ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
(2004/C58E/159) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2209/03
byPeterSkinner(PSE)totheCommission
(2July2003)
Subject:VATonrepairstolistedplacesofworshipwithintheUK
AschurchesinScotlandarefacingfinancialpressures,securingtheVATreductionisveryimportantandit
isofcourseofbenefittoeveryonethathistoricchurchesbewellcaredfor.Scottishchurcheshavealwaysfelt it inappropriate to levy admission charges and apart from grants from bodies such as HistoricScotland/HeritageLottery(whichareannuallyreducing)thecostofrepairshavehadtobemetoutofmembers’offerings.CouldtheCommissiontellmewhatisthecurrentsituationwithregardtothis.
AnswergivenbyMrBolkesteinonbehalfoftheCommission
(4September2003)
TheCommissionwouldrefertheHonourableMembertoitsanswertoWrittenQuestionE-1676/03by
MrMacCormick(
1).
ItwouldinformtheHonourableMemberthatitrecentlyadoptedaproposalforaDirectiveasregards
reducedratesofvalueaddedtax(2).Themainobjectiveofthisproposalistoimprovetheoperationofthe
internal market by rationalising Member States’ use of reduced rates in order to avoid distortion ofcompetitionbygivingallMemberStatesthesameopportunitiestoapplyreducedrates.
Wideningthescopeofreducedrateswasconsideredatthetimetheproposalwasbeingdrafted.Itwas
decidedtoextendtheoptiontoapplyreducedratestocategoriesofgoodsandservicesforwhichsomeMemberStatesarealreadyauthorisedtoapplyreducedratesunderspecificderogationswheretheydonotimpairtheoperationoftheinternalmarket.Thismeasureconcernsaccommodationbutnotrepairstolistedplacesofworship.AsfarastheCommissionknows,mostMemberStatesdonotapplyreducedratestothistypeofservicebutsubsidiseitinotherways.
(1) OJC11E,15.1.2004,p.214.
(2) COM(2003)397final.
(2004/C58E/160) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2233/03
bySebastianoMusumeci(UEN)totheCommission
(3July2003)
Subject:EuromediterraneanBankinSicily
AttherequestoftheLaekenEuropeanCouncilofDecember2001,theCommissionandtheCouncilhave
examinedthepossibilityofsettingupaEuromediterranean Bank.TheBarcelonaEuropeanCouncilof15/16March2002approvedthecreationofareinforcedEuro-MediterraneaninvestmentfacilitywithintheEIB,complementedbyaEuro-MediterraneanpartnershiparrangementandanEIBrepresentativeofficeinthearea.
CouldtheCommissionthereforeindicate:
1. what criteria will be adopted for selecting the country in which to base the Euro-Mediterranean
branchoftheEIB;
2. whetheritdoesnotconsiderthatSicilymightbethemostappropriateregioninwhichtositethat
bank,givenitsgeopoliticalpositionintheEurope-Africa-Asiabasinanditsage-oldhistorical,culturalandreligioustradition?6.3.2004EN C58E/145 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
AnswergivenbyMrBarnieronbehalfoftheCommission
(30July2003)
ThenorthIonianaxe,fromAntiriotoIoannina,aswellasthesectionofthePATHEaxefromAthensto
Malliakos, form together a concession scheme which has been tendered by the Greek Authorities inautumn2001.Thephaseofthepreselectionofcandidateswithinthistenderingprocedurewascompletedinautumn2002.Atpresent,thefinaltenderdocumentsandtermsarebeingprepared bytheGreekAuthoritiesforthisconcessionscheme.
Theby-passesofthecitiesofAgrinio,ArtaandPhilipiada,areimportantsectionsofthenorthIonianaxe.
Theyhaveatotallengthof52,5kilometres(km),andtheyarenowunderconstructionaspublicworks.Theyareco-financedbytheCommunitySupportFramework,2000-2006,andbytheCohesionFund,2000-2006.OnthebasisoftheinformationgivenbytheGreekAuthoritiesandtherelevantfundingdecisionsinthecaseoftheCohesionFund,theprojectsshouldbecompletedbytheendof2007.
Forinformationregardingthesecondandthirdpointsofhisquestion,theHonourableMemberisaskedto
refertotheanswergivenbytheCommissiontotheWrittenQuestionP-0386/03ofMrAveroff(
1).
Thesocio-economicfeasibilityassessmentfortheRIO-AntiriobridgeundertakenbytheCommissionand
theEuropeanInvestmentBankyieldedapositiveresulttakingintoaccountthetrafficdataandprojections,andthecapacityofexistingtransportinfrastructuresinEpirus,WesternGreeceandPeloponnese.NewtransportinfrastructurebecompletedundertheCommunitySupportFrameworkandtheCohesionFund,2000-2006,includingthenorthIonianaxearealsoexpectedtoenhancetheviabilityoftheRIO-Antiriobridge.
(1) OJC222E,18.9.2003,p.194.
(2004/C58E/113) WRITTENQUESTIONP-1808/03
byPhilipBradbourn(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(23May2003)
Subject:CommunicationCOM(2002)709final(C5-0202/2003),Target-basedtripartitecontracts
WithregardtotheEuropeanCommissionCommunication(1),willtheCommissionpleaseconfirmthatthe
tripartitecontractsandagreementsreferredtowillnotoverridethepowersandprerogativesofMemberStatesintermsofbypassingnationaleconomicandsocialobjectivesandcontrolsonpublicexpenditureand also national policies and constitutional arrangements in Member States in respect of their ownregionalandlocalauthorities?
(1) COM(2002)709final.
AnswergivenbyMrProdionbehalfoftheCommission
(10June2003)
TheCommissioncanconfirmthat,pursuanttotheCommissioncommunicationofDecember2002to
whichtheHonourableMemberrefers,involvementbytheMemberStates(centralgovernment)isasinequanonfortheestablishmentofatarget-basedtripartitecontractoragreement.
Inparticular,whenthecommunicationwasadopted,theCommissionmadeitspositionknowninthe
following terms: ‘Since the aim is to develop experience and encourage involvement, the clearidentificationoflocalactorstobeincludedinthecontractoragreementisanimportantconditionforsuccess.Thisidentification requires the involvementofthe Member States,ifonlytoensure thatthecontractoragreementiscompatiblewithconstitutional,legislativeandadministrativeprovisionsinforceineachMemberState.’
ItistheCommission’sfirmintentiontoabidebytheseguidelinesoncompliancewithMemberStates’
constitutionalarrangementswhenimplementingtarget-basedcontractsandagreements.C58E/98 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/114) WRITTENQUESTIONP-1814/03
byMarioBorghezio(NI)totheCommission
(23May2003)
Subject:MarioCipollini’sarbitrarydisqualificationfromtheTourdeFrance
Theworldroadcyclingchampion,MarioCipollini,aprofessionalsportsmanandhenceaworker,hasbeen
barred,alongwithhisteam,fromcompetingintheTourdeFrance,eventhough,ascanbeseenfromhislatestbrilliantvictoriesintheGirod’Italia,heiscurrentlyinsuperbform.
DoesnotthisdisqualificationsignifyaninstanceofdiscriminationcontrarytoUnionrules,inparticular
theprincipleofequaltreatmentandfreemovementofCommunityworkersonUnionterritory?
AnswergivenbyMrBolkesteinonbehalfoftheCommission
(20June2003)
TheHonourableMemberhasquestionedtheCommissionaboutthefactthattheracing cyclistMario
Cipolliniandhisteam were notselectedforthe Tour deFrance. However, onthe basisofthe facts
presentedintheWrittenQuestion,theCommissiondoesnothaveanyinformationthatwouldleaditto
identifythepresenceofsomeformofdiscriminationorinfringementofEUrules.
Morespecifically,theinformationavailabledoesnotmakeitpossibletoestablishwhetherthedecision
takenbytheorganisersoftheTourdeFrancebreachestheprincipleofequaltreatmentandfreedomofmovementwithintheinternalmarket.
Furthermore,inaccordancewiththeestablishedcaselawoftheCourtofJustice(
1),itshouldbepointed
outthattheCommunityprovisionsonthefreemovementofpersonsandservicesdonotexcluderulesorpractices(suchasselectioncriteria)whicharejustifiedonnon-economicgroundsrelatingtothenatureandspecificcontextofcertainsportsmeetingsandevents,providedthattheserulesorpracticesarenon-discriminatoryandproportionate.
(1) Case 13/76, Donà / Mantero, ECR 1976, p. 1333 Case C-415/93, Bosman, ECR 1995, p. 5040 Joined
CasesC-51/96andC-191/97,Deliège.
(2004/C58E/115) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1822/03
byAlexandrosAlavanos(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(2June2003)
Subject:TransfertoairforceofEKAB(NationalFirstAidCentre)airrescueoperations
In2000,theEKABairrescuefleetwassetupwith75%ofthefundingbeingprovidedunderthesecond
Community Support Framework. Following a series of accidents, the Greek Government decided totransferthefleettotheairforceandreregisteritaccordinglywiththeAirTransportUtilitiesCommand(DAYKO)forwhichtheairforcewillassumeresponsibilityby20May2003.However,theunithasnotyetbeenlegallyformalised.Thisiscausingseriousconcern,giventhatthestrictJAA(JointAviationAuthority)standardsdonotapplytothearmedforcesandthattheaccidentinvolvingtheEKABhelicopterwaslargelycausedbyinadequatesafetyspecifications.
1. Isthetransfertothearmedforcesofhelicoptercrewswho,underthesecondCSF,wereconsidered
tobecivilianemergencyrescuepersonnel,therebyincreasingtheCommunitybudgetforthearmedforces,inaccordancewiththeprinciplesgoverningCSFfunding?6.3.2004EN C58E/99 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
2.

In recent years, the Union has developed a worker involvement policy for dealing adequately with the social consequences of company restructuring. As a result of that policy, restructuring operations must be preceded by information and consultation of employees' representatives with the aim of avoiding or reducing their social impact, in accordance with the Community Directives on ‘Collective Redundancies’ (1), ‘Transfers of Undertakings’ (2), ‘European Works Councils’ (3) and, from March 2005 onwards, ‘Information and Consultation’ (4). As regards the case in question, the Commission has not been informed about the way in which the Melka company intends to deal with the social implications. The aforementioned Directives have been transposed in the Member State concerned. It is therefore up to the national authorities to ensure that the workers’ rights laid down in these Directives are respected. Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees must be transposed into national law by 25 March 2005 at the latest. The Commission argues that, when restructuring, enterprises should always take into account the effects that those decisions could have on their employees as well as on the social and regional context. This has recently been underlined in the Commission Communication concerning Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) — A business contribution to Sustainable Development (5). Furthermore, in January 2002 the Commission invited the European social partners to engage in a dialogue on anticipating and managing change with a view to applying a dynamic approach to the social aspects of corporate restructuring. The social partners have recently sent to the Commission the results of their joint work on this topic. They consist of a set of reference guidelines for companies and their workers in the event of restructuring. The Commission very much hopes that these results, as well as other follow-up actions, will disseminate throughout Europe good practices of corporate restructuring, thus helping companies and their workers adequately to address the social dimension involved.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/264

(2004/C 70 E/286)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: French action against pigmeat from other EU Member States

The transport of pigmeat into France has recently been seriously threatened by the heavy-handed actions of French farmers: lorries have been stopped, meat-processing plants invaded and Dutch, Spanish, Danish and German pigmeat destroyed. As the French police have not intervened, such actions are not discouraged and the free movement of pigmeat within the EU is disrupted.

How does the Commission intend to eliminate this obstruction to freedom of movement?

Why is the Commission taking so long to discuss this disruption of the internal market with the French Government?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/236

(2004/C 70 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3205/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Formal complaint re Objective 2 funding to support the Broadband4Devon Project

Has the Commission received the formal complaint filed by Colin Coleman, of Devon, with regard to the Objective 2 funding to support the ‘Broadband4Devon Project’ as proposed by Devon County Council?

What is the Commission doing about this issue? What is the likely timetable for a response to my constituent?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

The Commission has received the seven letters in the course of this year from Mr Coleman dated 4 July 8 August, 12 and 17 September, 6 and 30 October and 7 November with regard to the Objective 2 funding to support the ‘Broadband4Devon Project’ as proposed by Devon County Council. A reply was sent directly to Mr Coleman by letter of 10 November 2003.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the day-to-day management of programmes supported by the Structural Funds is a responsibility that is decentralised to the authorities in the Member States and regions once the strategic priorities of the programme have been agreed with the Commission. Under Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) the managing authority bears the responsibility for ensuring the efficiency and correctness of the programme's management and implementation and, in particular, the compliance with Community policies. The appraisal procedure used to decide funding for individual projects under the programme was adopted by the Programme Monitoring Committee, in accordance with Article 35 of the above Regulation and the principle of subsidiarity.

These provisions seek to ensure that applicants for support from the programmes are treated equally and that all projects selected are in compliance with Community legislation, especially with regard to state aid and public procurement rules.

On the basis of the information at its disposal, the Commission has no evidence of an infringement of Community law regarding the approval of the ‘Broadband4Devon’ project.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/265

(2004/C 70 E/288)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3514/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject: Course financed by means of the Structural Funds

On 11 November 2002 the Naples-based Istituto nazionale di formazione per le imprese culturali launched a course entitled ‘Content Specialist & Designer’ within the PON Asse III misura III 6/D-Codice progetto 5387 discipline. The course is financed by means of the European Social Fund.

The course students (who had to go through a selection procedure) have not received the grant awarded to them (EUR 10 389,14 per student), since the person in charge of the course — a Mr Palladino — has been deemed untrustworthy by the Ministry for State Education, Universities and Scientific Research on account of his previous record. On 30 April 2003 (20 days before the course was due to end) the Ministry decided that co-financing would be suspended and that the training project would be abandoned.

On the basis of the above information, does the Commission not think that, irrespective of any judgment regarding Mr Palladino, the 19 pre-selected women should not be denied their grants or have their course certificates withheld?

Does the Commission not agree that, in accordance with the rules, some kind of protection should be offered to the 19 unemployed course students who, having been duly selected, wished to take advantage of the opportunity afforded to them under the Structural Funds?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

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 70/90

(2004/C 70 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2362/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 July 2003)

Subject: Research by a Turkish vessel in Greek territorial waters in the Aegean

It is reported in today's Greek press (8 July 2003) that from 4 to 19 July the Turkish oceanographic research vessel, the Piri Reis, will conduct research in the Aegean, in particular in Greek territorial waters. These reports state that the Greek navy has picked up an announcement broadcast by Izmir coastal radio station concerning the ‘vessel's oceanographic research’. According to its programme of ‘research’ the Piri Reis (which, incidentally, belongs to Izmir University) will carry out research at a distance of up to five nautical miles from the rocky islet ‘Kaloyeri’ in the Cyclades and at 25 other spots in Greek territorial waters.

It should be pointed out that Turkey (an applicant country) has previously dispatched this vessel into the Aegean with instructions to carry out research in Greek (and therefore Community) waters, thereby causing tension in Greek-Turkish relations.

Is the Council aware of the intention of the Turkish authorities? Has the University of Izmir, which owns the vessel in question, received funding through any Community initiative (either directly or indirectly with loans or other Community funds)? What actions can the Council take forthwith to prevail upon Turkey not to go ahead with research in the territorial waters of an EU Member State?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

1. The Council has been informed that a Turkish marine research vessel had been conducting activities in the Aegean, but has no particular information about the specific scope of these activities or on the Turkish authorities' intentions. The Council is not aware of the existence of Community funding for the body owning the vessel.

2. As a candidate State, Turkey is required — under the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the UN Charter — to make every effort to resolve any outstanding border disputes and other related issues, as set out in point 4 of the European Council conclusions in Helsinki on 10/11 December 1999. This is, moreover, a specific priority in the revised Partnership Agreement for Turkey's accession.

3. Since March 2002, exploratory talks between Greece and Turkey have been taking place at the level of senior officials of their respective Foreign Ministries. Greece and Turkey have also put in place various sets of confidence-building measures in this area. The Council is closely monitoring progress achieved in this connection. In line with the Helsinki conclusions, the European Council will have to review the situation — including its repercussions on the accession process — before the end of 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/263

(2004/C 70 E/284)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3400/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 November 2003)

Subject: Interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002

Is it the Commission's view that the wording of Article 5(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (1) allows scope for the use of sanitisation methods other than heat treatment?

Is the Commission familiar with alternative sanitisation methods and when can authorisation of those methods be expected?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Article 5(2)(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption provides that Category 2 animal by-products may be disposed of by other means or used in other ways in accordance with rules laid down under Comitology procedure, after consultation of the appropriate scientific committee. These means or ways may either supplement or replace those provided for in subparagraphs (a) to (f) of the same Article 5(2).

Therefore, methods other than heat treatment may be allowed provided that they have undergone a scientific risk assessment and are found to be safe as a result of such assessment vis-à-vis animal and public health and the environment.

The Commission has received a number of applications for approval of such methods, which were sent to the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) for opinion. The SSC has issued opinions, on the basis of which the Commission is discussing with Member States and with interested parties, the conditions for the approval of some of the methods. Authorisation is expected in the near future.

(1) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/46

(2004/C 70 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1486/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Cyber-racism

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia has recently commissioned research on the proliferation of websites which are designed to incite racial hatred. Is the European Commission aware of this proliferation and what is the Commission's view on the increase in such sites?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Commission firmly condemns racism and xenophobia, which are a direct violation of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles upon which the Union is founded and which are common to the Member States as stated in Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union.

The Commission presented in November 2001 a proposal for a Framework Decision (1), a legislative instrument in the field of penal law to ensure that the same racist and xenophobic conducts are punishable by the same penalties in all Member States and secondly, to improve and encourage judicial cooperation by removing potential obstacles. The Commission's approach on this issue is to ensure that racist and xenophobic content on the Internet is criminalised in all Member States. The basic idea would be contained in the principle, ‘what is illegal off-line is illegal on-line’. Moreover, the proposal also establishes some minimum criteria as regards to jurisdiction for this type of offences. At present, negotiations on this legislative instrument are blocked at Council and the Commission regrets that some Member States are not willing to strengthening the Union ‘acquis’ contained in the Council Joint Action (2) adopted in 1996 on this issue.

Regarding Community instruments, Article 15 of the Electronic Commerce Directive (3) lays down that service providers who store information supplied by and at the request of a recipient of the service need to expeditiously remove access to the information once they are informed of the illegality of this information.

Recital 48 of the Directive introduces the possibility for Member States to require hosting service providers to apply ‘duties of care’ in order to detect and prevent illegal activity.

At international level, fifteen countries — including ten Member States- have signed the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature, committed through the use of computer systems.

The Safer Internet Action Plan (4) also offers scope for funding action against racism (hotlines and awareness-raising) and the Safer Internet Forum which is being set up under the Action Plan will discuss practical ways of co-operating in this respect.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.

(2) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996.

(3) Directive 2000/31/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.

(4) COM(2002) 152 final.