ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/752

(2004/C 84 E/0847)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0030/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Landfill and gravel extraction sites

Can the Commission state whether any EU legislation exists that stipulates the distance of landfill and gravel extraction sites from houses, roads and water courses?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

As regards landfills, Annex I.1 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1) states that the location of a landfill must take into consideration requirements relating to:

(a) the distances from the boundary of the site to residential and recreational areas, waterways, water bodies and other agricultural or urban sites;

(b) the existence of groundwater, coastal water or nature protection zones in the area;

(c) the geological and hydrogeological conditions in the area;

(d) the risk of flooding, subsidence, landslides or avalanches on the site;

(e) the protection of the nature or cultural patrimony in the area.

The landfill can be authorised only if the characteristics of the site with respect to the above-mentioned requirements, or the corrective measures to be taken, indicate that the landfill does not pose a serious environmental risk. However, the Directive does not stipulate any specific distances from houses, roads or water courses.

As regards gravel extraction, such an activity is governed by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 25 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment (2) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3). Location is one of the criteria to be taken into account in assessing the potential significant effects of extractive activities. Similarly, the Directive does not stipulate any specific distances but relevant requirements may be found in national provisions implementing the Directive.

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/171

(2004/C 84 E/0210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 2000/78 in Greece

Article 18 of Directive 2000/78 (1) on equal treatment in employment and occupation states that the Member States shall implement the Directive by 2 December 2003 at the latest except where ‘In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of 3 years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of 6 years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination.’

What does the Commission understand by ‘particular conditions’ and ‘if necessary’ in order to extend the deadline for implementing the Directive? Which Member States have requested an extension to the deadline for implementation? When are the Member States required to implement the other provisions of the Directive not pertaining to age and disability discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Under Article 18 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, Member States may, if necessary, in order to take account of particular conditions, have an additional three year period to implement the provisions of the Directive relating to discrimination on grounds of age and disability. The Directive does not define what is meant by ‘particular conditions’ nor ‘if necessary’.

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have notified the Commission that they will avail themselves of this provision. The reasons given vary, but include, for example, the fact that national law does not currently recognise the concept of ‘reasonable accom-modation’, the possible effect on retirement age and occupational pensions, etc. The Member States which take advantage of the extra time period are obliged to inform the Commission on an annual basis what steps they are taking to tackle discrimination and the progress they are making towards full transposition of the Directive.

All other provisions of this Directive had to be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003. The Commission has already launched the first stage of infringement procedures against those Member States which have not yet notified their national legislation, or have not adopted all the legislation necessary (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and the United Kingdom).

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/421

(2004/C 84 E/0491)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0515/04

by Luís Queiró (UEN) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Scientific and technical opinions for management of Community fisheries

The Carlos Lage report (A5-0023/2004) tabled in the EP plenary on 10 February 2004 raises the important issue of the reliability of the scientific opinions used for fisheries management, given the frequent disagreements between scientists and fishermen over the state of fish stocks. EU measures based on the available scientific opinions can have severe social and economic consequences for fishing communities, and it is therefore necessary to be aware of the importance of the matter and the need to improve the quality of the opinions.

Carlos Lage's warning comes at a timely moment, coinciding with the need for the Community to ground the common fisheries policy in scientific opinions that are of higher quality and more relevant characteristics. This will allow a more scientific basis than hitherto.

The ‘apparent unwillingness’ on the Commission's part identified by Carlos Lage cannot be allowed to continue: the Commission seems unwilling to take proper account of the various scientific opinions available, and thus runs the risk of appearing biased in its decisions, which as a rule tend to be unfavourable to the already highly vulnerable fishing communities.

Is the Commission willing to respond positively to Parliament's position, as now adopted, and submit divergent scientific opinions to a higher scientific body with a view to resolving their contradictions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission bases its proposals for the management of fisheries on scientific advice provided by international bodies, notably the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The working groups of ICES that assess the state of the stocks are made up of scientists from the Community Member States concerned, as well as countries with shared interests in the stocks, such as Norway, Russia and Iceland.

These many scientists bring to ICES all the available data collected by their respective countries, including any information that has been provided by fishermen. The assessments done by these scientists represent their consensus opinion on the state of the stocks. The assessments are reviewed by the Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management (ACFM) before being released by ICES. The advice of the ACFM is further scrutinised by the Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).

The Commission therefore considers that diverging data and interpretations are already taken into account, and whilst the Commission agrees that greater transparency in the methods used by ICES is desirable for the purposes of debate, it is not clear what superior scientific body could be asked to resolve any contradictory views concerning its advice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/529

(2004/C 84 E/0605)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0056/04

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

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Mr Prodi's statement on the need for each Member State or group of Member States to take the initiative and move forward on the basis of reinforced cooperation if the draft constitution is not adopted in the near future

Given that reinforced cooperation does not have the effect of strengthening the Union's democratic elements, since it marginalises the common institutions, while the EU needs to define the adoption of the Constitution as proposed by the Convention as an overriding objective, can the Commission explain the significance of President Prodi's recent statement to ‘La Repubblica’ in which he apparently assumes that the Intergovernmental Conference has failed and calls for initiatives for further progress on the basis of reinforced cooperation to be put forward by a Member State or group of Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission hopes that the work of the Intergovernmental Conference on the draft Constitution can be concluded as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of 2004. Mr Prodi has warned the general public that, if work on the Constitution ends in failure, there is a risk that a group of Member States will wish to proceed with European integration outside the framework of the present Treaties.

It should be borne in mind that the instrument of reinforced cooperation as provided for in the Treaties by no means marginalises the European institutions; on the contrary, reinforced cooperation specifically relies on recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms provided for in the Treaties. Closer collaboration between certain Member States outside the Treaties clearly could not provide the same guarantees.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/668

(2004/C 84 E/0754)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0739/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: The EU's future regional policy for the outermost Mediterranean regions

Following the imminent enlargement of the European Union there will be a considerable reduction in transfers of funding to the current Member States in the form of structural and cohesion funds. Michel Barnier (Commissioner) has proposed that regions which lose their Objective 1 status (such as the Valencia region in Spain) should continue to receive aid on a degressive basis.

In the light of this and bearing in mind the EU's post-2007 financial perspective, has the Commission carried out a detailed analysis of the impact which the reduction in aid and funding will have on the economies of the Mediterranean regions which have hitherto enjoyed Structural Fund Objective 1 status but which will lose it on account of their income level? It should be borne in mind that they will still be outlying regions with income levels which will continue to be inadequate.

If this is the case, what will the impact be (in both qualitative and quantitative terms) on the Valencia region?

In the case of regions which will gradually cease to receive funding, what action is the Commission proposing to take in order to ensure that their economies are not significantly damaged?

Furthermore, how does the Commission consider it should compensate for the radical drop in financial aid for the above regions which will occur when the Cohesion Fund is wound up?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Commission has just published the Third Cohesion Report on economic and social cohesion (1), in accordance with article 159 of the EC Treaty, which includes a detailed analysis of the impact and value added of Structural Funds. This report also includes a proposal for the reform of Cohesion for the period 2007-2013.

The Commission proposes that regions with per capita GDP less than 75 % of the Community average, should be eligible to the new ‘Convergence and Competitiveness’ objective. The decision concerning the eligibility of these regions will be determined on the basis of the most recent data available at the time.

According to the latest data (for 2001) as published in the Third Cohesion Report, the Comunidad Valenciana stands at 81,1 % of the average EU15 GDP per capita, or to 89 % for EU25. The Commission proposes that regions currently eligible for Objective 1 not fulfilling the criteria for the convergence objective would benefit from a higher level of support (under the heading ‘phasing in’) on a transitional basis, under the new ‘regional competitiveness and employment’ objective. The transitional arrangements ‘would follow a path comparable to that for regions no longer eligible for Objective 1 in the period 2000-2006’.

(1) COM(2004) 107 final: ‘A new partnership for cohesion’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/872

(2004/C 84 E/0965)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0757/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Strengthening the role of market operators in the integration of European financial markets

The Lamfalussy process has brought about significantly greater participation of financial services professionals in drafting the relevant European legislation, with every positive outcome.

However, there still needs to be more effective coordination of market operators because although market integration obviously requires legislation it also relies on the harmonisation of national market practices and greater standardisation of products.

Should the Commission not encourage the establishment of such rules at European level, along the lines of the EONIA (Euro OverNight Index Average)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Commission welcomes the fact that the Honourable Member shares its view regarding the beneficial effects of the Lamfalussy process. It agrees with its analysis as to the greater positive participation of financial services professionals in drafting the relevant European legislation.

Alongside the planned legal framework for drafting Community legislation, the Commission is generally amenable to any initiative designed to strengthen the integration of European financial markets and to promote their growth and further development. Accordingly, an independent bank initiative such as that establishing a reference rate for markets along the lines of the EONIA is altogether positive and deserves support.

In May 2004 the European financial services market will certainly need more European indices as well as agreements and even standards for certain products — a task in which market participants could take the lead.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/704

(2004/C 88 E/0724)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0677/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Bushmeat: timber concession wildlife management

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, will the Commission support measures to introduce timber concession wildlife management in Central and West Africa by the industry and conservation NGOs? Does the Commission propose to take any specific steps to promote sustainable wildlife management by logging companies?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/846

(2004/C 84 E/0939)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0694/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Auditing the Commission's external activity

Point 61 of EP report A5-0040/2004 calls on the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to make an assessment of the legality and regularity of contracts made and subsidies granted by these [sic] services.

Can the Commission confirm whether funding carried out by the EDF is included in the contracts which are going to be audited by the IAS under this point?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Internal Audit Service (IAS) is currently finalising its audit of the Europe Aid and Co-operation Office (AIDCO) Directorate-General in line with the objectives of the Reform White Paper.

One of the objectives of the audit was the examination of the AIDCO financial circuits for commitments and payments for European Development Funds (EDF) resources, made after the entry into force of the new 9th EDF Financial Regulation and within the effective devolution framework. The non-devolved delegations were not specifically addressed and the parameters were also set so as to avoid duplication with the ongoing separate but parallel evaluation of the devolution process.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/319

(2004/C 84 E/0367)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0153/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject: Use of the term ‘Chechen network’ without any proven involvement of Chechens

In an increasingly conspicuous manner, judges from EU Member States are using terms which appear to back up the idea that Chechens are involved in terrorist networks active in the European Union. In particular, Judge Bruguière has created the term ‘Chechen networks’, which he uses to define any cases which may have a remote connection with international terrorist networks, although such use is unjustified. In actual fact, the adjective ‘Chechen’ serves only to specify a place — generally hypothetical — where apprentice terrorists and European citizens might have chosen to go, or a place — also generally hypothetical — where humanitarian aid might have been sent.

What is the Commission's view of the use of the term ‘Chechen network’ by judges from EU Member States? In particular, what is its view of the French judge Bruguière's use of the term to refer to a criminal case in which Chechens only appear to be involved because the EU citizens (not Chechens) accused in these cases cited Chechens as possible recipients of financial aid, or Chechnya as a place where they could carry out their plan for a holy war? Does the Commission not believe that by acting in this way judges contribute, whether intentionally or not, to the dissemination of false information and to the undermining of the image and the reputation of a whole people, and that they could therefore be responsible for growing feelings among EU citizens of racial hatred and intolerance, and even of violence towards Chechen refugees living in the European Union? Could the Commission ask the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna to carry out a thorough investigation into how widespread the above practices are, with regard to both the Chechen people and to other peoples, and into the political, legal and judicial implications that such practices could have?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Commission has no knowledge of the matters raised by the Honourable Member and, in any case, it is not in a position to comment on the assessments and decisions made by judges in the Member States in the course of their duties.

Nevertheless, the Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that it is not appropriate to identify the criminal conduct of individuals with a whole nation.

The Commission takes the view that the investigation requested does not fall within the areas of activity laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 establishing a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (1).

(1) OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.
2.

Of course, projections over such a long period of time are subject to both downside and upside risks. For the current Member States there is the downside risk that TFP growth may actually not recover as predicted in the central scenario. TFP growth is currently low as it has been on a declining trend since the 1970s. A continuing improvement in labour market conditions, as observed since the mid 1990s, could also be questioned. For the new Member States, one can ask whether the high investment to GDP ratios will be sustained until 2011 and whether the employment rate will recover at the speed which is assumed in the central scenario. Under more pessimistic assumptions the EU economy (27 Member States) would only grow by 2,2 % in real terms (and 4,2 % in nominal terms) over 2007-2011. Growth would be 2,0 % in EU15, 3,6 % in AC10 and 5,0 % in Bulgaria and Romania. There are also upside risks. If labour market reform efforts continue then the Lisbon employment targets could be reached more closely in EU15. In a moderately optimistic scenario it is assumed that current unemployment trends will continue for those countries on a declining trend and there will be a trend reversal for countries with currently rising trends. In this case an employment rate of 68,5 % could be reached in 2011 and growth in EU15 could be 0,1 % higher over the period 2007-2011 and reach 2,3 % (AC10=4,1 and EU27=2,6). Since under these assumptions the Lisbon employment target would not have been reached by individual countries a more optimistic scenario assumes that all countries currently below 70 % could reach that target, while countries currently above 70 % would remain there. In this case the employment rate would be 71,1 % in 2011 and average growth in EU15 would rise to 2,7 % (1) (AC10=4,1 % and EU27=2,9 %).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/919

(2004/C 84 E/1016)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0936/04

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: EU Economic EU support for positive publicity

Will the Commission give a complete list of all medias which have received economic subsidies from the EU Commission, and the journalists who have received subsidies from the Commission's information office?

The question is based on information from the article ‘Brussels pays for positive publicity’ on: (http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=14700).

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

In May 2003, the Directorates-General for Enlargement, General Press and Communication and Secretariat General launched a call for proposals in the audiovisual sector, totalling EUR 16,5 million. It was intended for television and radio broadcasters and covered Enlargement, the Future of the EU and General Information on the EU.

The Honourable Member can find the results on the following sites:

— for ‘Enlargement’: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/communication/pdf/audiovisual_2003_result_fr.pdf)