ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/164

(2004/C 78 E/0169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2770/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Personal injury awards

The Commission will be aware of the significant disparities that can exist between personal injury awards for identical circumstances between Member States of the European Union.

Could the Commission inform me of any plans it may have to introduce measures to help ease this problem?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission has taken a number of specific initiatives in the context of establishing a European area of justice that will be of benefit for an improved access to justice for personal injury claimants.

It has presented a proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims (1), focussing on compensation from the state. The proposed Directive aims at establishing a minimum standard for all crime victims in the Union and facilitating access to compensation in cross-border situations. The proposal is currently under discussion in the Council and the Parliament.

The Commission has recently presented a proposal for a Council Regulation on the applicable law to noncontractual obligations (2). The proposed Regulation would harmonise the conflict of laws of the Member States for cross-border disputes involving torts or delicts, and will greatly improve the predictability and clarity of the legal situation for personal injury claimants in cross-border situations.

The Commission supports projects carried out in this area also, which can serve to deepen the debate on what further measures could be taken at European level and also help to make information on national laws on personal injury more accessible for lawyers as well as citizens.

However, the Commission has no plans to launch measures towards harmonising personal injury laws in general. The added value of such an initiative can be questioned and the existence of a legal basis in the EC Treaty is unclear. Moreover, the main differences between the Member States would appear to be in the way different losses are evaluated and compensated for by the courts, in particular as concerns non-pecuniary losses. This reflects among other things, socio-economic differences between the Member States. It is not conceivable to proceed towards any kind of common European tariffs to even out such differences.

(1) OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.

(2) COM(2003) 427 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/316

(2004/C 78 E/0317)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3764/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Spanish Hydrological Plan: cost of water transferred, and the recovery of funding

The Commission is aware the Spanish Government is devoting a significant part of the Community funding it receives to co-funding water regulation schemes. Spanish legislation demands that those benefiting from publicly funded water schemes meet a set of regulations designed to compensate for the costs of public investment (Article 114 of Royal Legislative Decree of 20 July 2001, No 1/2001, adopting the revised text of the Law on Water, Spanish Official Journal 24.7.2002). Recently, the chairman of the Júcar Hydrographical Confederation, José María González Ortea, said that those using the new water infrastructure should not be responsible for bringing back the European funding allocated to water schemes of Community interest (Provincias, 13.11.2003).

Having regard to Community law, and particularly the obligation to maintain transparency in managing and applying European funds (recitals 26 and 57, and Articles 17 to 19, 34, 36 and 46 of Regulation 1260/1991 (1)), the ban on distorting competition within the internal market by means of state aids (Article 87 of the EC Treaty), the protection of the Community's financial interests (Article 280 of the EC Treaty), and the obligation to take account of the principle of recovering costs of water-related services (Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC (2)), does the Commission believe that the Spanish Government should provide clear and specific precise information on the following points when requesting Community funding for a water regulation project:

— who are to be the beneficiaries and destinees of the regulated water?

— how are these beneficiaries going to contribute to recovering the costs of public investment?

— is different treatment to be given to recovering public funds contributed by the state and those contributed by the Community?

— is it going to exonerate the beneficiaries in some way from contributing to the recovery of Community funding?

Specifically, with regard to the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer scheme, does the Commission believe that it has been provided with sufficient information for it to determine who are the beneficiaries of the work concerned, whether they will be able to contribute to the recovery of the costs, and whether all beneficiaries, or a group of beneficiaries, are going to be exonerated from contributing to this recovery of costs?

Has the Spanish Government informed the Commission of its intention of exonerating, in any way, all or some of the beneficiaries from contributing to the recovery of costs?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/562

(2004/C 78 E/0597)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3482/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Legal privilege of documents between companies and their law firms

Does the Commission regard correspondence between companies and their law firms as ‘legally privileged’ in anti-cartel cases?

If so, what is to prevent companies arranging their cartels via their lawyers in order to avoid detection?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The Commission fully recognises that correspondence between companies and their law firms can be ‘legally privileged’. This recognition is in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. The jurisprudence sets out the conditions for such privilege. Thus, according to the case law, the confidentiality of written communications between lawyer and client is protected provided that, on the one hand, such communications are made for the purposes and in the interests of the client's rights of defence and on the other hand, they emanate from independent lawyers, that is to say, lawyers who are not bound to the client by a relationship of employment.

The second part of the question of the Honourable Member is of utmost concern to the Commission in connection with the effective enforcement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty. To that effect, the above case law imposes conditions so as to avoid abuse of legal privilege by companies. Documents are only protected if they are written communications solely for requesting the lawyer's advice for the purposes of the rights of defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/400

(2004/C 88 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2310/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject: EU nationals imprisoned in Japan

Given that it has the right to attend the monthly meetings of the EU Consular officials, can the Commission supply details of how many EU nationals, broken down into numbers from each EU Member State, are currently in prisons in Japan?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission Delegation in Tokyo participates in Union co-ordination meetings on consular affairs only in so far as the Commission is specifically competent for the matters under discussion. Prison visits and care of Member State citizens in need of consular help do not fall within the remit of the Commission Delegation. However, during discussions at the consulate meeting the latest figure mentioned for Western prisoners in Tokyo alone was 100. Precise data is difficult to obtain, particularly if Union citizens are arrested and held in local prefectures. (In some cases this also involves a different interpretation of nationality as for instance the United Kingdom Embassy does not accept Hong Kong citizens to be considered as Chinese nationals by the Japanese authorities). The highest proportion of cases concern the violation of drug related laws. The Commission is not in a position, therefore, to give a more detailed breakdown in terms of numbers from each Member State. This information should be sought from the Member States themselves.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/395

(2004/C 78 E/0418)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2121/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Developing infrastructure and promoting employment in Madagascar

Can the Commission inform us of the various types of aid, measures, programmes and/or budget lines that can be used for development measures in Madagascar, particularly:

1. in the renewable energy sector (including wind energy), in a country which depends essentially on hydrocarbon imports;

2. for promoting reafforestation (given that the country has seen 65 % of its forests disappear);

3. for building rural villages, using bricks as the raw material, an activity which creates a great many jobs and whose objective is to establish populations in their place of origin in the best possible conditions;

4. for building tourist villages or complexes which could generate employment and steady incomes for local populations?

Can the EDF (European Development Fund) be called upon to contribute to such projects, and in accordance with which procedures?

Can the Commission also tell us what facilities are offered by the EIB to promote all or some of these projects?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Community has allocated, in the framework of the 9th European Development Fund (EDF), development aid to Madagascar for a total amount of EUR 327 million for the period 2002-2007. Main sectors of intervention, agreed with the Madagascar Government, are transport, rural development and food security, macro-economic support and good governance, with particular attention to actions aimed at strengthening civil society by developing representation and legitimacy.

EDF development aid is complemented by yearly contributions from the Community budget, particularly for food aid.

1. There is not an explicit policy on promoting renewable energy in the present country co-operation strategy. However in the past, some micro hydro-electrical plants have been financed. Besides, there are not initiatives in this specific sector at national level or promoted by other donors and windmills and solar energy would require substantial investments, which the target group is not able to sustain at this stage.

2. Reforestation is foreseen in the framework of the 9th EDF rural development programme in the context of watershed development interventions. In addition, in the context of the budget line Tropical Forests', community-based management of plantation forests is promoted.

3. Through its micro-projects/decentralised co-operation, the Commission has been funding housing for homeless people.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/704

(2004/C 78 E/0752)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/03

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006

How was the EUR 20 million allocated under the National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006 for Maríne Tourism Infrastructure allocated? Is the Commission satisfied that this entire budget was distributed as originally intended?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Irish National Development Plan is implemented through several Operational Programmes which contain a range of measures, some of which are confinanced by the Community and others funded from purely national resources.

The Maríne Tourism measure is a nationally funded measure featuring in the two Regional Operational Programmes i.e. The Border Midland and Western and the Southern and Eastern Programmes.

As this measure is not cofinanced from Union Structural Funds, the distribution of the funding is not a matter on which the Commission is in a position to comment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/430

(2004/C 78 E/0450)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2792/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Opportunities for aggressive speculation in emissions trading

From 2008, national assigned amount units (AAU or BSA amounts) will be adjusted to take account of cross-border transfers of emission allowances so as to ensure that a selling country's AAU (BSA) amount is decreased and that of the buying country increased by the quantity transferred.

If, however, a cross-border transfer of emission allowances in the period beginning in 2008 is due to the fact that the allowances in question were originally just banked in the country concerned, the country of origin will obtain the amount of banked allowances twice over. Broadening out the problem onto a large scale, it is hard to believe, especially in the light of their governments' action, that the Member States will start to engage in speculative transfers of this kind, but any non-EU Annex I country (if it acceded to the Kyoto Protocol and joined the EU emissions trading scheme before 2007) or a company from such a country would be able, by proceeding as described above, to double the amount of allowances for sale. It will also be possible in a way to exploit market forces if emission allowances have been banked in a rival selling country (for instance in a transfer from Ukraine to Germany). The rival seller's market position will consequently be weakened, whereas the market player in question will benefit twice over.

Another typical form of aggressive speculation could occur if the kind of practice seen on the foreign exchange markets some years ago were to be repeated on the emissions trading market. In theory, a non-EU operator could thus hamper a competitor operating within the EU (and within the emissions trading scheme).

Has the Commission made plans to deal with aggressive speculation of this type in emissions trading? If so, what plans?

Does it still see no need for the idea of employing market intervention (using an EU central register, for example) to stabilise disturbances on the emissions trading market?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/99

(2004/C 78 E/0099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2251/03

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Charter for Children in Hospital

In 1988 a ‘Charter for Children in Hospital’ was drawn up in Leiden with the aim of making care services for children more human.

The 19 European countries which have to date acceded to the Charter, and which include Portugal, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland, jointly founded a ‘European Association for Children in Hospital’ which decided, at its 7th international conference held in Brussels in 2002, to propose associating the EU institutions in its discussions. Although this issue does not fall within the Community's sphere of competence, will the Commission indicate whether it intends to look into the matter, in particular by proposing that the Council adopt measures in line with the recommendations made in the Charter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

As indicated by the Honourable Member, the issue of hospitalisation of children does not fall within the Community's sphere of competence.

The responsibility for health care lies with the Member States. The Commission is not able to intervene in this respect and will, therefore, not propose that the Council adopt measures in line with the recommendations made in the Charter for Children in Hospital.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/478

(2004/C 88 E/0490)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3967/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Compensation for expropriated property of Istrian refugees in Croatia

In view of the impending decision by the Council to open negotiations with Croatia, does the Commission not believe it desirable and necessary to raise the sensitive issue of the expropriations suffered by Italian citizens and other Europeans who were obliged after the Second World War, by the new Yugoslavian authorities, to abandon their property and land?

Does the Commission not believe that the legislation invoked by the Croatian authorities to justify their refusal to return this property to the Istrian refugees is contrary to the principles of both the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The issue of the expropriations after the Second World War is an open bilateral issue between the countries concerned and the Commission has no legal competence on the matter.

However, the Commission, on the basis of the principle of good neighbourly relations, has on several occasions recommended Croatia to find an acceptable solution to the problem through a dialogue with the parties concerned. The problem has been mentioned in the last Stabilisation and Association Report on Croatia of April 2003, and in the regular meetings between the Commission and Croatian Government.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/545

(2004/C 78 E/0574)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3426/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

To what extent was the Commission informed of the accusations made by Mrs Dorte Schmidt-Brown? Did it receive information about the problems of Eurocost on 13 November 2000 and did it ask Mr Franchet to reply? Did it inform Commissioner Solbes of the problems or was he asked to take any action? Did it follow the case or inform any other Member of the Commission? What measures did the Commission take in response to the letter of 12 July 2002 from Freddy Blak, Member of the European Parliament?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/239

(2004/C 84 E/0283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3440/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Council

(20 November 2003)

Subject: Human rights in China

At the European-Chinese summit between Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, trade agreements relating to cooperation between China and Europe in the field of satellite navigation were discussed. It was the European Commission which launched the Galileo programme concerning this.

A new report by Amnesty International now states that human rights are being persistently and seriously violated in China. Torture, executions and repression are still commonplace. Amnesty International reports that more than 300 000 political prisoners are being held in special camps in China.

According to various newspaper reports, not a word was spoken about the human rights situation in China at the summit meeting between Berlusconi and Hu Jintao. Are these reports correct?

If so, is it ethically acceptable to hold trade talks with China without raising this issue? Is not progress over human rights an essential condition for progress in relations between the EU and China?

What efforts has the Council made in the past to improve the human rights situation in China through diplomatic channels?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

1. On a general level, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the Council declaration on China presented on the occasion of the European Parliament's plenary session last December.

2. Contrary to sources quoted by the Honourable Member of Parliament, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that human rights issues were on the agenda of the Summit meeting. Human rights issues are raised regularly at all levels with China, including at the highest level. At the Summit meeting which took place on 30 October in Beijing, the EU raised in particular China's accession to the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court, freedom of expression, religious freedom and the death penalty. Both sides had also addressed human rights issues in policy papers that were published shortly before the Summit.

3. Since 1995 the EU has held a human rights dialogue with China in principle once per Council Presidency and has organised related seminars on human rights issues with NGOs. These dialogue meetings are conducted on the basis of detailed reports of the human rights situation on the ground prepared by the EU Heads of Delegation in Beijing, which take into account a variety of credible sources, including reports by human rights NGOs. Heads of Delegation are involved in the follow-up to these meetings and in carrying out démarches on individual cases of concern.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/138

(2004/C 78 E/0141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2634/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 2001. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data.

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201):

(a) the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2001: — 12 237,500 kg were exported from Ireland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 10 844,52, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,89/kg; — 18 677,300 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 12 487,13 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,67/kg; — 181 335 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 87 462,25 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,48/kg;

(b) the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001: — 350 700 kg were exported from Italy and 158 100 kg from Holland to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that: — unwarranted aid of EUR 22 051,32 was paid on an additional 35 472,50 kg not shown in the OECD data; — no application was made for aid of EUR 221 981,26 for the export of 332 022,70 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

(1) OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/543

(2004/C 78 E/0567)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3419/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Does the Commission agree with the Committee of Independent Experts that the full political responsibility assumed by the Commissioners should be understood as the obligation to be answerable to the Commission as a body, and then to Parliament, for their actions and those of the Director-General and other officials in their department?