ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/551

(2004/C 88 E/0562)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: VAT on postal services

When it presented its proposal to apply VAT to postal services (1) in May 2003, the Commission said that the fact that postal operators would be able to deduct their [VAT] costs ‘should mitigate price increases as far as private consumers are concerned’ (source — Commission press release IP/03/633).

How can this statement be reconciled with statements by An Post in Ireland that it has no plans to ‘pass on’ any savings in current VAT costs in the form of reduced tariffs if this Directive is approved, as suggested by the Commission? If An Post does not deduct these VAT costs, what is the Commission's estimate of the likely price increases in Ireland if this Directive is approved?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

In May 2003, when presenting its proposal amending the Sixth VAT Directive (2) as regards VAT on postal services, the Commission explained that once the proposal was adopted, public postal operators would, for the first time, obtain the right to deduct VAT on their costs. This should mitigate price increases as far as private consumers are concerned.

According to the Honourable Member, the Irish universal service provider, An Post has stated that it has no plans to ‘pass on’ any savings in current VAT costs in the form of reduced tariffs if this Directive is approved. Under the rules of the EC Treaty, particularly article 82, and under the provisions of Directive 97/67/EC (3), public postal operators cannot determine the prices they charge for their services, especially in the reserved area, without regard to their costs. Directive 97/67/EC states that Member States shall designate national regulatory authorities that shall have as a particular task to ensure compliance with the obligations arising from this Directive, especially the application of the principle that prices must be geared to costs. The obligations contained in Article 14 of the Directive as regards the transparency of accounts are intended to allow the regulators to enforce this principle. The Irish regulator Comreg thus has the tools it needs to ensure that An Post's prices reflect its costs and to ensure that when those costs go down as a result of An Post's ability to deduct VAT, the savings are in fact reflected in the operator's prices.

(1) COM(2003)234.

(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(3) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/822

(2004/C 84 E/0916)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0618/04

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Decision by the Dutch parliament to expel thousands of immigrants

On 17 February 2004 the Dutch parliament adopted a government bill to expel some 26 000 immigrants and refugees who have been living in the country for years, including many young people born in the Netherlands. The bill also provides for new, more stringent conditions for granting asylum to immigrants, in line with the tough immigration policy pursued by the Dutch Government over the last few years. The majority of Dutch society, together with scores of non-governmental organisations, have declared their opposition to this inhumane and racist decision. The UN High Commission for Refugees has also expressed its opposition to the plan, since many immigrants in the Netherlands face serious problems, and there is no prospect of repatriating them safely to their countries of origin.

Will the Commission say whether it considers that the specific measures to expel immigrants from the Netherlands by force are compatible with the 1951 Geneva Convention and the Tampere commitments to draw up an integrated European asylum and immigration policy with transparent rules based on European humanitarian values and respect for the dignity of the human person?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission was not sent the Government Bill adopted by the Dutch Parliament on 17 February 2004.

As far as the Commission is aware, the national measures at stake concern only rejected asylum seekers. The Dutch Aliens law provides for a general possibility of review by Courts of negative decisions. Courts are competent to decide, on a case by case basis, whether the removals would be in accordance with obligations under international law, in particular under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Commission would like to underline that, in general, the possibility of return of rejected asylum seekers could be the logical consequence where the outcome of an asylum procedure is negative for the applicant, when the procedure was fair and allowed for all needs for international protection to be examined. A final negative decision implies that the person at stake was not found to be in need of international protection. If there are no other grounds for legal stay, return can be implemented.
—

since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession;
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/759

(2004/C 84 E/0854)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0077/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Waste water treatment in Ireland

What response, if any, has the Commission received from the Irish Government in relation to the final written warning it sent to the Irish Government in July (IP/03/1108) regarding the treatment of urban waste water? What is the Commission's attitude to the Irish Government's response and what action is it now taking or proposing to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

The Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland on 7 October 2002 with regard to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1). In 2003, Ireland sent two responses to this Reasoned Opinion. These responses are still under consideration.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/325

(2004/C 84 E/0382)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0173/04

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

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Could the Commission confirm that in future the impact of changing valuation rules will be clearly explained in the explanatory notes to the balance sheet?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/169

(2004/C 84 E/0207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0159/04

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Trial of women for illegal abortion in Portugal

In the town of Aveiro in Portugal, a trial is being held of women who have undergone termination of pregnancy. Despite the appeals and resolutions of the European Parliament calling on the governments of the Member States to refrain under any circumstances from prosecuting women who have had an illegal abortion, Portugal continues to enforce its criminal legislation prohibiting abortion, which is not consistent with the fundamental rights of women.

Given the differences in sexual and reproductive health and related rights in the EU and within the Member States and, in particular, the enormous disparities among Europeans in terms of access to reproductive health services, contraception and voluntary termination of pregnancy, and in view of the fact that women and men should be free to take their own responsible decisions about their sexual and reproductive health and rights, what measures will the Commission take to decriminalise abortion in the EU so that women are not brought to trial for matters relating to their physical and mental integrity?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Honourable Member will recall from recommendation 13 of the Van Lancker report on sexual and reproductive rights, which was adopted in July 2002 by the Parliament, that criminal law applying to illegal abortion of national citizens is entirely a national competence of the Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/932

(2004/C 78 E/0986)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0108/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Fiat in Italy acting in a joint venture in China providing vans to the People's Republic of China for the purposes of mobile exectution

Is the Commission aware of allegations that Fiat of Italy acting through a joint venture in China have tendered a fleet of vans to the People's Republic of China, expressly modified for the purposes of becoming mobile execution vans?

The People's Republic of China maintain that this is a more humane procedure as it will enable execution by intravenous lethal injection rather than firing squad and effectively accelerate the process.

Is the Commission of the opinion that even if the death penalty is permissible under international law, there should be a fair and lengthy appeals process before execution takes place? Therefore given that these mobile execution vans preclude any form of appeal for those convicted of capital offences (which in the People's Republic of China can include ‘economic crimes’) this will inevitably result in miscarriages of justice. Therefore, if the allegations prove to be true, Fiat of Italy should be condemned for participating in such a tender.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The Commission has no information on the possible involvement of European companies in invitations to tender published by the People's Republic of China for the purchase of vehicles for the purpose of executions.

In its bilateral dialogue with China on human rights, the EU has never stopped reiterating its fundamental opposition to the death penalty, regardless of the methods used, including that cited by the Honourable Member. It has also regularly pressed — and will continue to press — the Chinese authorities, in the present circumstances, to see that the fundamental rights of the condemned, including the right to appeal against their sentence, are respected in full.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/249

(2004/C 88 E/0253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/04

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Promotion of dairy products

I have received a letter from a constituent who has asked if there is provision for the promotion of the dairy industry in the UK. My constituent sells milk-based products and saw the EU-sponsored adverts for milk on television and wondered if there were other funded schemes available.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The promotion exercise referred to by the Honourable Member is part of a national milk promotion campaign, organised by the Dairy Council with joint co-financing (United Kingdom 50 %) from the European Union.

The Commission jointly funds programmes to promote certain European Union agricultural products, milk and dairy products being amongst the sectors eligible for support. Promotion campaigns such as this one are generic in nature and never in favour of any particular brand names or enterprises. They highlight the advantages of European produce in terms of quality, food safety, nutrition, labelling, animal welfare and respect for the environment.

The procedure is that the Authority in the Member State responsible for this exercise (in the case of the United Kingdom this is the Rural Payments Agency) invites professional or inter-professional organisations representative of their particular sector to submit draft promotion or information programmes. In cooperation with an implementing agency selected by a competitive tendering process, the professional body drafts a programme according to strict eligibility criteria. There are also set conditions by which the programme must give due acknowledgement of Community assistance.

The Directorate-General for Agriculture has a website offering more detailed information and the address is as follows: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/prom/index_en.htm). This provides a full explanation, including the legal regulatory basis for the programmes (Regulations (EC) No 2826/2000 (1) and (EC) No 94/2002 (2)).

In addition to the programme organised by the Dairy Council, there is a Community co-financed milk promotion campaign currently active in United Kingdom schools organised by Dairy Industry Association Ltd.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market, OJ L 328, 23.12.2000.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 94/2002 of 18 January 2002 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market, OJ L 17, 19.1.2002.
—

since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights, respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession;
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/491

(2004/C 88 E/0503)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Global TB Drug Facility

Does the Commission have any intention to make a contribution to the Global TB Drug Facility? If so, could it give an indication of the amount it would propose?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

The Commission recognises the important role the Global TB Drug Facility (GDF) plays within the Stop TB partnership to expand access to, and availability of, high-quality TB drugs to facilitate global Directly Observed Treatment Short-regime (DOTS) expansion to control TB worldwide.

The Commission does not intend to provide direct support to the GDF. Its support is provided as part of the Programme for Action: accelerated action on the human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction, which established a broad and coherent Community response for 2001-2006. Community programmed support through the various financial instruments to confront HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, will total close to EUR 1200 million (annual average of EUR300 million) for the period 2003-2006. This figure includes support to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria: the Commission has disbursed to the fund EUR 120 million for 2002 and has programmed support of EUR 340 million for years 2003-2006. 17 % of the funds allocated in the initial rounds went to TB control programmes. It is estimated that these projects will provide Directly Observed Treatment Short-Regime (DOTS) coverage for 2,8 million patients as compared with a coverage of 830 000 in 2000. Furthermore, 46 % of the funds for all diseases are allocated to providing drugs and commodities. On the other side, almost all of the bilateral health programmes of the Commission foresee an integrated approach to improving delivery of primary care; this includes the diagnosis and appropriate treatment of tuberculosis, thus ensuring that anti-TB drugs are given in an effective way that avoids the emergence of further resistance to these drugs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/185

(2004/C 84 E/0225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/04

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Open call for proposals VP/2002/6 for the programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)

In order to determine how section 4 of the above call for proposals is to be interpreted and the implications for participation by women's organisations, will the Commission provide a list of the promoters who have submitted proposals and a list of promoters whose proposals were successful under the 2003 call for proposals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The list of projects received under the open call for proposals VP/2002/6 and the list of projects selected for subsidy are being sent to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat. The list of selected projects will be published as soon as possible on the Internet site of the Community Institutions in accordance with Article 169(1) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1).

This list has been drawn up on the basis of the exclusion, selection and award criteria laid down in the text of the call for proposals.

(1) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/490

(2004/C 88 E/0502)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0226/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Starch factories and developing countries

On a working visit to Veendam, I was informed about the possibilities of starch being produced from cassava in developing countries and about the factors which are hampering progress in that area. In many developing countries, cassava is frequently a local crop which thrives in the natural environment and is very suitable for use in the production of starch. Starch is a raw material for the food, textiles and paper industries. Construction of a starch factory may create a large number of jobs in the rural parts of developing countries which frequently have to cope with high rates of unemployment. Many jobs can be created in agriculture, in industry and in small private businesses. It costs between EUR 4 and 5 million to construct a factory of this nature. That is an affordable investment which can give a real positive boost to local economies in developing countries. Private investors are interested in participating in the projects with venture capital, but that is not sufficient for the implementation of the projects. Banks, too, must participate by granting loans, but they are less cooperative. Participating banks want guarantees for the amounts that they lend. The provision by the European Union of bank guarantees in respect of such projects would be very valuable and would encourage the banks to participate. That would result in the green light being given for considerable small-scale investments with a huge economic spin-off in the local economy of developing countries.

1. Is the Commission aware of the possibilities which the starch industry offers with regard to job-creation in developing countries, and has it already noted the problems that are occurring in respect of bank guarantees?

2. Does the Commission acknowledge that the absence of bank guarantees is creating an obstacle to these valuable projects?

3. Is the Commission prepared to make a contribution to a possible solution to this problem, for example by providing bank guarantees?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

1. The starch industry is generally a capital intensive sector; however, whilst contributing to the economic development in the rural areas producing cassava, it will insure some valuable job creation. While the Commission has no specific experience in the starch industry in developing countries, one of our main private sector development instruments, the Center for Enterprise Development (CDE), has had some selected projects in this sector. A contact person at the CDE is M. Touré (Tel. 0032-2-6791905, e-mail: cto@cde.int).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/897

(2004/C 84 E/0991)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: European subsidies for the Flemish Community

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What were the findings of the auditing bodies with regard to the financial management and accountability of the Flemish Community in Belgium in respect of European subsidies, what recommendations were made, and how were these recommendations implemented by the Flemish Community?

2. How many investigations were made by the European Court of Auditors in relation to subsidies to the Flemish Community, within the framework of the Statement of Assurance, for each year of the period 1999 to 2003?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

In accordance with normal procedures, the Commission departments responsible for Structural Funds have checked the systems put in place by the Flemish Community of Belgium to manage these funds. They have made a number of recommendations to the Flemish authorities in relation to various elements. The Flemish authorities have accepted the recommendations and the commitments to this effect are being followed up. The Directorate General for Regional Policy informed the Parliament of its findings for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in a report of 30 April 2003.

The European Court of Auditors has audited the current management and control systems for Structural Funds set up by the Flemish Community twice, in 2002 and 2003, for the years 2001 and 2002 respectively within the framework of the Statement of Assurance. The Honourable Member is referred to the Court's annual reports for 2001 and 2002 (1).

(1) OJ C 295, 28.11.2002 and OJ C 286, 28.11.2003.