ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/741

(2004/C 84 E/0836)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3840/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Race Directive (2000/43/EC)

Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government over its failure to implement the equal treatment between persons without racial and ethnic discrimination in employment and the social sector — Directive 2000/43/EC (1), which should have been implemented in Ireland by 19 July 2003? What has been the Government's response? What action is the Commission taking or proposing to take to ensure that all people living in Ireland enjoy the full protection of this legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Member States had to transpose Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin by 19 July 2003 at the latest.

Ireland has not formally notified to the Commission its transposition of Directive 2000/43/EC. Ireland has informed the Commission that technical amendments to its Employment Equality Act and Equal Status Act are necessary to ensure full compliance with the anti-discrimination Directives. The Irish authorities sent a copy of the proposed Equality Bill to the Commission on 16 January 2004 and its progress and entry into force depends upon the Irish Parliamentary timetable.

The Commission is committed to its role as guardian of the Treaties, and has already formally started infringement proceedings against Ireland (and a number of other Member States) over its failure to notify its implementation measures for Directive 2000/43/EC (by the deadline of 19 July 2003).

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/83

(2004/C 84 E/0091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Ancona

In its answer to question E-1104/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Ancona had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/602

(2004/C 88 E/0617)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Firenze

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 Firenze, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Firenze has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Firenze has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/89

(2004/C 84 E/0107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3712/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pesaro

With reference to question E-0968/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Pesaro (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/36

(2004/C 84 E/0039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Costs of using Microsoft software

Can the Commission indicate the total annual cost of running the computer systems using Microsoft software, and can it confirm that it has considered using Linux Open Office which could save money and also increase security given that Microsoft programmes come with an in-built backdoor used by US intelligence agencies?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

The Commission estimates the current total annual cost of Microsoft products for its central office automation infrastructure to be around EUR 226 per user.

The Commission draws the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that this amount corresponds to approximately 7 % of the total yearly cost of EUR 3 173 per user required for the operation of the office automation environment; the remaining 93 % includes software from other editors, hardware, network connectivity and the infrastructure needed to connect to information systems.

It should be highlighted that Microsoft does not sell its products directly, but through Large Account Resellers (LARs) who can — and do — compete with each other. Therefore, the Commission's expenditure in this area is paid to a LAR selected on the basis of the Community public procurement Directives, and not to Microsoft. The ongoing LAR contract was awarded to Siemens, but a call for tenders is running at the moment for the selection of the Commission's (and several other Institutions) next LAR.

Furthermore, the Commission, in co-operation with the other Institutions closely follows the evolution of the Open Source Software solutions in general and, in particular, in the office automation area where it is presently carrying out a pilot exercise. A detailed exposé regarding Commission's activities in this area is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/716

(2004/C 78 E/0764)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1450/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(16 April 2003)

Subject: Need for urgent intervention — plan to extend the port of Altea (Spain)

For more than a year now, numerous complaints and parliamentary questions have been submitted to the Commission concerning the plan to extend the port of Altea (Spain) with a view to creating a yachting facility and its implications for the coastline of Alicante province, which is already under severe pressure from development projects.

The author of this question is grateful for the Commission's joint reply to her questions P-0769/03 and E-0775/03 (1), in which it states that it is awaiting information from the Spanish authorities. However, the project to expand the port has now passed through the various procedures laid down in law, and the work could soon be completed.

Does the Commission not consider the information provided by the complainants and detailed in the university reports cited in the above-mentioned questions to be sufficient justification for calling on the Spanish government to suspend the project until the Commission has completed its investigations?

Does the Commission not believe that the matter calls for urgent intervention on its part, in view of the potential environment impact of the completion of this project?

Does the Commission not believe that, as a matter of priority, action must be taken to prevent any further deterioration of the coastline of Alicante province, in view of the present condition of its irreplaceable posidonia meadows?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

The Commission is not empowered to enjoin Member States to suspend a project which is the subject of an enquiry. However, within the framework of the procedural rules it must observe, the Commission has promptly taken all steps to ensure that Community law is complied with in this case.

Correspondence has been exchanged between the Commission and the Spanish authorities and the project was also discussed at a bilateral meeting in Madrid at the beginning of April this year. The Commission is now examining the Spanish authorities' reply. A decision will shortly be adopted on the appropriate action to be taken.

It should also be noted that the Commission is making every effort to ensure the conservation of the posidonia meadows as a priority habitat of Community importance, protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna.

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 132.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/19

(2004/C 88 E/0018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1142/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Protection of archaeological museum exhibits in Iraq

According to the Greek press, the National Archaeological Museum of Iraq is regarded as one of the most important archaeological museums in the Middle East, the other being situated in Cairo. The National Archaeological Museum of Iraq was open for only two years following damage sustained during the ‘Desert Storm’ operation in 1991 and a few days ago it once more closed down following the threat of further attack. The museum contains exhibits from the prehistoric age and from Sumerian, Acadian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean and other civilisations.

When the destruction of cultural treasures in Afghanistan was being witnessed by the international community, I submitted a question to the Commission (P-0822/01) (1) asking what it thought of the idea of setting up a special EU fund for buying up cultural treasures threatened with destruction and whether funds were available to protect the world's cultural heritage. In reply I was informed that ‘the budget of the Community does not contain provision for the funding of measures destined to protect the world cultural heritage and that there are at present no plans by the Community to create a special fund to buy cultural treasures threatened with destruction’.

Given the probability of further destruction of treasures forming part of the world's cultural heritage, how does the Commission now view the idea of setting up such a fund? What measures will it take to protect the cultural treasures of the National Archaeological Museum of Iraq from destruction as a result of the war?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission expresses deep concern for the suffering provoked by the conflict to the Iraqi population. It is also concerned about physical damages to the infrastructures and buildings, including cultural treasures. After the pillage and the destruction of a large number of archaeological treasures in the Museums of Baghdad, Tikrit and Mossoul, the Commission hopes that all measures will be taken so that further destruction is avoided.

As already explained in the context of the conflict in Afghanistan, the EU has not foreseen the creation of a special fund for the preservation of cultural treasures from destruction in a third country. Possible intervention in this area could take place only in the framework of potential EU involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, and in line with the priorities of intervention identified, following the assessment of needs and damages.

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 202.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/118

(2004/C 84 E/0154)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3930/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Retention of privileges by the Agricultural Bank of Greece

Under Article 26(4) of N 1914/1990, ‘all the special arrangements which apply to the Agricultural Bank of Greece, with particular reference to its substantive and procedural privileges, to its immunities in respect of tax and other matters, to its debt instruments, to the guaranteeing of its debts and in general to its legal personality as an entity possessing rights and subject to obligations’ remain in force and are applied unchanged even following the conversion of the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) into a limited liability company. On the basis of this provision the ATE, in its transactions with its customers, makes use of the privileges granted to it by Articles 8 — 15 and 34(8) of N 4332/1929, under which the legal, procedural and substantive guarantees for those dealing with the ATE, and in particular its debtors, are set aside. The Commission has also received a complaint on this subject from the firm Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. (reply from the Agriculture Directorate-General No 31427/24.11.2003).

Since the retention and application by the ATE of the above-mentioned privileges, which is contrary to Community law, is onerous for those doing business with it and deprives them of all rights of defence, what does the Commission intend to do to put a stop to the violation of the rights of those dealing with the ATE and to eliminate the distortion of competition conditions with respect to other credit institutions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission confirms that it has just received a complaint concerning the Agricultural Bank of Greece and therefore is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/275

(2004/C 78 E/0276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3381/03

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Transportation of horses from Romania to Italy

Would the Commission explain why in the light of its own findings of violations of the law and great cruelty to the animals involved in the transportation of horses from Romania to Italy it does not suspend this trade until certain legal requirements are met?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the findings of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) missions carried out in Romania in November 2002 and June 2003 (1) on the operation of controls on the export of live horses to the Union.

In the light of these findings, the Commission took urgent contact with the Romanian authorities to agree the corrective actions required to remedy the deficiencies identified. On two occasions in 2003, the Deputy Director- General for Health and Consumer Protection met a representative of the Mission of Romania to the Union. At each meeting, the question of Romanian horses exported to the Union was raised.

It should be noted that the Commission has presently no legal basis to intervene in the welfare conditions in which horses are kept and transported in Romania. However, the Commission is committed to take all possible actions in this regard to remedy the most critical situations reported.

Concerning the veterinary certification of horses exported to the Union, a mission to Romania took place from 6 to 10 October 2003. The preliminary findings of this mission indicate that progress is under way as regards the identification of horses infected by Equine Infectious Anaemia and that the Romanian authorities are continuing to make real efforts to correct the deficiencies identified.

The number of FVO missions to Romania performed in relation to animal health issues indicates the degree to which the Commission is committed to rapidly improve the current situation.

The Commission will continue to collaborate closely with the Romanian authorities to ensure that any remaining deficiencies are addressed and that measures are taken to avoid a recurrence of such problems. The need for further action, such as evoked by the Honourable Member, will be considered in the light of progress achieved by the Romanian authorities.

(1) Inspection reports are registered under DG (SANCO)/8675/2002 and DG(SANCO)9226/2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/426

(2004/C 88 E/0432)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Missing persons in Cyprus

While Cyprus prepares to join the EU next year, and Turkey is an applicant state, the issue of missing persons, believed to have been killed or apprehended at the time of the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974, is as yet unresolved.

With reference to the Commission's response of 2 May 2001 to Question E-0506/01 (1), when it was stated that the ‘matter can be further addressed in the framework of the Union's enhanced political dialogue with Turkey’, can the Commission report on what progress has been made on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Mr Clerides and Denktash met in June and July 2002 to exchange proposals on the issue of missing persons. The basis for this exchange was their agreement of 31 July 1997. The Greek Cypriot side proceeded with its programme of exhumations and identifications in areas under its control. Investigations are carried out by the United States (US) funded bi-communal Institute for Neurology and Genetics. The Turkish Cypriot side has not yet designated scientists who would work with the Institute. Currently, the United Nations tries to resume work of the Committee of Missing Persons.

In its set of measures vis-à-vis the Turkish Cypriots of 30 April 2003 the Government of the Republic announced several measures regarding relatives of missing and killed Turkish Cypriots (Appendix E). The measures provide inter alia for access to information, meetings between relatives of missing persons and Government officials, exploratory excavations of burial places, and arrangements for the establishment of a DNA Bank. A list of 500 Turkish Cypriots whose cases have been submitted to the Committee of Missing Persons was published by the Government of the Republic in Turkish Cypriot newspapers on 14 June 2003. The Commission has also learned that information concerning the fate of 201 missing Turkish Cypriots was officially conveyed to the International Committee of the Red Cross by Government authorities.

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 130.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/90

(2004/C 84 E/0110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3715/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Siena

With reference to question E-0972/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Siena (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/89

(2004/C 84 E/0108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3713/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Pisa

With reference to question E-0969/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Pisa (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/869

(2004/C 78 E/0922)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3875/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Reform of the COM in tobacco

The contents of Commission communication (1) were — despite the extreme sensitivity of the problems examined — substantially controversial, as well as being incomplete, with respect to the analysis offered of the consequences for the EU's tobacco-producing areas.

Besides, the Commission has published the relevant data and documents — whether produced by its own services or commissioned from outside — inexplicably late in the day (see, for example, the assessment of the COM in tobacco by COGEA). The speed-up of the timetable for the ‘reform’ of the COM in tobacco has made it impossible for the producers to examine and debate the COGEA report in sufficient detail, while the report's numerous annexes have still not been made availabnle.

When does the Commission intend to publish this information?

It is known that, for the report, the Commission asked the University of Parma to prepare analyses of the potential impact on the EU regions mainly concerned of the different options set out in the proposal for the reform of the COM in raw tobacco. Our Greek colleagues have refered to a similar approach made to the University of Thessaloniki; we are not aware of cases in other producer Member States.

Can the Commission state whether the documents relating to the above-mentioned analyses were ever actually produced? If so, can it state whether it will itself publish them in good time, in accordance with the legislative timetable for the proposal for reform of the COM in tobacco now under discussion?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission has published the different analyses on the Common Market Organisation (CMO) for tobacco as soon as they were ready for publication and the COGEA report (evaluation report on tobacco production in the Union) which is specifically mentioned was made public on the Commission's website as soon as it was approved by the Commission on the 8 October 2003.

The Annexes to the COGEA report have not been made public on the website, because Annexes to reports on the internet are normally not published, but they are always available on request.

The Commission has recently requested the University of Parma and the University of Thessalonica to carry out an assessment of the effects of the proposal from the Commission. The two universities mentioned have been chosen because it seems that these universities are the only ones in the Union who have the capacity to make such assessments.

The Commission has, in the drafting process discussed the different aspects of the reform of the CMO for tobacco with both Member States authorities, and the different parties involved in the tobacco sector, including representatives from the administrations of the regions concerned.

A copy of the COGEA report including the Annexes is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat.

(1) COM(2003) 554, 23 September 2003.