ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/157

(2004/C 84 E/0195)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0075/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject: Flight safety checks

The European Union — via the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council — has in various ways urged the individual countries to introduce effective flight safety controls. Safety is extremely important, and not just in view of the recent tragic accident. Does the Commission not consider it would be useful to obtain information from the individual countries concerning the checks carried out on the condition of aircraft and the results produced? Have checks been carried out on individual carriers and how many and what kind of checks were carried out without prior notice in the various countries on both scheduled flights and ‘charter’ flights? Has the crucial issue — which is not always spelled out — of the relationship between low fares and expenditure on flight administration and routine and special aircraft maintenance been tackled in every country?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Member States inspect foreign aircraft which land on their territory and take part in a coordination programme established by the European Civil Aviation Conference: the Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) programme. These checks and the SAFA programme were much discussed in the press following the Flash Airlines Boeing 737 accident at Sharm el Sheikh on 3 January 2004; the checking of this aircraft highlighted the programme's limitations.

The proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of third countries' aircraft using Community airports (1) should make it possible to overcome the deficiencies in the SAFA programme, in particular by making checks mandatory by providing scope for Community action vis-à-vis undertakings or countries which fail to comply with safety requirements, and by publishing an annual report on inspections. Once this Directive is applied by the Member States, the Commission will have detailed information on all the inspections carried out at Community airports.

The Commission currently has the following data: in 2002, European States participating in the SAFA programme carried out 3 234 checks on aircraft operated by 529 airlines from 127 countries.

The Commission notes that the certification of airlines and the certification of each individual aircraft is done by the national civil aviation authority of the country in which the airline is established or in which the aircraft is registered, in accordance with the rules of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The responsibility of ensuring that international safety standards are being adhered to rests with the national authority, regardless of the relationship between fares, costs and aircraft maintenance. All undertakings must submit to inspections by the competent authorities. The national registration authorities undergo ICAO audits.

(1) OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/863

(2004/C 84 E/0955)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0743/04

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

(11 March 2004)

Subject: MEDA programme and regions

As a Mediterranean region, Valencia has important social and economic links with its neighbouring countries and regions.

In connection with the forthcoming review of the MEDA programme budget, has the Commission taken into account the possibility of coordinating activities with regional governments in Mediterranean areas? Are there any studies on the feasibility of creating interregional structures within the Mediterranean basin in order to improve economic cooperation and increase development aid in the area?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission attaches particular importance to the role of regions and local authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. One of the objectives of that partnership is to involve the public and civil society more closely. Local and regional authorities are important and useful partners in the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean partnership that is close to the people and the Commission welcomes their growing interest in cooperation with Euro-Mediterranean partners.

On 22 February 2002 in Barcelona, the mayors of Euro-Mediterranean cities were united in the desire to inject new dynamism into the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and create a forum for dialogue, exchanges and cooperation. Their declaration, referred to as the Euro-Med Pact, was the result of a very long-standing wish on the part of the cities to have their own forum within the Euro-Mediterranean framework. The Valencia Action Plan, endorsed by the Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers on 23 April 2002, ‘welcomed the Declaration of the Meeting of Euro-Mediterranean cities held in Barcelona last February. It also agreed that the Euromed Pact proposal presented by Eurocities merited further study.’

In 2003, following on from these political decisions and declarations, the Commission launched a pilot programme on cooperation between Euro-Mediterranean cities (Medact) with the objective of making a start on the first projects. The work done so far demonstrates that the local authorities are both willing and able to play an active part in Euro-Mediterranean cooperation programmes. It was decided during the regional programming exercise for 2005-2006 that this work should be supported and developed through a cooperation programme for Euro-Mediterranean cities and local authorities (Medact), with the aim of developing cooperation, exchanges and dialogue between them. EUR 5 million has been allocated for this.

Lastly, the Commission is planning to set up a new neighbourhood instrument in 2007. It will provide European regions and local authorities with a framework for working with southern-Mediterranean partners on cross-border and trans-national cooperation programmes and projects.

The Commission is confident that these cooperation instruments will pave the way for more active and more concerted involvement by European towns and regions in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/156

(2004/C 84 E/0193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0062/04

by Giorgio Calò (ELDR) and Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Discriminatory treatment of Community research students in Germany

On the basis of the internal rules of the Max Planck Society in Germany foreign research students, unlike their German fellow students, do not have access to the regular employment contract BAT IIa/2, but receive a grant (‘Stipendium’), which is tax-free and not subject to social security contributions.

This discrimination affects hundreds of foreign students, most of them from Community countries, and naturally has substantial repercussions on guarantees and rights in the areas of social security and health.

The Max Planck Society, 80 % of whose funding comes from public sources, is bound by the principles of the Constitution and the founding principles of the Treaty concerning non-discrimination, freedom of movement and residence, freedom of establishment and equal opportunities.

In view of the blatant violation of these principles, can the Commission intervene by adopting urgent measures to ensure that the aforementioned discriminatory treatment of Community research students in Germany is discontinued?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

EU nationals have the right to work in other Member States (Article 39 of the EC Treaty). This right to free movement of workers includes the right to have equal access to jobs and equal treatment in relation to working conditions as compared to the nationals of the host Member State.

On the basis of Article 39 nationals of other Member States must, therefore, be allowed to apply for research positions for which an employment contract is offered (like the positions under BAT IIa/2 as concerned in the written question) at the German Max Planck Society in the same way as German nationals.

According to the information of the Commission, nationals of other Member States are equally entitled to apply for research posts (e.g. Doktorandenstellen). In the job-offers for Doktorandenstellen currently put online at the homepage of the Max Planck Society (23 January 2004) no nationality condition is stipulated.

In order to be able to further evaluate if the facts contained in the written question might constitute a breach of Community law, the Honourable Members are therefore invited to send more information to the Commission (Directorate-General Employment and Social Affairs), including information about the cases of the non-German EU nationals who were refused application for such a Doktorandenstelle on the basis of their nationality or who have obtained such a post but without the working conditions as foreseen for BAT IIa/2 employees.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/639

(2004/C 84 E/0719)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Damage caused by extreme weather conditions in Greece

Heavy snowfall and exceptionally low temperatures have caused widespread serious and damage to plant and stockbreeding production, to stocks of plants and animals and to agricultural installations (greenhouses, livestock housing, etc.) in many parts of Greece.

Given that producers' incomes and the means of production have been very badly affected, will the Commission say:

1. Will it fund actions to compensate producers for loss of income and the replacement of the means of productions which have been affected?

2. What scope is there for using funds from the Operational Programme on agricultural development 2000-2006 or reserves from the third CSF?

3. Will it approve a national programme for granting aid, if requested to do so by Greece?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Commission has not yet received detailed information from Greece concerning the impact on agriculture caused by the adverse weather conditions that affected the Member State during the month of February 2004. Depending on the magnitude of this damage, Community solidarity funds may be available to help rural areas overcome the problems they are facing as soon as possible and to rebuild production potential. In addition, if these adverse weather conditions have destroyed the production potential, European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) assistance may be possible inside of the financial allocation for Greece for the programming period 2000-2006 and more specifically through the implementation of the ‘National Operational Programme — Rural Development (2000-2006)’. However, it should be underlined that for the moment there are no funds available and consequently a reprogramming procedure will be necessary. The Greek authorities are entitled to submit a request to redefine the programming priorities and the corresponding financial allocations within the context of the current mid-term review. It should be emphasised that EAGGF intervention will be limited to reconstituting production potential and does not cover the income losses which are not eligible.

It should be noted that the allocation of the performance and programming reserves of the 3rd EU — Greece Community Support Framework have already been executed at national level, providing for, among other programmes, the financial reinforcement of the ‘National Operational Programme — Rural Development (2000-2006)’. It is up to the Ministry of Agriculture to propose reallocating of necessary funds to the appropriate section of the programme during the current mid-term review.

The Commission will be able to approve a national aid programme notified to it under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty provided all relevant conditions stipulated in the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agriculture Sector are met.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/349

(2004/C 84 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/04

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Embryo and stem-cell research

In May 2003, I put to the Commission a written question (E-1494/03 (1)) concerning expressions of interest in connection with embryo and stem-cell research under the Sixth Framework Programme.

In its answer, the Commission states that of the 2 000 expressions of interest submitted concerning Priority 1 roughly 80 relate to stem-cell research (animal or human stem-cells).

In connection with Thematic Priority 1, 26 proposals relating to stem-cell research have been received. Three of those proposals would involve the use of preserved or isolated human embryo stem cells grown in culture.

The moratorium ran out on 31 December 2003, with the result that the EU can now subsidise stem-cell research.

In this context, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Has the European Commission already approved applications for grants to finance stem-cell research?

2. If so, how many grants have since been paid out?

3. From which Member States did these applications come?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

The results of the evaluation of the first call for proposals under the Sixth Research Framework Programme show there are currently 18 projects which may receive Community funding and which contain at least one research aspect involving the use of human stem cells. This number must still be regarded as preliminary and not final since some projects are still at the negotiating stage.

Twelve of these projects have been allocated to the thematic priority ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’ and six to the priority ‘Nanotechnologies and nano-sciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production processes and devices’ (tissue engineering projects).

With regard to research projects which involve human embryo stem cells, there are only two under the priority ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’. In both cases, researchers wish to use lines of human embryo stem cells which were recorded in the register of the human embryo stem cells of the US National Institutes of Health (2) and were derived before 9 August 2001. The teams which wish to use these lines are based in Germany and Italy in the case of one project, and in Finland in the case of the other. These data cannot in any way be regarded as final since the negotiation of these two projects has not yet been completed and the Programme Committee set up pursuant to Article 6.3 of the Specific Programme Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area has not yet agreed to give them funding.

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 127.

(2) http://stemcells.nih.gov/registry/index.asp
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/697

(2004/C 84 E/0784)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0934/04

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Breakdown of EU staff by grades A, B, C and D

In 2003, funds were allocated from the EU budget for a total of 31 000 permanent posts and 1 966 temporary posts in the EU's institutions.

Broken down by institution, the figures are as follows:

Permanent posts Temporary posts Commission 21 849 685 Parliament 4 170 790 Council 2866 53 Court of Justice 862 278 Court of Auditors 509 279 Economic and Social Committee 501 24 Committee of the Regions 230 22 Ombudsman 13 18

Will the Commission provide a breakdown of the total number of staff in each grade (A, B, C and D) by nationality within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

As at 31 December 2003, the total number of permanent and temporary staff employed by the Commission was 21 166. The breakdown of officials per category as defined in the Staff Regulations, and by nationality of origin was as follows:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/839

(2004/C 84 E/0932)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0668/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Irish Government's failure to cooperate with Lough Ree investigation

What reply, if any, has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the letter of formal notice it sent to Ireland in April 2003, as announced in IP/03/544, regarding the Irish Government's failure to cooperate with its investigations into complaints about the deterioration of water quality in Lough Ree, specifically in relation to taking account of the cumulative effects of new developments in accordance with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) (1)?

What action has the Commission taken or is it considering in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission's letter of formal notice, referred to by the Honourable Member, addressed non-cooperation by Ireland consisting in a failure to respond to a request for information about compliance with environmental legislation in relation to Lough Ree, County Roscommon. Ireland subsequently provided a detailed response to the Commission's original information request. This response is considered as having brought to an end the infringement for non-cooperation based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty, and no further action is currently contemplated on this ground. The Commission is still considering the substantive issues raised by the original complaint (2).

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

(2) P2001/4787.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/250

(2004/C 88 E/0254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0933/04

by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Energy from the Commonwealth of Independent States

What plans does the Commission have to improve electricity grid connections between the Commonwealth of Independent States and the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission supports the ongoing study work by the Union for the Co-ordination of the Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) – the body responsible for the co-ordination of the operation of the continental European grid – and its counterparts in Russia and the Newly Independent States on the possibilities of interconnecting the integrated system of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the EU electricity system. Interconnections with Russia and the other CIS (1) countries neighbouring the EU, such as Ukraine, are covered by Annex III (projects of common interest) of European Parliament and Council Decision 1229/2003/EC of 26 June 2003 laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision No 1254/96/EC (2), and are therefore eligible for possible financial aid.

However, a clear pre-condition to the integration of the EU electricity market and those of neighbouring countries is the existence of a level playing field, in terms of market and environmental standards, including nuclear safety.

(1) Community of Independent States.

(2) OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/301

(2004/C 84 E/0348)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0046/04

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subjct: Advertisements for jobs in European organisations requiring English mother tongue

European organisations funded wholly or partly by the European Commission, in particular firms with Commission contracts, regularly advertise vacancies requiring ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘English native speakers’.

There are also organisations which, following warnings from the European Commission and others, are replacing the phrase ‘English mother tongue’ with ‘English mother tongue or equivalent’ and ‘English native speaker level’ and then inviting only English native speakers. A full list of approximately 700 such advertisements collected by the European Esperanto Union can be found at: http//lingovo.org/eo/2/15.

1. Can the European Commission take action, possibly by means of legislation, including the withdrawal of Commission funding, against European organisations wholly or partly financed by it, and against private companies that have contracts with the European Commission which discriminate using the above criteria?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/418

(2004/C 84 E/0488)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0504/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Incineration of meat-and-bone meal

Various European media have recently reported on uncertainties about the incineration of meat-and-bone meal in Spain in 2003. According to official government figures, 400 000 tons of meat-and-bone meal was disposed of by means of incineration. According to the Spanish organisation representing operators of incinerators, however, the figure was only 40 000 tons.

1. Is the Commission aware of this issue?

2. Will the Commission call on Spain to explain the 360 000 ton discrepancy? If not, why not?

3. Will the Commission take measures to protect the health of European consumers and prevent this meat-and-bone meal from entering the food chain, in accordance with the current ban on feeding livestock with meat-and-bone meal? If so, what measures? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission sent a questionnaire to Member States on 29 March 2001 asking for details of current disposal routes, the amount of animal by-products disposed of via each route and the disposal costs. As a result of the questionnaire the Commission issued a: ‘Commission services paper on the processing, disposal and uses of animal by-products in Member States’ (1).

The Spanish authorities indicated that there was an estimate annual output of just less than 400 000 tonnes of processed animal protein, part of which was stored in Spain and part was sent to other Member States as trade, for incineration, co-incineration or petfood. Burial in landfill sites and use as fertilisers on land were also possible disposal routes, as well as transformation in biogas and composting plants to produce biogas and biofertiliser/compost. The reply did not give a breakdown of the figures.

Figures from the industry revealed that just over 8 000 tonnes of meat and bone meal were being sent for incineration, and that there was a lack of incineration capacity in Spain.

The above disposal outlets used in Spain are in line with the current Community health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 (2), and do not contravene the provisions of the current feed ban in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (3).

(1) MEMO/01/378 of 20.11.2001.

(2) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

(3) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.