ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/435

(2004/C 88 E/0440)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2723/03

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

(3 September 2003)

Subject: European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights and indigenous peoples

According to the Commission, one of the priorities under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) must be the fight against racism, xenophobia and discrimination towards ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples. The Council has also, on several occasions, confirmed its promise of support for indigenous peoples (see Conclusions of the Council of June 2001 and November 2002). There are, however, reports that indigenous peoples receive no mention in the EIDHR budget for 2004.

Can the Commission confirm that, in accordance with the guidelines of the Council, the Commission itself and the European Parliament, the EIDHR programming document, which is currently being drawn up, will take indigenous peoples into consideration, according them a particular mention and a specific budget item?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Following up on the commitments of the Union regarding support for the rights of indigenous peoples, the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) contributes to achieve these objectives by opening up access to funding for projects of organisations representing indigenous peoples or working with them. The EIDHR Programming Document 2002-2004 identified the empowerment of indigenous peoples to promote their rights and the enhancement of respect for the rights of indigenous peoples at the international level for specific support. For the period from 2002 to 2004, the programming document included an indicative allocation of EUR 15 million in support of corresponding projects. On the basis of this multi-annual programming and within the framework of the identified objectives, the EIDHR programming update for 2004 continues to provide opportunities for project funding in support of the rights of indigenous peoples at global, regional and focus country level.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/248

(2004/C 78 E/0251)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Macao — Forum for Economic and Trade Cooperation

The Ministerial Meeting of the Forum for Economic and Trade Cooperation between China and Portuguese-speaking Countries was held in Macao on 12, 13 and 14 October this year.

It was referred to explicitly in the EP resolution, adopted on 8 April 2003, on the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Macao Special Administrative Region: First and Second Annual Reports, in which the EP pointed out that ‘Macao, because of its history and longstanding links with Europe, in particular through Portugal, is well placed to act as a bridge between the European Union and the People's Republic of China (PRC)’ and that ‘the governments of the MSAR and the PRC have both recently laid down and have been implementing a policy seeking to capitalise on Macao's position as a hub for China's relations with the entire Portuguese-speaking world’.

According to the information available the meeting went well and was most promising.

These developments are of major importance for Europe in general and the EU in particular, since they create a new opportunity for two-way international cooperation with China, based on the third most important European language spoken worldwide, Portuguese, and with Macao as the hub.

Can the Commission therefore say:

— whether it sent any representatives or observers to the meeting;

— what information it has gathered and what conclusions it has drawn;

— what effect these matters will have on enhanced European cooperation with Macao, as mentioned in the EP resolution adopted on 8 April 2003?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission was not invited to participate in the first forum for economic and trade cooperation between China and Portuguese-speaking countries held in Macao on 12, 13 and 14 October. It was therefore not represented at this meeting.

Nonetheless, it has taken note of the signing of an action plan for economic and trade cooperation between China and the seven Portuguese-speaking countries and of the ‘hub’ role for relations between the two parties assigned to Macao by the forum's participants. The Commission also notes with interest the Special Administrative Region's designation as the forum's permanent secretary for the organisation of a second meeting in 2006.

The Commission notes that these fresh developments follow on from its own communication on Macao dating back to 1999 (1), which states that in the EU's view Macao has a key role to play as a bridge between Asia and Europe. That role is reflected in current cooperation between the Commission and the Special Administrative Region of Macao.

(1) COM(1999) 484 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/568

(2004/C 78 E/0603)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3510/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Driving licences in the European Union

Can the Commission say whether the British police authorities are acting within the law in refusing to allow a student attending Leeds University to drive within the United Kingdom, the student in question being of Greek nationality and holding an automobile driving licence issued by the Greek authorities under the terms of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) of 29 July 1991 (transposed by Greece and concerning the mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member States)?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (2) established the principle of mutual recognition of all driving licences issued by Member States. The Court of Justice has just confirmed, in its ruling in case C-246/00, that this mutual recognition must be unconditional (3). It is clear that the British authorities must recognise the licence issued by the Greek authorities, especially as students are free to obtain a driving licence either in the Member State where they are studying or in their Member State of origin (4).

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, Article 1.2.

(3) C-246/00, Judgment of 10.07.2003, Commission/Netherlands, ECR 2003.

(4) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, Articles 7.1.b and 9.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/780

(2004/C 78 E/0830)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3101/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 October 2003)

Subject: EMU referendum and location of agencies

One of the arguments deployed in Sweden's EMU debate was that, if the Swedish people voted no in the referendum, Sweden's chances of being considered as a location for EU agencies, e.g. for the management of chemicals, would be diminished.

Now that the Swedish people have voted no to the single currency of the euro, does the Council consider that Sweden's chances of being considered as a location for an EU agency have worsened?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council has not discussed the issue raised by the Honourable Member.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/494

(2004/C 84 E/0572)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2526/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: EU egg producers

Is the Commission aware of the acute concerns amongst egg producers in the European Union over the threat to their livelihoods from a combination of new legislation on the welfare of hens and the potential increase of egg imports under the terms of the ongoing WTO round?

What steps are being taken by the European Commission to ensure a level playing field in the international trade in eggs and in providing adequate compensation to European Union egg producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-l625/03 by Mrs Jackson (1)

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 147.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/591

(2004/C 88 E/0604)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0176/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 January 2003)

Subject: Consequences of the liberalisation of agriculture worldwide

The 6 November 2002 issue of ‘Agence Europe’ refers to a study drawn up by the Commission on the consequences a complete liberalisation of agricultural trade worldwide would have for farming in the EU countries.

The article points out that Commissioner Pascal Lamy said that liberalisation would mean the disappearance of around 85 % of farms in the European Union, in particular small and medium-sized family farms. This would obviously mean the end of farming in the EU countries and the end of their food sovereignty and regional equilibrium.

It should also be pointed out how paradoxical it is that at a time when the United States has decided to step up aid to its own farmers, the European Union is deciding to take steps to reduce aid to farmers in its member countries.

Can the Commission say on what data it based the conclusions of its study?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The 6 November 2002 article of Agence Europe does not refer to a specific study of the Commission as suggested by the Honourable Member. Given the special nature of agriculture in the provision of food and other benefits, a sudden and complete liberalisation of world agricultural trade as demanded in some quarters could not be envisaged. Such a complete liberalisation would certainly have serious implications for the sustainability of European agriculture in social, economic and environmental terms. The numbers cited in the article are an illustration.

Having said that, the EU is committed to the objectives reflected in the Doha Declaration, which foresees negotiations aimed at, inter alia ‘substantial improvements in market access’. The EU will negotiate on that basis.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/53

(2004/C 88 E/0056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1954/03

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Human rights situation facing Yezidi in Georgia

Is the Commission aware of the difficult situation faced by the Yezidi in Georgia? What is the Commission's evaluation of this?

What political efforts are being undertaken to make a lasting improvement to their situation?

What technical and financial possibilities are available to the Commission to support this minority in Georgia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission understands that the Yezidi, an ethnic minority of non-Muslim Kurds in Georgia, face difficulties that are common to many ethnic minorities in Georgia. The Yezidi constitute a small minority in Georgia and lack the strong political organisation that could supply them with a voice in Georgian decision making. While the Yezidi may not be specifically targeted for discrimination like other ethnic minorities in Georgia, they sometimes suffer from shortcomings in the fields of law enforcement and the rule of law.

The Commission is currently directing its political and technical assistance to Georgia towards the strengthening of governance and the promotion of human rights and civil society. The new Indicative Programme for Georgia proposes cooperation to support institutional, legal and administrative reform and in addressing the social consequences of transition and assistance to social reconstruction. In addition, the Commission continues to put pressure on the Georgian Government to implement its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect minority rights, and to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCPNM). The Commission is currently co-funding a project along with the Council of Europe to promote the ratification and effective implementation of the FCPNM, involving governmental as well as non-governmental actors.

The European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is a financing mechanism to support projects by non-governmental organisations worldwide. Georgia is one of 31 EIDHR ‘focus countries’ under this programme. One of the four thematic areas of the EIDHR is support to combat racism and xenophobia and discrimination against minorities and indigenous peoples. Ongoing activities in Georgia under the EIDHR include a recent project — implemented by World Vision Deutschland e. V. — to combat the ethnicisation of conflicts among Georgian citizens in the Georgian regions of Samskhe-Javakheti and Kvemo Kartli, where many Yezidi live. In addition, the Commission's Delegation in Georgia is about to launch a new Call for Proposals for microprojects, under the EIDHR for projects implemented by Georgian non-governmental organisations. One of the priority themes foreseen to be included in this is ‘Support for measures to combat racism and xenophobia and to protect religious and ethnic minorities’. The Call will most likely be published in early July 2003 and the deadline for applications will be September 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/649

(2004/C 88 E/0666)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3401/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 November 2003)

Subject: The Loizidou case

The length of time which has elapsed since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) passed judgment in the above case, during which Turkey has failed to comply with the Court's ruling, is an affront to the authority of the Court.

Turkey has now set two main conditions for implementing the ruling, viz.

— that the Loizidou case does not set a precedent for other cases already pending in the ECHR and that those cases should first go before the Compensation Committee recently set up by the illegal Denktash regime, and

— that the part of the judgment ruling that Turkey allow Ms Loizidou to enjoy her property in peace should not be implemented and that only compensation should be paid.

In view of the fact that provision is made under the terms of the enhanced political dialogue between the EU and Turkey for respect for the judgments of the ECHR and that implementation of the Court's judgment in the Loizidou case has in effect been pending since 1996, what steps will the Commission take to persuade Turkey to implement the ECHR's judgment without repercussion or unacceptable compromise?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission has been closely following the case of Loizidou against Turkey to which the Honourable Member refers. As the Commission highlighted in its 2003 Regular Report (1), despite Turkey's undertaking in June 2003 to pay by October 2003 the just satisfaction awarded to Mrs Loizidou by the European Court of Human Rights, no payment has yet been made.

Resolution of this matter is clearly a priority of the Council of Europe Minister's Deputies, who have been considering this case frequently in the course of their recent weekly meetings. The Council of Europe has continued to strongly urge Turkey to pay, without condition, the just satisfaction awarded by the Court.

One of the priorities outlined in the Accession Partnership for Turkey is respect for the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights. As such, the Commission will continue to closely monitor those judgements that have not been executed by Turkey, including this case.

(1) COM(2003) 676 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/234

(2004/C 78 E/0236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3169/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Ban on dangerous dog breeds

Unfortunately, my previous questions concerning a ban on dangerous dogs have had no effect. It is true that one or two Member States, Italy and Austria for example, have already taken measures against violent and aggressive dogs by making muzzles compulsory in public places, such as bus stops and parks, and introducing training schools for puppies, but these measures do not go far enough. Recently, we have again been confronted with terrible headlines about pitbulls attacking children and adults. It is not enough that individual Member States or regions tackle the behaviour of some breeds of dog. There must be a European directive banning dangerous dog breeds.

How many more people need to be bitten to death or mutilated in the Commission's opinion?

How much longer must we wait before action is finally taken at Community level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The legal basis for Community action in the area of human health protection is Article 152 of the EC Treaty. The first paragraph of this article stipulates that where Community action complements national policies, the principle of subsidiarity applies. According to this principle, which is set out in Article 5 of the EC Treaty, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action only where the objectives of the proposed action can be better achieved by the Community.

In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have a sufficiently sound and conclusive scientific basis to propose European legislation on this subject itself, rather than leaving it to the Member States.

It is up to the Member States to adopt the necessary measures at national level in order to prevent accidents of this kind.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/328

(2004/C 78 E/0345)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3838/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Stray animals in Greece

The press has reported the promulgation in Greece of a law (No 3170/03) laying down government policy for dealing with strays in view of the Olympic Games. It provides, inter alia, that stray animals shall be rounded up by the municipalities, which shall receive EUR 1 million for the construction of animal shelters. Sick animals shall be put to sleep. However, the above procedure arbitrarily allows all stray animals to be put down without distinction.

A more viable solution would be to set up clinics for pets providing veterinary services under the supervision of specialists, which could operate to control the population of strays. Will the Commission say whether, given such a scenario, it would help protect stray animals in Greece by releasing funds for such clinics to be set up?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The welfare of stray dogs and cats is a matter which falls entirely within the responsibility of the Greek authorities and the Commission has no legal basis for intervention with the authorities of this Member State about the matter. As a consequence no specific Community aids can be envisaged.

As was indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3503/03 (1), the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office did learn on the margins of a mission to Greece in September 2003 that considerable efforts were being put into finding a solution to this problem which respected the welfare needs of the animals concerned. The Commission would hope that all decisions concerning the future of these animals will be made after competent veterinary opinion has been obtained.

(1) See page 294.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/162

(2004/C 88 E/0171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3975/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Respect for equal treatment for staff at the Commission delegation in Brazil

I have received a complaint from local staff at the Commission delegation in Brazil concerning the way in which their salaries have fallen by more than 40 % since September 1999.

Can the Commission confirm this drop in salaries? Can the Commission explain its actions? Can the Commission guarantee that its treatment of local staff at the Commission delegation in Brazil complies with the principles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The salaries of local staff in Delegations of the Commission are revised annually in accordance with the Framework Rules (FR) laying down the conditions of employment of local staff of the Commission serving in third countries. The objective of the annual salary revisions is to maintain a level of salaries, which is competitive with those of reference employers on the local labour market.

Due to the dramatic economic conditions in Brazil in the nineties, it was decided to establish a salary grid in ECU, with monthly payment of the salaries in local currency. In 1999, it became obvious that the reference grid in ECU had artificially put the local staff salaries far above the salaries of the reference employers. Therefore, it was justified to return to salaries fixed in local currency. Those local agents, who were already employed in the Delegation, signed an addendum to their contract accepting the conversion of their salaries from ECU to the local currency at an agreed exchange rate.

Subsequently, the salaries of those local agents, who were employed already in 1999, were ‘frozen’ until their salaries would be in line with the local market. The alignment is materialised by a salary grid fixed and revised annually according to the agreement with the trade unions staff representatives on the basis of the FR. Thus, the Commission cannot confirm that the salaries of the local agents who signed the addendum have been dropped since their nominal value remains fixed since 1999. At present, those salaries are still considerably higher than those of the local reference employers.

The Commission is treating all local staff employed at its Delegations world-wide in compliance with the principles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/717

(2004/C 84 E/0805)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/03

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Arrest of journalists in Gibraltar

As the Commission is aware, on 20 January 2003 a group of journalists who were preparing to film the action being taken by the environmentalist group Greenpeace in protest against the oil tanker Vemamagna in Gibraltar were arrested.

Members of the Campo de Gibraltar Press Association have reported that the officers manning the Gibraltarian patrol boats behaved in a violent and arbitrary fashion and then proceeded to arrest some of the journalists present and to detain them in police cells for a nine-hour period, following which they were released without charge.

The above-mentioned Association deems such behaviour to constitute a direct attack on freedom of speech, on the right to report freely and on the right of the general public to be informed.

Could the Commission seek information from the Gibraltar authorities as to the reasons which prompted the officers of the Royal Gibraltar Police to arrest the journalists?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0201/03 by Mr Menéndez del Valle (1)

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 13.