ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/261

(2004/C 33 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2394/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Status of the Commission's White Paper ‘A New Impetus for European Youth’

What is the current status of the Commission's White Paper ‘A New Impetus for European Youth’ (1)?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

White Papers published by the Commission are documents containing proposals for Community action in a specific field. If a White Paper is viewed positively by the Council it can lead to the launching of Union action in the field concerned.

The White Paper ‘A new impetus for European youth’, adopted by the Commission on 21 November 2001, proposes in particular the implementation of cooperation in the youth field, covering four thematic priorities: ‘participation, information, voluntary activity and greater understanding and knowledge of youth’.

The Council took a positive view of the White Paper and adopted the Resolution of 27 June 2002 (2) regarding the framework of European cooperation in the youth field. This Resolution implements the proposals set out in the Commission's White Paper.

On participation and information, the Commission presented a synthesis report (3) and draft common objectives (4) on the basis of suggestions from the Member States. The Council discussed these Commission documents in May 2003.

As far as the priorities ‘a greater understanding of youth’ and ‘voluntary activities’ are concerned, the Commission will proceed accordingly. Currently these two priorities are tackled by the Member States.

(1) COM/2001/0681 final.

(2) OJ C 168, 13.7.2002.

(3) Commission staff working paper: Analysis of Member States' replies to the Commission questionnaires on youth participation and information (SEC(2003)465.

(4) Communication from the Commission to the Council: Follow-up to the White Paper on a New Impetus for European Youth. Proposed common objectives for the participation and information of young people, in response to the Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 regarding the framework of European cooperation in the youth field, COM(2003)184 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/246

(2004/C 33 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2305/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign

On 16 June 2003, Mrs Diamantopoulou, Member of the Commission, launched her ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign. One of the campaign's instruments was the creation of a website which is accessible in just three languages (English, French and German). The home page claims that ‘In the future this website will be available in all EU languages.’ However, on 2 July 2003, a good two weeks after the launch of the said website, the texts were still not available in the other official languages of the European Union.

Why was the said campaign launched before the texts had been translated?

Why does the translation thereof take so long?

Does not the provision of a website in just three EU languages, when the cost thereof also being borne by taxpayers in other linguistic regions, itself constitute a form of discrimination?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/50

(2004/C 33 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0533/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Ban on abortion in Poland

The Polish Government has decided to include in the country's treaty on accession to the European Union a declaration ‘on ethics, culture and the protection of life’, which contains a highly restrictive law on abortion. Inclusion of such a prohibition in Poland's accession treaty would strengthen — for legal and other purposes — an anachronistic and antidemocratic ban that is an attack on women's rights, and which, if accepted by the European Union, would pose a legal and moral threat to women's rights throughout the Union. In the light of the above, does the Commission intend to agree to the inclusion of this declaration in Poland's accession treaty? Irrespective of the accession treaty, what measures will it take to prevent such a prohibition from entering into force in Poland?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

It is correct that the Polish government has succeeded in having a declaration on ‘public morality’ inserted in the Accession Treaty. That declaration does not specifically contain a reference to any Law on abortion in Poland. The declaration as such does not imply that Poland was granted an exemption from its duties and obligations under the EC Treaties. On the contrary the present Member States have issued a general joint declaration underlining that the declarations added to the Accession Treaty cannot be interpreted or applied in a way contrary to the obligations of the Member States arising from the Treaty and the Act of Accession. The Commission has fully subscribed to this declaration.

It should be recalled in any event that Member States remain competent to decide upon their national legislation on abortion and that abortion is subject to various restrictions in current Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/64

(2004/C 65 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1213/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/208

(2004/C 65 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/03

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject: Forwarding of information about passengers flying between the EU and the USA

The EU has decided to provide such detailed information about passengers flying from the EU to the USA that it even includes credit card numbers.

Does the EU apply reciprocal requirements to those travelling from the United States to the European Union? If not, why does the EU not require the same information from the USA as the USA does from the EU? Will the EU introduce a requirement for information about passengers to be provided in the same detail as the USA requires?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission has not decided that information about passengers should flow to the United States. In fact, the US authorities have unilaterally imposed on airlines flying to, from and through the United States the obligation to provide access to Passenger Name Record (PNR) information, which is likely to contain personal details regarding the passengers, as well as information about the reservation and the flight.

The Commission considers that this requirement may conflict with EC data protection rules and is holding discussions with the relevant US authorities to find a solution that fully respects both US and EC law and makes the US authorities' legitimate objective of fighting terrorism — which the Union fully shares — compatible with the need to protect citizens' fundamental rights, including the protection of their personal data.

In the discussions with the US authorities the Commission has made clear that it considers certain aspects of the US request for access to passenger data in its current terms as disproportionate. This has also been highlighted by the Parliament and by some national data protection authorities in Member States.

Discussions are currently being held between the Commission and the Member States to determine what the appropriate and most extensive permissible use of PNR data in the fight against terrorism might be. The Commission has always insisted on respect for the principle of reciprocity in its discussions with the US authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/131

(2004/C 65 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2323/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject: UCLAF

After consultations with Cocobu a number of former UCLAF staff were transferred back into the main Commission out of OLAF.

What departments did they enter? What positions did they hold and have they held since?

Have any of these employees had previous or current connection with Eurostat?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

In spring 2001, two management level officials left the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). In mid 2001, ten officials were transferred to Directorate General (DG) Administration (ADMIN) for redeployment purposes.

1. What departments did they enter? The two management level officials who left OLAF in spring 2001 went to DG Press and Communication (PRESS) and DG ADMIN, respectively. The other ten officials went to the following DGs: five to DG ADMIN, one to DG Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD), one to DG External Relations (RELEX), one to DG Regional Policy (REGIO), one to DG Fisheries (FISH) and one to DG Agriculture (AGRI).

2. (a) What positions did they hold? While at UCLAF/OLAF, nine of the twelve officials were employed in the investigations section. The three remaining officials were employed in the intelligence section, the Information Technology (IT)-infrastructure section and as Adviser to the Director, respectively. (b) What positions have they held since? After spending a short period of time in DG ADMIN as Advisers, one of the two management level officials was appointed Head of Unit in DG PRESS and the other was appointed Head of Unit in DG ADMIN. Of the remainder: — one official went to DG ADMIN before taking early retirement under the present limited ‘dégagement’ in March 2003; — one official went to DG ADMIN and later to DG TAXUD, where he was nominated Head of Unit in February 2002; — two officials, who were Heads of Unit in OLAF, were reappointed as Heads of Unit in DG ADMIN and DG Energy and Transport (TREN), respectively, after spending a short period of time as Advisers in DG ADMIN. The remaining six officials, who went to DG ADMIN, DG TAXUD, DG RELEX, DG REGIO, DG FISH, DG AGRI continue to have Administrator status.
1.

No objective criterion for the definition of rural areas has been established in the draft Regulation on rural development on which the Council has just given its political agrement as part of the reform of the CAP. The diversity of features of rural areas in the EU and the lack of homogeneity make it difficult to establish objective criteria for rural areas in the EU. That is why no definition of rural areas has been established to date at European level. The reform introduces new measures intended directly for farmers in charge of holdings and for producer organisations. These measures are conditional upon the maintenance of certain obligations regarding crops and breeding, and include measures to encourage afforestation and finally the financing of counselling on the quality of products and production processes.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/139

(2004/C 33 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1605/03

by Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Possible breach of environment information directive

Following an aircraft accident, a German public prosecutor's office opened an investigation on grounds of ‘endangerment of rail, sea and air transport’.

The investigation was later closed. Subsequently, an application was made to the public prosecutor's office — under the German law on access to information concerning the environment and Council Directive 90/313/EEC (1) on the freedom of access to information on the environment — for access to the files of the investigation.

The application was rejected on the grounds that, pursuant to § 3, paragraph 1, S2, No 3 of the above German law, the public prosecutor's office, as a law enforcement agency, does not fall among the authorities governed by that law.

Does the Commission consider the rejection pursuant to § 3, paragraph 1, S2, No 3 of the German Environment Information Law to be justified even though the public prosecutor's office was acting only in an investigative capacity and not in a ‘judicial capacity’ in accordance with Article 2(b) of Directive 90/313/EEC?

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/76

(2004/C 65 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1361/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Member States' net contributions and/or receipts to the EU

Will the Commission please tell me what are the net contributions and/or receipts to the EU for the 15 Member States for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002? Will the Commission further tell me what are the projected net contributions and/or receipts for the 15 Member States in 2003 and 2004, and the projected net contributions and/or receipts for the enlarged EU in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008?

I am seeking information only about direct fund transfers and not the intangible assumed benefits.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to his request, the Honourable Member is informed of the following:

— Net budgetary balance of the 15 Member States for the period 1998-2002 Every year, the Commission publishes an ‘Allocated Expenditure Report’. The bulk of this report consists of a detailed analysis of Union expenditure in each Member State. Furthermore, the report contains a statistical annex which contains an overview of budgetary expenditure and revenue for each Member State, including the net budgetary balance. These reports are to be found on the Commission's website at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/agenda2000/reports_en.htm For easier reference, the table showing the net budgetary balances for each Member State for the period 1995-2001 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The net budgetary balance for the year 2002 will become available in September 2003.

— Projected net budgetary balance for the 15 Member States for the period 2003-2008 The Commission does not publish any forecasts in respect of net budgetary balances of the Member States. Nevertheless, the Commission has calculated the additional financial burden for the 15 Member States related to the accession of the ten new Member States for the period 2004-2006. Taking into account the estimated payments which could flow towards the new Member States as well as their own resources contributions to the Union budget, the additional financing burden for the current 15 Member States is estimated at: Cost expressed in millions of euros, in 1999 prices Cost expressed as a percentage of 15 Member States Gross national income 2004 1,404 0,016 2005 3,791 0,042 2006 5,139 0,055 2004-2006 10,333 0,038 This financing burden is shouldered proportionally by all existing Member States, except for the United Kingdom, which pays significantly less because of the United Kingdom rebate mechanism.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/259

(2004/C 33 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2389/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: Health Promotion Programme 1997-2002

Can the Commission provide a list of the professional associations, NGOs, national administrations and public or private bodies which have received payments or contributions (indicating the amounts concerned, whether already paid or not) under the individual actions of the European Community Health Promotion Programme for 1997-2002?

Can the Commission also state whether checks have been made as to whether the sums have in fact reached the intended recipients and whether the initiatives have been properly carried out?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2386/03 and E-2389/03

given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 August 2003)

The five year programme of Community Action on Health Promotion, Information, Education and Training was adopted by the Parliament and the Council by decision No 645/96/EC (1) on 16 April 1996 with a total budget of 35 million ECU. On 17 March 2001, the Parliament and the Council adopted an extension of this programme to 31 December 2002 with an increased budget of EUR 14,54 million for the last two years.

Pursuant to Article 7 paragraph 2 of Decision No 645/96/ECan interim evaluation on the Health Promotion Programme has been carried out. The report is published in full on the Commission website http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/index_en.html. A final evaluation of this programme together with the other public health programmes is currently being carried out. The report of this evaluation will be published in 2004.

Each funded project of the Health Promotion Programme has been monitored through the evaluation of an interim report depending on the amount of the budget and of the final report. When the technical report or financial statement have raised questions, further control measures such as site visits have been carried out with a view to undertaking a precise audit and to clarifying all queries and questions. In addition, based on a small sample exercise or in cases where funding has been agreed for several years some audit visits have been carried out.

The attached list shows all projects funded under the Health Promotion Programme since 1996, with a detailed breakdown of the budgets attributed to these projects.

(1) Decision No 645/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 March 1996 adopting a programme of Community action on health promotion, information, education and training within the framework for action in the field of public health, OJ L 95, 16.4.1996.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/219

(2004/C 33 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2110/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject: Closure of the Europa Centrum in the Netherlands

Is the Commission aware that the Europa Centrum in the Hague, a foundation providing information on the EU, will close on 1 July 2003?

How does the Commission explain that the foundation has not been granted a subsidy for 2003?

Does the Commission agree with me that information on the European Union and its institutions is of crucial importance?

How does the Commission plan to ensure that in the year ahead, in which events of major importance for the EU are on the agenda (enlargement to include ten new countries, European Parliament elections, drafting of a Constitution), reliable and detailed information can be provided in the Netherlands if the Europa Centrum foundation — which is a key source of information for young people and schools — is no longer able to take on this task?

Is the Commission prepared to reconsider the foundation's application for a subsidy? If so, when will it be able to give its final answer? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of and deeply regrets the fact that Europa Centrum will close on 1 July 2003. Information and communication about the Union and its Institutions is extremely important, as the Honourable Member recalls, particularly in the Netherlands, which will assume the Union-presidency in the second half of 2004. The loss of Europa Centrum is therefore clearly felt by the Commission and the national authorities in the Netherlands.

As the Honourable Member knows, the new Financial Regulation (1) prevents operating grants to organisations such as Europa Centrum which cannot exist solely on the basis of project-based subventions, via calls for proposals.

As far as this kind of project-based grants is concerned, the Europa Centrum has been awarded in 2003 two grants by the Directorate General (DG) for Education and Culture, in the framework of the Calls for Proposals addressed to Non-Governmental Organisations and Associations of European Interest. Unfortunately, after the sad decision to terminate its activities, the Europa Centrum will not be able to use these grants.

It goes without saying that, if Europa Centrum changes this decision in the future and starts over its activities, nothing would prevent it to present one or more projects in the framework of new calls for proposals and the Commission would of course seriously consider them, as it does with any other project.

A call was published by the Commission's Representation in the Netherlands in May 2003, following the adoption of the work programme for DG Press and Communication on 28 March 2003. The first deadline for this call was set at the 30 June 2003.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/176

(2004/C 33 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1837/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: European Union tenders

Can the Commission confirm that, when a company in the EU wins a tender put by an EU body the tender is subject to Competition Law, and measures to increase the cost, which can include refusal by an EU company to supply the winner of the tender and prevent parallel imports, are in breach of the Treaty?

Can the Commission confirm what sanctions would be imposed in such a case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission's understanding of the Honourable Member's question is that it refers both to the European institutions' obligations in the field of competition when awarding contracts, and to the situation of a company awarded a contract which is confronted with a refusal to sell by another EU company.

When it comes to awarding contracts, the Community institutions are obliged to comply with the provisions of the Council's Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (1), and particularly Title V thereof which stipulates and describes the different procedures which are applicable. Under these provisions, the contract should, generally speaking, be put out to tender on the broadest possible basis among interested operators. The tendering stage ends with the award of the contract and leads to a contract being signed with the successful tenderer.

As regards the situation of a company awarded a contract which is confronted with a refusal to sell by another EU company and/or the prevention of parallel imports, the situation in question may well constitute an infringement of the provisions of Article 82 and/or Article 81 of the EC Treaty. Under certain circumstances and certain conditions, the application of these rules may indeed lead to a ban on refusals to sell and the prevention of parallel imports. However, the lack of information on the facts behind the Honourable Member's question means that the Commission is unable to take a useful position on the applicability of Competition Law in this instance. For the same reason, the Commission is not able to give its position on what sanctions might be imposed.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.