ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/108

(2004/C 84 E/0145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3869/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Impact of specific residential building schemes on SIC ES 5223037

In its reply E-3156/03 (1) on residential building in the Serra de la Renegà and its effects on the ‘Oropesa-Benicàssim’ site of Community interest, the Commission claimed that it had contacted the Spanish authorities so as to check that the requirements of Article 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on assessing the indirect impact of schemes on protected areas and the conservation objectives concerned were being met.

Can the Commission state whether the Spanish authorities, as laid down by the Directive, have demonstrated the complete absence of alternatives to this scheme? Can the Commission confirm that the Spanish authorities believe that the construction of the thousand chalets and the two hotels in question is an absolute necessity ‘because it is a project of public interest’? Has the Commission been informed of the compensatory measures which the Spanish authorities intend to carry out so as to guarantee that there is no negative impact on the Natura 2000 Network in this instance?

The Commission failed to respond with regard to the species protected by the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (3)) which inhabit the areas mentioned.

Does the Commission not believe that the building of these chalets and tourist installations runs flat counter to the provisions of the Birds Directive in terms of the negative impact which these building schemes will have on the protected species?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Spanish authorities have not yet replied to the request for information from the Commission concerning the urban and tourist development project in the Renegà Range. For this reason, the Commission has not yet reached any conclusions in its investigation of the issues raised.

On the other hand, the Commission considers that Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (4) is not relevant to this case, as the Spanish authorities have not classified this area as a Special Protection Area and the scientific community has not included it in the inventory of Important Bird Areas.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 477.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/267

(2004/C 78 E/0267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3342/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Financial aid to Danish immigrant associations

In questions Nos. E-3162/03 (1) and E-3211/03 (2) to the Commission, I described how ‘Paraplyorganisation for de Etniske Mindretal’ (umbrella organisation for ethnic minorities — POEM) swindled money from the Danish government and the European Social Fund. POEM is an umbrella organisation for between 21 and 32 different organisations and associations for ethnic minorities (there is a good deal of confusion as to the exact number of members). The chairman of POEM, Bashy Qureishy, is also chairman of two of those associations — Fair Play and Etnisk Debatforum.

Both of these organisations have received financial aid from the EU Information Board in Denmark, which comes under the Danish Ministry of Education. These two associations received a total of Dkr 179 800 in 2002 and 2003 from the EU Information Board (the Board does not receive funding from the EU but is financed solely through the Danish budget).

In the light of the above-mentioned swindle involving financial aid to POEM, will the Commission say whether the two associations, Fair Play and Etnisk Debatforum, have received any form of financial contribution under EU aid schemes, including the European Social Fund, since 1998? If those associations have received funding, will the Commission say under which programmes/schemes the aid was granted, what sum was involved and whether the Commission has checked that the funding was used for the purposes for which it was granted?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

In accordance with Structural Funds Regulations, the main responsibility for managing European Social Fund (ESF)-funds lies with the national managing authority, in casu Erhvervs- og Boligstyrelsen (EBST). As such, the Commission does not have a detailed list of all organisations receiving ESF funding under the different programmes.

Upon receipt of the Honourable Member's written question, the Commission has contacted the national authorities at EBST and requested it the information concerning the two associations, Fair Play and Etnisk Debatforum. EBST confirms that a search in the project database OPUS demonstrates that, to date, neither of these two organisations has received any ESF-funds under the Danish Objective 2, Objective 3 or EQUAL programme (2000-2006), nor in the previous ESF programming period (1994-1999).

The Commission is closely monitoring the follow-up to the findings and allegations concerning POEM by the Danish Managing Authority and its control service.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 227.

(2) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 240.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/655

(2004/C 88 E/0672)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3920/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: ECHO

In the light of representations from journalists, will the Commission consider changing its policy so that it would allow journalists to fly on ECHO flights to Mogadishu, Somalia?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the arguments put forward by Mr Alberizzi, a correspondent of Corrierre della Sera, who requested that ECHO Flight should be made available to provide transport to journalists wishing to travel to Somalia.

As already expressed in its reply to Mr Alberizzi's open letter (1), the Commission is not in a position to revise its policy on the use of ECHO Flight. ECHO Flight is a humanitarian service supporting humanitarian and rehabilitation projects in Somalia, Northern Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo by transporting staff and cargo required for the implementation of these projects. Given its humanitarian character, and in order to maintain access to conflict zones, it is of outmost importance that ECHO Flight demonstrates at all times neutrality and impartiality. Any association with political messages the missions of politicians, political officials and also journalists may produce, risks putting these basic principles in jeopardy.

For these reasons, a restrictive policy on the use of ECHO Flight needs to be adhered to.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/pdf_files/letter_echo_flight.pdf
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/386

(2004/C 78 E/0408)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1777/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Veria Justice and Home Affairs Council

What progress was made at the Veria Justice and Home Affairs Council on implementing the Green Paper on minimum procedural safeguards for defendants and suspects in criminal proceedings adopted by the Commission on 19 February 2003?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

The informal Justice and Home Affairs Ministers' Meeting in Veria on 28 March 2003, was in part devoted to a discussion on the Green Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the Union (1). This meeting was intended as a first exchange of views, and was useful insofar as it provided the Commission with an indication of the views of the Member States on this issue.

At the meeting, the Commission presented the Green Paper and stressed the importance of safeguarding citizens' freedoms. During the course of a round table discussion, that ensued, Member States set out their preliminary thoughts on the procedural safeguards initiative.

The Veria discussion represents an early stage in the course of the Green Paper. A public hearing on the subject was on 16 June 2003. Over 50 replies have been received to the Green Paper and these will be taken into account. The Commission, after those wide consultations with experts and interested parties, intends to present a proposal for a Framework Decision on this subject in October 2003, in line with its annual work programme for 2003.

(1) COM(2003) 0075 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/92

(2004/C 84 E/0117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3725/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Ancona

With reference to question E-0961/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Ancona (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/910

(2004/C 78 E/0962)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4080/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Pets' passports

A Portuguese citizen has contacted me to express concern that in his country the keeping of ferrets for any purpose is illegal, and that pet ferrets may be confiscated and killed or placed in a zoo.

My understanding is that pet ferrets have been included within the EU pets' passport scheme, and travel within the EU will be possible if they have been vaccinated and carry the appropriate marking.

Has the Commission issued any warnings or guidance to ferret owners about travel to Portugal?

In the course of its discussions with Member States about the pets' passport scheme has the Commission explored the issues posed by different national laws on the legality of keeping certain pets?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The ban on the keeping of ferrets in Portugal does not come under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals (1), as it is based on considerations other than health.

Article 2 (third paragraph) of the said Regulation states that ‘provisions based on considerations other than those relating to animal health requirements, and intended to restrict the movement of certain species or breeds of pet animals, shall not be affected by this Regulation’.

Therefore, any other issue which might arise in connection with the non-commercial movement of the animals in question falls under the jurisdiction of the Member States. According to the information received from the Portuguese authorities, the ban referred to is based on environmental protection considerations.

In order to meet its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, Portugal has adopted implementing provisions in the form of Decree No 314/2003 of 17 December 2003. This Decree also imposes an additional obligation, in the case of ferrets, to obtain a permit from the Environment Ministry, which in the light of the above-mentioned provisions of Article 2, cannot be regarded as contravening the Community Regulation.

(1) OJ L 146, 13.6.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/42

(2004/C 84 E/0046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2945/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Specific programme for research

In the explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a Council Decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006), (1), it is said that in the course of the ethical review, there will be an assessment of whether a free, express and informed consent of the donors has been obtained.

As it is intended that the stem cells for research will be obtained from early stage human embryos, can the Council confirm:

— who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested?

— how will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council attaches great importance to respecting fundamental ethical principles in the implementation of the specific research programme referred to by the Honourable Member. In this respect, Council Decision 2002/834/EC of 30 September 2002 (2) stipulates that, ‘inter alia’, ‘Where appropriate, participants in research projects must seek the approval of the relevant national or local ethics committees prior to the start of the RTD activities. An ethical review will be implemented systematically by the Commission for proposals dealing with ethically sensitive issues, in particular proposals involving the use of human embryos and human embryonic stem cells’.

Regarding the Commission proposal for amending the specific programme mentioned in the question, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the conclusions adopted following its meeting held on 3 December 2003, where the President, at the end of the discussion, concluded that no agreement could be reached either on the Commission proposal as amended in the light of the opinion given by the European Parliament in November or on the Presidency text put forward for the occasion.

(1) COM(2003) 390 final.

(2) OJ L 294, 29.10.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/415

(2004/C 78 E/0436)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2670/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Ban on simultaneous enrolment at several institutes of higher education

The quality of education throughout the European Union is a priority for all the Member States. To become ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ is the European Union's new strategic goal announced at the European Council meeting in Lisbon.

In Italy, Article 142 of the unified text of Royal Decree No 1592 of 31 August 1933 bans simultaneous enrolment at more than one university, institute of higher education, faculty or school in the same university or institute or for more than one degree or diploma course in the same faculty or school.

Can the Commission express its views on this ban on simultaneous enrolment for several university courses laid down by Italian law?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The matter of the ban on simultaneous enrolment at several higher education institutions raised by the Honourable Member concerns the organisation of education systems and, as such, under Article 149 (1) of the EC Treaty, falls within the competence of the Member States and not of the Community.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/326

(2004/C 88 E/0331)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0547/03

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Beef and live cattle exports to the Lebanon and Egypt

Would the Commission let me know the quantity (expressed in carcass weight equivalent of (1) live cattle and (2) beef exported by the Community to (a) the Lebanon and (b) Egypt in the three most recent calendar years for which figures are available?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The table below shows the Community exports of live bovine animals and beef to Lebanon and Egypt for the calendar years 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Complete statistical data for the calendar year 2002 are not yet available.

EU 15 exports in metric tonne carcass equivalent
—

General The humanitarian assistance and food aid activities have been completed, though activities under separate financing of EUR 6,0 million for East Timorese refugees in West Timor through the UNHCR will continue to be implemented until mid-2003. The rehabilitation and consolidation support being provided by the Community to Untaet and TFET are still under implementation, as is the 2002 support for capacity building through the UNDP, which is a one-year programme. The support being provided for longer-term health project is likely to continue until 2006. An evaluation of the Community's humanitarian assistance to East Timor was carried out in 2001 with very positive conclusions concerning the effectiveness, efficiency, co-ordination and impact of this aid. The remaining bulk of the Community assistance has been provided through the TFET. This has been done on the basis of reports prepared by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank and presented to meetings of the Donors' Council of the Trust Fund for East Timor. The conclusions of these reports have generally been considered very positive by donors, and on the basis of the reports further tranches of funding for the Trust have been committed. The Commission considers that the impact of its assistance to East Timor since 1999 has been extremely positive. This assistance has been provided in a systematic and logical approach comprising four types of intervention: (a) initial emergency humanitarian assistance, (b) medium-term support for administrative capacity building and rehabilitation, (c) support for the democratic process, and (d) longer-term development assistance. These interventions have been linked to each other in that, for example, humanitarian assistance in the health sector has led on to longer-term policy development and development co-operation financing with Community funding in that sector. Likewise, capacity building under the UNDP project in the Ministry of Agriculture will provide the administrative framework for the implementation of Community and other donors' future longer-term interventions in that sector. In so far as it has assisted East Timor to reach its newly-found independence and to prepare itself for its longer-term development, the Community aid provided can be considered most successful. An overview of Community assistance to East Timor can be found on the Europa website at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/east_timor/index.htm). Two NGO projects for East Timor have been selected, as a result of the call for proposals 2001 of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, their details are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/237

(2004/C 78 E/0239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3187/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Free movement of bankrupt persons in the EU

A person who has been declared bankrupt in the UK is free to live anywhere they wish in the UK.

Is a person who has been declared bankrupt in the UK free to live anywhere they wish in the EU in the same way that a citizen not declared bankrupt would be able to?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

A Union citizen who has been declared bankrupt in the United Kingdom is free to live anywhere he/she wishes in the territory of the Union if he/she fulfils the conditions applying to the right of residence under Community legislation, i.e. being a worker or self-employed person or having adequate resources and sickness insurance.

In this respect, Community legislation does not provide any specific limitation to the right of free movement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/143

(2004/C 88 E/0151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3399/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Azerbaijan

Presidential elections were recently held in Azerbaijan, which were followed by riots and political unrest. The new president, Ilham Aliyev, son of the former president, has already cracked down hard on any form of opposition. Azerbaijan is a country beset by a great many problems; large numbers of refugees, a ravaged environment and conflicts with its neighbours. At the same time, there are great riches to be exploited in the form of oil, which attracts interest in the region from many quarters, including the USA and the European Union. However, this economic interest must not lead us to turn a blind eye to the mismanagement of the country. Azerbaijan is in great need of reform and reconstruction, which is entirely possible with the anticipated revenue from oil. However, current events indicate that the country is more likely to become the fiefdom of the Aliyev clan, where progress towards democracy and improving living conditions do not come top of the agenda.

Will the Commission therefore say what steps are being taken to ensure that advances are made towards democracy in Azerbaijan at the same time as economic cooperation progresses? Has the EU attached any conditions to investment etc., such as linkage to progress on democracy, human rights, the situation of refugees and using the country's oil revenue for the good of the people as a whole?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission has been assisting Azerbaijan make the transition to a democratic society based on a free market economy since 1992 with its technical assistance and other aid programmes. Currently these assistance programmes have poverty reduction and government reform as their principal objectives. The Government of Azerbaijan has recently started to implement its State Programme for Poverty Reduction and Economic Development (SPRED). The Programme has been welcomed by the International Financing Institutions and the wider donor community. The Spred provides the framework for all donor assistance in Azerbaijan. Only by addressing the fundamental and underlying problems will the progress to democracy and a free market economy be achieved.

The Commission along with the Member States carries out a very active dialogue on a wide range of matters including progress on democracy, human rights and the use of oil revenues for the good of the people as a whole. The Commission is one of the largest donors assisting Azerbaijan's refugees and Internally Displaced People through its programme for the rehabilitation of war damaged areas.

The Government of Azerbaijan has started to use its Oil Fund for the benefit of refugees who have been settled in different regions of Azerbaijan.