsibility and therefore there could be variations in treatment practice.

(1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/609

(2004/C 84 E/0684)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0512/04

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Daphne programme

The purpose of the Daphne programme — the 2000-2003 EU programme to combat violence against children, young persons and women — is to help provide a high level of both physical and psychological health protection by protecting children, young persons and women against violence (including in the form of sexual exploitation and abuse), by preventing violence and by providing aid to the victims of violence, with a particular view to preventing further exposure to violence.

Public and private organisations and public institutions can all take part in the programme. The Commission cooperates with the relevant institutions and organisations and encourages transnational cooperation between NGOs and local, regional and national authorities. Activities are intended to involve a significant number of Member States.

The programme represents the start of cooperation within Europe amongst NGOs and voluntary organisations which, according to the Commission, play an essential role in combating the violence perpetrated against children, young persons and women. The Commission also maintains that such organisations frequently provide services which the public authorities are unable to offer or for which they do not have the necessary skills.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. How many projects involving Portuguese NGOs or public entities were supported by the Community during the 2000-2003 period?

2. What areas did those projects cover?

3. How much did the projects cost and what was the percentage of Community co-funding?

4. Do projects for which Community support is requested have to be partnerships between NGOs and public entities, or may such projects involve only NGOs?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

During the period 2000-2003 the Daphne programme financed five projects where the coordinator was a Portuguese entity (three study centres/institutes and two NGOs), to the tune of EUR 440 506.

A total of 61 organisations and public authorities participated as partners in 32 Daphne projects during the same period.

As regards the areas covered by, and the funding for, those projects, the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat will be receiving under separate cover full information on each of the five projects.

The only requirements regarding project partnerships are that (a) they must be set up by at least two organisations (public or private) in two different Member States and (b) they must play an active part in combating and preventing violence. The partnership may, therefore, consist either in a combination of public authorities and ONGs or in only one of those categories.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/237

(2004/C 88 E/0239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0850/04

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas

Commission Decision 2004/136/EC (1) of 4 February 2004 lays down a financial correction of EUR 8,7 million for Spain on account of the irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas and of shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products.

What was involved in the shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products? In what marketing years did such shortcomings occur?

As regards the irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas, what irregularities have given rise to the correction? In what marketing years did they occur? What volume of supplementary quotas was granted improperly in each marketing year? To how many firms were supplementary quotas granted improperly in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates? How many firms were eligible for the supplementary quotas in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

In answer to the questions raised, the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat have been sent a summary report extract explaining the grounds for the financial correction contained in Decision 2004/136/EC (2) with respect to the processed tomato sector in Spain.

Please also note the following points:

— the marketing years covered by the correction are: 1997/98 (very small amount concerning only the correction for quality control of finished products), 1998/99, 1999/2000, 2000/01;

— the volumes of the additional quotas granted are: 35 027 tonnes (1998/99), 14 341 tonnes (1999/2000), 21 224 tonnes (2000/2001).

In theory, all firms which purchased, at the minimum price, a quantity of raw materials exceeding the quota allocated at the beginning of the marketing year benefited from the additional quotas;

In theory, all firms which had said that they were willing to conclude contracts for additional quantities would have been eligible for the additional quotas.

(1) OJ L 40, 12.2.2004, p. 31.

(2) Decision 2004/136/EC: Commission Decision of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/159

(2004/C 84 E/0197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0082/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Clinical Trials Directive

Further to the Commission's response to E-3209/03 and E-3215/03 (1) on implementation of Directive 2001/20/EC (2), what views were presented by the Irish Government representatives at the 15 May 2003 pharmaceutical committee meeting? What progress has been made in the preparation of the implementation guidelines for this Directive in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission is currently working together with the Member States in the preparation of the implementing guidelines of this Directive. In this context, the Irish competent authority informed the Commission that specific guidance for the application of clinical trials will be developed and published soon.

The Commission discussed a first draft of the implementing guidelines with the Member States during the Standing Committee meeting held on 23 July 2003. No agreement could be reached during that meeting. The new draft for the implementing guidelines is still under discussion within the Commission.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004.

(2) OJ L 121, 1.5.2001, p. 34.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/680

(2004/C 84 E/0766)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0837/04

by Joaquim Piscarreta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

— the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

— Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

— both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

— the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

— in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

— these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

— the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

— in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

1. Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

2. What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?
1.

The new system of direct payments to be introduced with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform will, in principle, not change the distribution of direct support between farms since it is based on historic references. However, taking into account the introduction of direct payments in the dairy sector and the option available to Member States for a regionalisation of the Single Farm Payment, redistribution of payments between farmers, within a region, may take place. Moreover, modulation of direct payments will explicitly favour smaller farms, since the first EUR 5 000 are exempted from modulation. In its July 2002 Communication (1), the Commission had proposed to modulate direct payments by up to 20 %, to increase the franchise according to the number of annual worker units and to introduce a ceiling for direct payments per farm of EUR 300 000. This would have triggered a stronger redistribution effect but was not supported by a majority of Member States.
As part of the Code of Conduct exercise, the tax rules of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba were also subjected to scrutiny. The result is that both the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are now required to remove their harmful tax measures i.e. the tax advantages that the Council considered to be harmful. The advantage for a Netherlands resident of doing business in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba would therefore only arise now from the fact that there is an agreement between the three parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to prevent double taxation which is quite similar to the bilateral tax conventions preventing double taxation that Member States and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries negotiate with each other and with other countries.