ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/15

(2004/C 70 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3614/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Imports of raw materials from Morocco and the European leather industry

In view of the fact that the European leather industry is having great difficulty in importing hides from Morocco, what action is the Commission taking (or is it intending to take) under the EU-Morocco Association Agreement in order to remedy this state of affairs, which is seriously affecting the industry and undermining the competitiveness of the businesses working within it?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the impact of export restrictions applied by Morocco on raw material available to the Union industry. The Commission has attracted the attention of the Moroccan authorities to this fact and to the provisions of the Association Agreement between Morocco and the Community. According to this agreement, there should be no quantitative restriction in trade (export and import) between both parties.

Moreover, the Moroccan authorities have mentioned that export restrictions were instaured following a huge increase in their export of raw hides as a consequence of the major epidemics in the cattle worldwide. They also mentioned that this surge in demand led to a critical shortage of raw material for their domestic industry.

Representations have been made to Morocco in this regard but so far without any significant change or elimination of the export restrictive measures. The Commission will look into the market and supply situation of the products in question with European industry to verify to what extent the Moroccan allegations of short supply can be corroborated on the basis of a factual analysis. Obviously, the burden of proof to demonstrate that a shortage of supply exists is incumbent on the Moroccan side. The question will then be raised during the next Association Council due to take place by the end of February 2003, where the Commission will consider the possibility of invoking the provisions of the Association Agreement with Morocco to seek redress of the situation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/8

(2004/C 70 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2996/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 29 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents (1)‘calls on the Commission to draw up a specific directive for the fishing industry on health and safety at the workplace in accordance with Article 16(1) of the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC’.

What steps has the Commission taken?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that this request is already covered by Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), which is the thirteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the framework Directive, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 (3).

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
4.

Is the Commission, acting in conjunction with those European countries from which some of the victims came (France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands), prepared to approach President Wade about this issue? Has the Commission taken account of the fact that no country can deal with the consequences of such a catastrophe on its own?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/690

(2004/C 78 E/0736)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3340/02

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Certification of organic cereals exported on the internal market

Finnish exports of organic cereals to Germany are currently at a low because the German buyers do not accept the Finnish authorities' certification procedure. Germany requires every single consignment of organic produce to be issued with a certificate while the Finnish authorities do not consider that to be necessary. The relevant EU regulation does not require certification of each consignment either but it is customary for much of the trade in organic produce in the EU.

The Finnish authorities are eager to secure their exports of organic cereals and are prepared, if necessary to change their control procedures so that the certificates which the buyers require can in fact be issued. The German buyers, however, have been reluctant to produce clear models for the certification that they would like.

Does the Commission consider that the German buyers' demand that each individual consignment of organic cereals should be certified may be construed as a measure which obstructs competition? If so, what does the Commission intend to do to remove this obstacle to the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The Honourable Member explains that Finnish exports of ‘organic’ cereals to Germany are currently low because the German buyers require that every single consignment of ‘organic’ cereals is accompanied by a certificate without communicating the required model.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991, on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), sets out in its Annex III provisions for inspection requirements and in particular states that, on receipt of a product from another unit, the operator shall check that the following appropriate information is present on the label or on the accompanying document:

(a) the name and address of the operator and, where different, of the owner or seller of the product;

(b) the name of the product, including a reference to the organic production method;

(c) the name and/or the code number of the inspection body or authority to which the operator is subject and;

(d) where relevant, the lot identification mark according to a marking system either approved at national level or agreed with the inspection body or authority.

Therefore, the buyers of cereals are entitled to require the presence of the information relating to the reference to the organic production method and to the inspection authority or body. The Council Regulation does not require that this information appears on a certificate.

In addition, Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 guarantees the free movement of ‘organic’ produce within the Community and states that Member States may not prohibit the marketing of products in compliance with this regulation on grounds relating to labelling or to the presentation of the production method.

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.
1.

Article 4 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco provides a definition of ‘cigarettes’. According to Article 7(2) of this Directive products consisting in whole or in part of substances other than tobacco but otherwise conforming to the definition of cigarettes, shall be treated as cigarettes as well. On the other hand, products containing no tobacco and used exclusively for medical purposes shall not be treated as manufactured tobacco. Since they are not to be regarded as tobacco products Member States are not permitted to levy harmonised excise duty on them. The reply of the Commission to written question E-0721/02 was based on its interpretation of the information provided by the Member States a number of years ago. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member in his present question, the Commission intends to investigate the current application of the above mentioned rules by the Member States again and to clarify possible doubts on the occasion of the next meeting of the excise committee (beginning of April). The Commission will send this information directly to the Honourable Member.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/691

(2004/C 78 E/0737)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3636/02

by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Humanitarian aid and immigration controls

Given the Commission's welcome views on the issue of the link between development aid and trade, can the Commission state its views on a suggestion put forward by the Irish Minister for Justice that development aid be linked to the recipient's emigration controls and Ireland's immigration controls?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

In its recent Communication on ‘integrating migration issues in the Union relations with third countries’, the Commission has proposed a three-pronged strategy to step up cooperation with third countries in the area of migration:

— first, a balanced overall approach which addresses the root causes of migratory movements. The Community's action in this area is substantial and cannot be underestimated. Its external cooperation and development programmes and policies aimed at promoting human rights, bolstering democracy, combating poverty, preventing conflicts and improving the economic and social situation in general tackle the main factors contributing to migratory pressures in third countries and therefore exert an indirect effect on those pressures;

— second, a partnership on migration stemming from a definition of common interests with third countries. The objective of more effectively managing migration flows requires the Community to continue integrating migration issues into its political dialogue with third countries and regions. That dialogue should focus not only on illegal immigration but also on the channels for legal immigration;

— third, specific and concrete initiatives to assist third countries in increasing their capacity in the area of migration management. Since the European Council meeting in Tampere, the Commission has endeavoured to integrate specifically the topic of migration into its cooperation programmes with third countries.

In its communication, the Commission favours a positive approach, based on support and incentives to partner countries with whom co-operation on migration issues is to be improved. The Commission holds the view that punitive actions against countries with limited migration management capacities are counterproductive and should be avoided.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/4

(2004/C 65 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3067/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Subject: Excise duty on wine

It was reported in the Italian press in September 2002 that the European Commission is debating whether to introduce a minimum rate of excise duty greater than 0 % on wine in all EU countries including Italy, which are currently exempt from this duty. More specifically, the initial rates of duty, which would not apply to anyone producing under 1 000 hectolitres per year, would be EUR 0,13 per litre from 1 January 2003 and EUR 0,15 per litre as from 1 January 2007.

The Italian Farmers' Confederation has calculated that the levying of this excise duty would add EUR 500 million per annum to the prices paid by the consumer, which could well trigger a drop in consumption. Furthermore, the introduction of a minimum rate of excise duty for wine would not only adversely affect companies' sales and profitability but also increase bureaucracy. All this would be contrary to the Common Agricultural Policy, which aims to promote rural development and safeguard the countryside.

In view of this, does the Commission not consider that:

1. tax harmonisation at European level should tend towards the reduction of existing excise duties rather than the introduction of new ones;

2. all the agricultural products listed in Annex 1 to the EC Treaty should be exempt from excise duty;

3. the harmonisation of Italian legislation already constitutes full compliance with Article 7 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) and Article 5 of Directive 92/84/EEC (2)?

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/14

(2004/C 65 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3502/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Bear bile farming in China

Would the Commission inform me as to what influence and assistance the Commission is offering the Chinese Government in order to stop the cruel practice of farming bears for their bile?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

China has traditionally used bear bile for medical purposes. Since the 1980's commercial ‘bear farming’ has been used to obtain bile for traditional Chinese medicines.

The Commission is aware that this practice arose because of increasing conservation concerns about the killing of wild bears for this purpose. Nevertheless, the Commission also shares the Honourable Member's concern over the possible implications of such a practice for animal welfare. The Union has one of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and public awareness regarding animal welfare is high. Furthermore, a comprehensive set of legislation has been adopted that covers a wide range of issues relating to animal well being.

The Commission's policies promote the improved protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient beings, both internally and internationally, since it is of the opinion that high animal welfare standards must be ensured globally.

The Community will continue to actively pursue substantive negotiations on animal welfare and is co-operating at the international level in order to improve animal welfare policies world-wide. To do so, it seeks to develop high multilateral standards within the framework of specific international conventions, mainly within the framework of the Council of Europe and the World Organisation for Animal Health.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/18

(2004/C 33 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3311/02

by Regina Bastos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: EU financing for the United Nations Population Fund

Following the decision by the US to suspend its financial contribution (to the sum of USD 34 million for 2002) to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the Danish presidency of the EU has reaffirmed its support for the work of that organisation, and has stated that the EU will replace the US funding with its own.

Can the Commission confirm that the EU will provide funding for the UNFPA in replacement of the former US contribution?

If so, can the Commission give information on:

— the total amount of this funding;

— the date on which it is expected to become operative;

— the stage which the process has reached?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The Development Council of the Union, at its meeting on 30 May 2002, issued a statement underlining the importance of the work of the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA) and calling on all donor countries to pursue their support of the Fund. The statement also welcomed the Commission's intention to strengthen its cooperation with UNFPA.

The Commission has repeatedly expressed its disappointment at the decisions by the American administration to withdraw funding for UNFPA. The Commission considers that the resulting gap in UNFPAs Core budget will seriously weaken the organisation mandated by the international community to lead implementation world-wide of the Programme of Action adopted by consensus at the UN International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, September 1994). The Commission has not pledged to replace the US contribution to UNFPA's Core budget. Rather, in the light of the decisions by the American government, the Commission will increase its programme support to UNFPA and the IPPF to implement reproductive health activities in developing countries.

On 10 September 2002, the Commission signed the financing agreement for the 8th European Development Fund (EDF) EU 32 million programme, to be implemented by UNFPA (two-thirds) and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF, one-third) in 22 of the poorest African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. This programme aims at improving the capacities in ACP countries to deliver basic reproductive health services to vulnerable and under-served communities. The Commission expects that the contracts with UNFPA and IPPF will be signed in the near future, and that programme implementation will commence early in 2003. Additional support for UNFPA to implement reproductive health activities is envisaged under the 9th EDF.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Criticism by the Netherlands National Audit Office of the lack of transparency in the management of EU funds by fund flow and by Member State

1. Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands National Audit Office published its first annual EU trends report on 18 February 2003, the aim of which is to chart developments in the management of Community funds and oversight and monitoring of their allocation, as well as legality and effectiveness in the Netherlands and throughout the European Union?

2. Is the Commission aware that the 2003 report points out that, while the Commission exercises checks, their results are not published, so that the public is unable to establish any link between shortcomings in financial management and certain countries or flows of funds, and that the report also criticises the fact that since 1994 the European Court of Auditors, in its reports on the reliability of income and expenditure, has made no specific reference by country or fund flow, and hence can make no positive statements on the accounts of the European Union?

3. Is there a law in all the Member States comparable to the Dutch law on supervision of European subsidies, which was adopted following the discovery of errors in the management of the ESF in the period from 1994 to 1999, and which requires ministers to exercise central oversight over decentralised spending?

4. Is oversight at national level limited in practice to the Member States Austria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, and the candidate countries Estonia, Latvia, Hungary and Romania?

5. Why are results broken down by fund flow not published, particularly as regards the Structural and Cohesion Funds and agricultural subsidies?

6. Why are results broken down by Member State, including Member States which themselves practise no or little oversight, not published?

7. What is the Commission doing, particularly in the light of the report in question, to present these financial data to the public in a better form, thus reinforcing the possibility of public oversight of movements of EU funds?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0147/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Faeroe Islands international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Faeroe Islands international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector on the Faeroe Islands?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised three questions regarding economical transactions and fees for licences within the Community-Faeroe Island Agreement. The Agreement contains no financial transactions between the Community and the Faeroe Islands and no provisions on fees for fishing licences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0344/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Women's organisations budget heading A-3046

In 2002, at the European Parliament's instigation, a new budget heading A-3046 was created and was allocated annual funding of EUR 300 000, intended to cover grants to women's organisations not covered by the European Women's Lobby. An identical entry appears in the 2003 budget which has now been adopted.

Since the budget heading in question is a new one, would the Commission answer the following questions?

In 2002, which women's organisations applied for funding under budget heading A-3046? Which of them were granted subsidies under that heading and how much money did they receive? Which had their applications rejected? What were the grounds for either accepting or rejecting applications? What lessons has the Commission drawn from budget heading A-3046's first year (2002) of operation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Under new budget heading A-3046 entitled Women's Organisations to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission launched an open call for proposals aimed at a consortium of women's organisations not covered by the European Women's Lobby, which assist women victims of trafficking across Europe. Such an initiative would complement the range of instruments currently available in the Union for combating trafficking, by developing an additional aspect, i.e. assistance on the ground for the female victims of trafficking.

The Commission published the text of the open call for proposals (VP/2002/014) and the guidelines for applicants on the Gender Equality Unit's website(1) in mid July 2002 and the deadline for the submission of proposals was set for 16 September 2002.

Two proposals were received in response to the call. A project submitted by Associazione IRENE (a non-governmental organisation (NGO) representing an Italian network of established NGOs) aiming to co-ordinate the action of local women's associations from Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Norway, which are active in the field of providing support and assistance to victims of trafficking, was selected for funding.

The main grounds for such a decision were related to transnationality and financial status of the project proposals evaluated.

As for the lessons drawn from the first year of operation of budget heading A-3046, the Commission considers that the response to its initiative has been positive and, therefore, intends to use the identical heading in the 2003 budget for the same type of activities.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equ_opp/index_en.htm.