ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/684

(2004/C 84 E/0770)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject: Communitarisation of Article 2 of the Schengen Convention

According to the Commission's Scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of ‘freedom, security and justice’ in the European Union, a legislative proposal was to have been submitted by the end of 2001 with a view to Communitarisation of Article 2 of the Schengen Convention (safeguard clause allowing the temporary reintroduction of border controls). More than two years after the expiry of the deadline, Parliament still has not had any proposal of this kind referred to it.

In the meantime, Member States have systematically used — and abused — this safeguard clause at the time of European summits or other international meetings such as the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001. This demonstrates — if proof were called for — the need for a Community approach to this question.

What are the reasons for the delay?

Will the Commission submit a proposal for Communitarising Article 2 of the Schengen Convention, and when will it do so?

Can the Commission already indicate the general outlines of such a proposal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Despite the delay, the Commission is still convinced that Article 2 of the Schengen Convention should be communitarised. For that reason, it announced in the most recent biannual update of its scoreboard to review progress in creating an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union that it would incorporate such a procedure in the proposal for a regulation on the recasting of the common manual which will be presented before the end of the first half of 2004 (1).

Preparatory work on this proposal with a view to drawing up a code on borders is not yet complete. The Commission is, therefore, unable to give any details on the content of the proposal.

(1) COM(2003) 812 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/449

(2004/C 84 E/0524)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0799/04

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Subject: UK implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC

Are UK regulations The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003', with particular regard to section 7(3), in full compliance with Directive 2000/78/EC (1), in particular Article 4(2)?

If the regulations do not fully comply with the Directive, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission is reviewing the legislation submitted to it by Member States and which implements Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, including The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 submitted by the United Kingdom.

The Commission expects all Member State legislation to fully and properly implement the Directive. The Commission will pay particular attention to the way in which the Member States use any of the derogations set out in the Directive including Article 4(2) regarding genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements. As with any exception to the principle of equal treatment, the provisions of this Article are to be interpreted strictly.

The first paragraph of Article 4(2) allows Member States to maintain provisions in their legislation which are in force at the date of the adoption of the Directive and which provide that differences of treatment based on a person's religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination when the religion or belief, by the nature of the activities or the context in which they are carried out, constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement having regard to the organisation's ethos. This is also the case when Member States adopt new legislation, but only, if at the time of the adoption of the Directive, national practices pursuing this aim were already in existence.

It is also important that this paragraph refers only to differences of treatment based on a person's religion or belief. Differences of treatment on other grounds are not mentioned. Furthermore, the paragraph stipulates that this difference of treatment ‘should not justify discrimination on another ground’. Therefore, differences of treatment which are not based on a person's religion or belief are not permissible under Article 4(2).

As already mentioned, the Commission is reviewing Member States' legislation. Where Member States choose to take advantage of the derogations from the principle of equal treatment set out in the Directive and the Commission concludes that their legislation does not meet the strict requirements of the derogations within the Directive, including Article 4(2), then the Commission will take all necessary actions under the EC Treaty to ensure Member State compliance.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/376

(2004/C 84 E/0436)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0363/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Complaint P2000/4974

Could the Commission indicate the state of play with regard to complaint No P2000/4974 relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment concerning refurbishment proposals for Eyre Square, Galway? What conclusions has it come to, and when does it expect to take a final decision in the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

This complaint related to the absence of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for an urban development project consisting of refurbishment works on Eyre Square, which is the principal square in Galway. In 2003, the Irish authorities confirmed that an EIA had been undertaken for the project. On the basis that no breach of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) could be identified, the complaint file was subsequently closed.

(1) Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/591

(2004/C 84 E/0666)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0451/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Food aid and food security programme

In 2001, the food aid and food security programme, with a budget of EUR 454 million, aimed to improve food security in the overall development strategy of beneficiary countries; EUR 25,2 million was earmarked for technical assistance in the field. Can the Commission indicate what technical assistance projects have been subsidised and whether these have proved successful?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

Some 80 % of the EUR 25,2 million provided for technical assistance under the 2001 budget for food and food security was used to finance the contracts of individual experts attached to food security programmes in 23 of the countries receiving our aid.

The rest of the budget was used to finance contracts for monitoring food aid (around 10 %) and monitoring and/or evaluation contracts for our food security programmes (around 10 %).

Each food security programme provides for a mid-term evaluation and a final evaluation carried out by independent consultants. These evaluations, which obviously consider the technical assistance component, are launched under the EC's framework contract system and are regularly presented to the Food Aid and Food Security Committees.

The technical assistance component is also evaluated in the overall evaluation exercises conducted by the Commission.
1.

Job shifts from one part of the EU to another should not be seen as related to Structural Fund interventions. Such shifts are rather linked to globalisation and differences in national policies (eg. labour and tax legislation) and practices. The Structural Funds aim to strengthen economic and social cohesion across the EU. In this respect, support for job creation is an essential tool within the wide scope of financed interventions. In particular, the European Social Fund (ESF) finances employment aids (according to Article 3.2.b of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund (1)). Such aids can be granted to enterprises for job creation and for job maintenance and recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers. Obviously, employment aids must be compatible with the common market rules and with the state aid rules as defined in Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty and implemented in the Regulations concerned (e.g. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to state aid for employment (2)). The ESF also promotes entrepreneurship. ESF support to various actions, including training and guidance, allows individuals to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills to set-up and run businesses. Support is also offered to entrepreneurs with a view to enable them to extend their economic activities. This entails the creation of new and better job places. Moreover, the rule aiming at avoiding the unfair competition between the regions was introduced by Article 30.4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (3). According to it, Member States must ensure that an operation retains the contribution from Structural Funds only if it does not, within five years of the date of the decision concerning Structural Funds contribution, undergo substantial modifications which could affect the nature of the operation, its implementation conditions or give to a firm or a public body an undue advantage. Moreover, the modification cannot result from a change in the nature of ownership as regards infrastructure or from change in location in a productive activity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/453

(2004/C 84 E/0528)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0865/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: European subsidies paid to the Flemish community

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What percentage of all EU subsidies were received each year by the Flemish community in Belgium from 1999 to 2003?

2. How much did the Flemish community receive (in euro) over the same period for: — agriculture; — structural funds, by objective and by Community initiative?

3. What amounts (in euro) did the European Union pay to the Flemish community over the same period for: — research and technological development (framework programmes); — trans-European networks; — education, youth; — others?

4. What were the annual amounts over the period 1999 to 2003 of the subsidies paid: — through official (public) bodies (Flemish community, provinces and so on); — private operators (non-profit-making organisations, universities or colleges of higher education)?

5. What frauds or irregularities in the subsidies were reported and have any recoveries of subsidies been made in the above areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/894

(2004/C 84 E/0987)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0844/04

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Aid to shipbuilding in breach of EU legislation

In recent months Finnish shipyards have lost out in several competitive bidding procedures to the Italian state-owned company Fincantieri, which has been able to offer customers markedly lower prices than its rivals. According to various avowed expert opinions, Italy is probably paying state aid to shipping companies that have their vessels built and registered in Italy.

Overseeing the internal market is one of the Commission's prime tasks. What steps will the Commission take to ensure that EU competition legislation is observed in the shipbuilding sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission's state aid department is actively following the shipbuilding sector, through the assessment of notified state aid cases and schemes, investigations linked to complaints and through investigations on its own initiatives.

The Commission is not aware of state aid to shipping companies that have their vessels built in Italy, with the exception of a type of aid that has been authorised by the Commission and which could, in principle, be provided by all Member States. This concerns contract related aid (1) for ships contracted until the end of 2000 and delivered before the end of 2003.

The Commission has currently one proceeding according to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty open concerning state aid to Italian shipbuilding (2). This concerns a guarantee scheme to shipbuilding, but to the knowledge of the Commission no guarantees have yet been provided based on this scheme.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding, OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

(2) OJ C 145, 21.6.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/436

(2004/C 84 E/0508)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject: Follow-up to question E-3005/02 on the European shipbuilding sector

In respect of the aid of approximately EUR 700 million granted by the Spanish government to the Spanish shipbuilding sector, can the Commission answer following questions:

1. Was the Commission notified of this aid by the Spanish government?

2. Does the European Commission share the view that, given the scale of the Spanish shipbuilding industry, the amount has to be regarded as disproportionate?

3. Does the European Commission not agree that a thorough investigation is required into the action by the Spanish Government, which potentially involves a distortion of competition and, above all, into how the Spanish shipbuilding industry calculates its cost prices? Has the Commission already begun such an investigation and, if not, when will it do so?

4. In view of the seriousness of the general situation in the European shipbuilding sector, is the European Commission prepared to set up a crisis team that can respond quickly and monitor measures taken by Member States, in order to prevent unfair competition on the European internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

1. At this moment in time, Spain has not notified under the State aid rules the measures referred to by the Honourable Member.

2. At this early stage it is not possible to say whether the measures constitute State aid, and if so, whether they are compatible or not. Furthermore, since the measures appear to be intended for a number of years, it is difficult to judge whether, as the Honourable Member states, they are disproportionate.

3. The Commission is closely following the issue and will request information from the Spanish authorities. In another file, in which proceedings were opened according to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty (suspected State aid to Spanish public civil shipyards in the form of capital injections to IZAR) (1), the Commission requested Spain to clarify how overhead costs are distributed in IZAR and to clarify the costs for a civil ferry built in one of IZAR's military shipyards.

4. Concerning the suggestion of a crisis team for shipbuilding, the Commission is not fully sure of how such a team could work from a practical or legal point of view. However, the Honourable Member can be assured that allegations of unfair competition in the EU shipbuilding market are taken very seriously in the Commission, and that adequate human resources are already used in the State aid departments to follow the shipbuilding industry.

(1) OJ C 201, 26.8.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/783

(2004/C 84 E/0880)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/04

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

(16 February 2004)

Subject: Legalising irregular migrants working in the Union

Several million irregular immigrants work in the EU, and to date, the European Institutions have not taken any decisions comparable to those of the President of the USA, who has just forwarded to Congress a proposal for a new policy to give millions of irregular workers legal status. Although the implementation of this decision by the US President may in some respects be open to criticism, there is no doubt that it marks a major step forward in resolving an extremely serious economic and humanitarian problem. Has the Commission planned any similar political initiative to legalise the presence of irregular immigrants in the Union? If so, what type of initiative would it be?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

In order to implement the Treaty of Amsterdam and the mandate given in Tampere, the Commission has tabled several proposals for directives concerning the admission and the conditions of stay of third-country nationals.

Until now, none of these proposals contained provisions on the regularisation of the legal status of illegal immigrants already within the territory of the European Union and no such proposal is envisaged in the near future.

The Commission has stated in its Communication on immigration, integration and employment (1) that within the context of the common immigration policy the only coherent approach to dealing with illegal residents is to ensure that they return to their country of origin. Some Member States have implemented regularisation measures for illegal residents. Regularisation procedures may be seen as a factor which enables the integration process to develop but also as an encouragement of further illegal immigration.

Bearing in mind these potential impacts, the issue of regularisation will be examined in the study on the links between legal and illegal migration that will be released by the Commission during the present Irish Presidency.

(1) COM(2003) 336 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/210

(2004/C 84 E/0254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0393/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Animal By-Products Regulation

The above regulation has recently been implemented within Scotland resulting in numerous interpretations. While no-one is against the spirit of the legislation, its enactment in Scotland is causing concern. Many small, one-person businesses are facing unacceptable levels of charges, which will ultimately force them into bankruptcy.

The reason for my question was to enquire whether the Commission, when drafting this legislation, envisaged a cut-off point where small businesses fell out of the scope of the Regulation, or could that be dealt with at Member State level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 808/2003 of 12 May 2003 (2), lays down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. It was adopted on 3 October 2002, published on 10 October 2002 and applied from 1 May 2003.

The Regulation covers small businesses as far as the collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use or disposal, importation, export and transit of animal by-products are concerned to prevent these products from presenting a risk to animal or public health. There is no cut-off point foreseen where small businesses would fall out of the scope of the Regulation, and Member States cannot derogate from its provisions.

A fundamental revision of the Community rules applicable to animal by-products was necessary in the light of the recent feed-borne crises (bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), dioxin, foot and mouth disease, etc.) and the wide variety of approaches that existed in Member States as regards the financial support for processing, collection, storage and disposal of animal by-products.

On the basis of Article 35 of the Regulation in relation to national provisions, Member States have been asked to communicate to the Commission the measures taken to ensure compliance with the Regulation, and any difficulties they face. The Commission shall submit, before the end of 2004, a report to the Parliament and the Council accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals taking into account the difficulties raised by Member States.

If, therefore, particular problems have arisen for smaller operators, it would be expected that Member States' responses to Article 35 would put the Commission in a position to recommend responses to those problems by the end of 2004.

(1) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

(2) OJ L 117, 13.5.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/955

(2004/C 78 E/1011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: CAP: the declining contribution of EU funds to the survival of small farmers in a context of low consumer prices and low world market prices

1. In the Commission's opinion, has the existence of the Common Agricultural Policy in recent decades and the financial assistance from Community funds which it provides helped to enable small and medium-sized farmers, in both the arable and livestock sectors, despite relatively low consumer prices for their products and falling prices on the world market, to remain able to earn an acceptable income and thus to ensure the continuity of production?

2. In the light of the recent study by the development organisation Oxfam, can the Commission confirm that the funding currently provided under the CAP is increasingly failing to guarantee the survival of small farmers and that the bulk of it goes to large farmers and large land-owners?

3. When did the change referred to at 2 occur? Did it happen after the accession of new Member States with bigger disparities in land areas owned than existed in the six founder Member States of the European Communities?

4. To what extent was the existing financing method responsible for the fact that, after previous increases in scale, the number of farms in the present 15 Member States declined by a further 15,7 % between 1995 and 2002? Why was this method of financing unable to prevent the development concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.