ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/135

(2004/C 84 E/0173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4032/03

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

(12 January 2004)

Subject: UK contribution to the EU budget

What is the UK's gross contribution to the EU budget since it became a member in 1973?

How much money has the UK received from the EU budget since it became a member in 1973?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

A table showing:

— the United Kingdom's gross contribution (total United Kingdom payments, after deduction of the United Kingdom budgetary rebate) to the Community budget during the period 1973-2002;

— total funds received by the United Kingdom from the Community budget during the period 1985-2002; as well as;

— the amount of the United Kingdom correction relating to each of the years 1985-2002; is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Figures on total funds received by the United Kingdom from the Community budget are only available from 1985, i.e. since the entry into effect of the current United Kingdom correction mechanism.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/84

(2004/C 84 E/0094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/03

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 Macerata

In its answer to question E-1108/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

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 78/510

(2004/C 78 E/0531)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3288/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Establishment of businesses in the municipality of Losser

The municipality of Losser in the Netherlands is situated on the border with Germany. At present the municipality is encountering serious difficulties with the establishment of businesses. On the Dutch side of the border it is very difficult to set up small business parks, whereas on the German side such sites do exist. However, entrepreneurs from Losser who wish to set up businesses on the other side of the border are confronted by different regulations and legislation, which makes it very hard for them to do so. The Anholt Agreement, which currently governs cross-border cooperation between Dutch and German regional authorities, does not provide for coordination of German and Dutch legislation or present any options. It is not possible to set up cross-border business parks either, because the regional plan in the Netherlands prohibits this.

I have previously made the point that border regions have a pioneering role to play in European integration and that they are the prime sites for putting European cooperation into practice by coordinating legislation and public facilities.

1. Does the Commission agree that encouraging the establishment of businesses on or across national borders should be a priority in border regions?

2. Does the Commission agree that it is very important to coordinate legislation or make it more flexible in the area described above, and will it take measures to encourage Member States to do this?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

1. In accordance with the guidelines governing the Community Initiative, Interreg, encouraging entrepreneurship and the development of small firms and local employment initiatives are among the priorities of European programmes for cross-border cooperation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/727

(2004/C 84 E/0818)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1939/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Commission quarterly briefings and Small Business Europe: the participation of government-funded national bodies in Commission briefings

Is the Commission aware that the organisation known as ‘Small Business Europe’, which purports to represent all small businesses in the UK, is in fact a body created by the UK Labour Government, funded from tax payers money, with no mandate from actual small businesses and wholly unrepresentative of the sector? Could the Commission indicate how many government-funded and government funded national bodies like Small Business Europe are invited to attend regular quarterly briefings by the Commission for European SME and small business representative bodies and why? If the Commission is inviting national organisations, why does it not invite any of the UK bodies which actually do represent real small businesses?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

In the framework of its strategy to enhance contacts with its stakeholders, Directorate General (DG) Enterprise invites a large number of business organisations at European and national level, with horizontal or sectoral interests to information meetings, seminars and conferences. These organisations draw their funds from a variety of sources.

At the last major conference (‘Industrial Policy in an Enlarged Europe’, on 21 January 2003) more than 200 such business associations were represented, along with participants from trade unions, environmental and consumer protection organisations, government and company representatives.

Several times per year DG Enterprise also invites a group of non-profit making, permanent organisations, which represent enterprises, professional federations or employers and have a horizontal or cross-cutting orientation, going beyond a specific economic sector. Most of these have national member organisations in several European states, which sometimes also participate in these meetings. Around half of the invited organisations represent small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) interests either exclusively or partly. The complete list can be found in the Coneccs database of the Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/civilsociety/coneccs/indexen.htm). The meeting structure is listed as ‘consultation with business organisations’ and comprises at present 26 organisations, among them the organisation called ‘smallbusi-ness|europe’.

The Commission is aware that ‘smallbusiness|europe’ is at present funded by the Small Business Service, an Executive Agency of the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry. ‘smallbusiness|europe’ is working in close co-operation with United Kingdom cross-sector organisations representing SMEs. It highlights their views at the European level and, the Commission understands, consults them regularly.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/911

(2004/C 78 E/0963)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4086/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Company-specific aid to Eftec in connection with relocation from Hässleholm in Sweden to Wales

The Eftec company in Hässleholm manufactures rust-prevention products for the auto industry. Welsh authorities have confirmed that the company has received financial support in connection with the company's relocation from Hässleholm to Wales. SEK 6 million has been paid in establishment grants and is being used to expand the new factory at Rhigos, Aberdare. Information indicates that Eftec will probably receive SEK 6 million a year for six years, which would cover the wind-up costs of up to SEK 30 million.

This information indicates that the EU's competition policy is moving in the wrong direction. Clearly, the objective in the EU is to remove all company-specific aid such as that recently paid to Eftec. Instead, the EU should concentrate on aid of a general nature, such as aid for infrastructure and general training schemes. Aid to individual companies, as recently granted to Eftec, merely serves to distort the market and is extremely unfair on the regions concerned. The decision to close down affects 22 employees.

Can the Commission confirm the abovementioned information that Eftec is receiving establishment grants of SEK 6 million per year over a six-year period? Does the Commission consider that this development is consistent with the objectives of EU competition policy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission takes note of the information which the Honourable Member submitted concerning possible aid in favour of the company Eftec. According to this information, the company is receiving grants of SEK 30 million over a six-year period for an expansion of its factory in Rhigos, Aberdare. The Honourable Member indicated that this aid is granted in connection with the company's relocation from Hässleholm (Sweden) to Wales.

The Directorate-General for Competition of the Commission will carry out the necessary investigations in connection with the information that the Honourable Member has provided in order to establish whether the project in question involves any State aid incompatible with the competition rules of the EC Treaty. It will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/277

(2004/C 84 E/0322)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3962/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Portugal — toll charges and ‘people carriers’

According to recent information, certain makes (in particular, Chrysler and Kia) of ‘people carrier’-type vehicles are now eligible for the lowest (class 1) toll charge when they are used on Portuguese motorways, even though a higher rate continues to apply in the case of other vehicles of a similar design.

The Portuguese Ministry of Economic Affairs apparently once announced that ‘people carriers’ manufactured at the AutoEuropa plant would also be taxed as class 1 vehicles (in addition to the makes of vehicle which already enjoy that benefit), but this did not actually come to pass.

This difference in toll charges particularly affects larger families, who are more or less obliged to use vehicles of the ‘people carrier’ type.

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

— Is the Commission aware that, in Portugal, different motorway toll charges exist for ‘people carrier’-type vehicles?

— What view does the Commission take of this situation in the light of the principles of nondiscrimination and competition on equal terms within the internal market? Does the Commission not consider this to constitute an infringement of those principles?

— What action has the Commission taken (or is it intending to take) in order to put an end to this state of affairs which not only constitutes unfair competition but also penalises many large families?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The specific Community legal instrument for the levying of taxes, tolls and user charges is Directive 1999/62/EC (1). It is targeted only to heavy goods vehicles of 12 tonnes and more. It is to be underlined that Member States levying tolls on vehicles below 12 tonnes, including private cars, do not have to comply with the provisions contained in Directive 1999/62/EC as such tolls fall outside its scope.

Whether other vehicles than those covered by Directive 1999/62/EC are tolled or not, is a matter of subsidiarity, where Member States can make more efficient decisions taking into account local circumstances. In any case, the tolls are as a rule related with the characteristics of vehicles and the conditions of use of the toll road: bigger vehicles normally pay more, polluting vehicles may pay more, peak time users often pay more, etc.

The Commission is not aware of the exact conditions of the tolls applicable in Portugal to various models of large passenger vehicles the Honourable Member is referring to. The Commission will contact the Portuguese Authorities in order to clarify this point.

(1) Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/771

(2004/C 78 E/0821)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2962/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Damage to valuable works contained in the temple of St Sofia

According to the Turkish ‘Miliyet’ newspaper, around 550 invaluable religious paintings and relics (vestments, holy manuscripts, etc.) currently being stored in the temple of St Sofia in Istanbul, are in extremely poor condition since not even the basic minimum has been done by way of conservation. The temple became a repository for those works, which were brought in from disused churches in various regions of Turkey, when it was converted into a museum in 1935.

Is it possible to earmark funding for the conservation and restoration of these works in cooperation with the responsible authorities and from which programme?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The Community's financial assistance programme for Turkey does not allow to provide support for conserving and restoring religious or cultural works, such as those stored in the Hagia Sofia. The programme is designed primarily to support Turkey's alignment with Union standards in the political, economic and legislative areas. Project proposals are prepared by the Turkish Government and are subject to approval by the Commission, which is given only for projects that contribute to meeting the priorities of the Accession Partnership, as adopted by the Council of Ministers on 15 May 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/641

(2004/C 78 E/0680)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3757/03

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 Pesaro

In its answer to question E-1024/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pesaro 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 78/595

(2004/C 78 E/0629)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3576/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: EU Identity document for the disabled

Some 37 million citizens of the EU — or ten per cent of the population — suffer from some kind of disability. European Year of People with Disabilities which ends in a few weeks' time should provide a fresh impetus and achieve practical results in the fight for the equal treatment of disabled EU citizens so as to enable them to participate fully in all areas of life in future.

One step in this direction would be the introduction of a Europe-wide identity document for the disabled guaranteeing facilities and privileges regardless of nationality and making them readily available to all disabled persons. In my Written Question E-2173/02 (1) of 18 July 2002 I already pointed to the need for such an identity document for the disabled.

Since each Member State is free to determine the scope of the facilities and privileges accorded to the disabled, a uniform EU identity document for the disabled is needed. It should guarantee each disabled citizen of the Union the same rights in each country.

Will the Commission answer the following questions:

— Has the EU already developed initial ideas about the introduction of an identity document for the disabled which is valid throughout the EU?

— If so, will it say what these ideas are?

— If not, does it not agree that an identity document for the disabled which is valid throughout the EU should be introduced?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his earlier written question E-2173/02 (2). As is clearly stated therein, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the decision concerning the definition of disability and thus eligibility for disability cards is taken at national level.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 257.

(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 257.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/228

(2004/C 84 E/0273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3251/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

The External Relations Council of 13 October, expressing deep concern that certain Western Balkan countries were still failing to cooperate sufficiently with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), reiterated the need to intensify efforts to bring Radovan Karadzic, General Mladic and General Gotovina to the ICTY.

In its Common Position 2003/280/CFSP (1) of 16 April 2003 the Council imposed an EU travel ban on some persons obstructing the mandate of the ICTY, and this has had a positive impact, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

What steps is the Council taking to broaden the list of persons named in that Common Position to include those helping ICTY indictees elsewhere in the region to evade justice?

Specifically, will those sheltering Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina, whose respective support networks in Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro are reported by ICTY to be significant, now be subject to the travel ban?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

1. The Council Common Position 2003/280/CFSP of 16 April has been updated by Council Decision 2003/484/CFSP of 27 June 2003, when, following recommendations from the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12 additional names have been added to the list of persons set out in the Annex to Common Position 2003/280/CFSP.

2. The Common Position is kept under constant review and the Council can adopt modifications to the list contained in the Annex as required in order to assist the ICTY.

(1) OJ L 101, 23.4.2003, p. 22.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/88

(2004/C 84 E/0103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3708/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Livorno

With reference to question E-0964/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Livorno (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/240

(2004/C 78 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject: Search at the ‘Il Giornale’ head office in Rome: violation of freedom of the press in Italy

On Friday 17 October 2003, the head office of the leading Italian daily newspaper ‘Il Giornale’, which is investigating the purchase of Telekom Serbia by Telecom Italia, was searched by order of the Court of Perugia. At the end of this search, which was carried out by the police and lasted a good 13 hours, a large quantity of material belonging to the journalist Gian Marco Chiocci was confiscated. It appears that the only crime he is alleged to have committed is that of defaming a Rome judge in the press.

Does the Commission not consider the decisions taken to represent a blatant violation of the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression?

Does it not feel that these decisions violate the recommendations made by the Council of Ministers of the EU to the Member States on 8 March 2003, according to which interception, surveillance, searches and confiscation should not be used to circumvent the right of journalists not to reveal their sources?

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia to run contrary to the renowned Goodwin ruling handed down by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which gave legal substance to journalists' right to the professional secret.

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia also to run contrary to ruling No 33400/96 of the Strasbourg court, which deems searches conducted with the intention of discovering journalists' sources to be an outright violation of the freedom of expression?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The search carried out at the head office of ‘Il Giornale’ by order of the Perugia public prosecutor's office is the sole responsibility of the national authorities responsible for organising the justice system in Italy. Given that Community law is not at issue here, the Commission takes the view that it is not in a position to answer the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

It should be noted that anybody who considers that his fundamental rights have been infringed may take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted.