ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/148

(2004/C 88 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Colombian flower imports and GSP

Why is it proposed to ‘graduate’ Colombian Sector V (including cut flower) imports from GSP so they will be denied tariff preference?

Given that the share of Colombian flowers on the EU market declined from 20,15 % in 1997 to 15,41 % in 2001 and that Colombia's competitors Israel and Kenya will not be graduated, how can this be justified?

Since the reasons for the GSP ‘drugs’ regime unfortunately still persist, will not an EU withdrawal of tariff preference for flowers force more Colombians back into economic reliance on the drugs trade?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

At the end of 2002, the Commission intended to graduate certain sectors for beneficiary countries according to Article 12 of the Council Regulation No 2501/2001 on a scheme for generalised tariff preferences (GSP). This provision requires the Commission to decide on an adjustment on the GSP products coverage on a yearly basis. The objective is to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the scheme, by focussing its benefits on those countries and sectors which need them most. Nevertheless, this decision is not of a political nature, and is solely based on economic criteria. Prior to its decision, the Commission has to be backed by the Member States (qualified majority) according to the Union procedures (Comitology).

The GSP is incentive oriented. In particular, it urges the beneficiaries to diversify economically as a means to development. If a beneficiary country relies too much on one sector in its exports, this can be detrimental for its development, and allows for the graduation. Accordingly, in the case of Colombia, this is not the Union's market share that has been the criterion for the graduation, but the too important share of a sector in Colombia's exports.

Nevertheless, to take into account the specific difficulties that might arise, the re-introduction of customs duties will exceptionally be progressive, in two steps (1 November 2003, 1 May 2004), in order not to disturb trade.

Furthermore, the Council adopted, in December 2003, an amendment to the GSP Regulation whereby beneficiary countries accounting for less than one percent of the GSP imports would no longer be in a position to be graduated. Colombia will be eligible under this new provision as from 2005, and accordingly would not be further graduated for any sectors, and the GSP preference should be reestablished for the sector V as from the 1 January 2005.

Concerning import of flowers from Kenya, it is recalled that this country has free access for cut flowers under the Cotonou Agreement and does not use the GSP scheme.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/292

(2004/C 84 E/0339)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4065/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)

As an MEP I am gravely concerned about the legitimacy of the ICG's reported intention to replace the EUMC by an agency with a larger remit during the summit of 12/13 December without consulting the European Parliament. Why has Parliament not been consulted on this very important issue?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The conclusions of the representatives of Member States meeting at the level of Heads of State and Government in Brussels on 13 December 2003 stated that, building upon the existing European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, its mandate should be extended to become a Human Rights Agency. The Commission has indicated its intention to submit a proposal to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 (1) in that respect. However, before tabling its proposal, the Commission intends to launch a widespread consultation exercise on the basis of a consultation document which will be published in the summer 2004. The contribution of the Parliament will, of course, be vital and adequate time will be given to allow the new Parliament to present its views. Following this widespread consultation, the Commission intends to bring forward a proposal amending the founding Regulation of the Monitoring Centre early in 2005. It should be borne in mind, in this context, that the Parliament had called for the establishment of such an Agency in its 2001 report on fundamental rights.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 establishing a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/452

(2004/C 78 E/0478)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3389/03

by John Hume (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: European Carrefours

Can the Commission explain why the Directorate-General for Press and Communication has announced the sudden termination of operating grants to the 138 members of the European Carrefour Network? Will it reconsider the decision and ensure that funding continues into 2004?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/161

(2004/C 78 E/0165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Environmental impact of the enlargement of Eivissa airport

In Question E-0209/03 (1) of 21 January 2003 on the environmental impact of carrying out the scheme to enlarge Eivissa airport, I observed that this scheme would … affect the special protection zone of the Ses Salines d'Eivissa i Formentera natural park (Law 17/2001 of the Parlament de les Illes Balears).

Specifically, this would directly impact on the entire protected area, including major socio-economic impact from new occupation of lands and of privately owned houses, increased noise and air pollution affecting the dune systems of the Es Codolar area, which are registered as a predominantly conservation area, and impact on the landscape. Furthermore, the area is a Special Protection Area for Birds, under the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (2).

Secondly, the enlargement of the boundaries of the airport's service area would mean directly occupying and remodelling land which lies within the boundaries of the natural park. The portion occupied is part of the extreme south-west of the dune system of the Es Codolar area, a zone registered as a conservation area, and protected by the EEC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (3)) as an ecosystem of Community interest. Furthermore, the enlargement involves a whole range of spatial planning changes in other areas bordering on the Ses Salines d'Eivissa i Formentera natural park and therefore once again impacting thereon.

Six months ago, in its answer of 14 March 2003, the Commission stated that it was investigating a complaint lodged in connection with the airport enlargement.

Has the Commission reached any solid conclusions as a result of the complaint lodged?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

As it stated in its answer to Written Question E-0209/03 from the Honourable Member, the Commission is currently investigating a complaint about the enlargement of Ibiza airport.

As part of its investigation of this complaint, the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for full information about the project in question and for a copy of the project impact assessment carried out and the measures taken to comply with the obligations arising from Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (4).

The Commission is still waiting for a reply from the Spanish authorities to this letter.

This file will also be discussed with the Spanish authorities during a bilateral meeting in October 2003 to review certain complaints and infringements by Spain in the field of the environment.

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 163.

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

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

(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/342

(2004/C 88 E/0348)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Distribution of infant milk in African countries

While the World Health Organisation (WHO) advises against the advertising of milk powder for babies in order to promote breastfeeding, companies producing milk and manufacturing infant milk powder, for example Nestlé and Danone, have infringed WHO guidelines, arguing that they are seeking to reduce child mortality and are distributing milk powder and other items to pregnant women, for example stethoscopes, free of charge. In the accompanying advertising material they maintain that their milk is comparable to breast milk.

Given that such actions infringe WHO guidelines regarding the promotion of breastfeeding and given the European interests in these companies, what action will the Commission take in response to this situation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission fully supports the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk substitutes, which was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. The Commission is aware and concerned that there are still baby food companies that do not adhere to the Code and governments which have not implemented its provisions. The Commission will continue to encourage the compliance of the private sector, and particularly the companies, mentioned by the Honourable Member, with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk substitutes in the context of the European Union Corporate Social Responsibility Stakeholders Forum and associated dialogues and partnerships.
1.

The Commission receives computer files each year from the Member States concerning details of all individual payments made to the beneficiaries pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (6). The detailed information is stored in the CATS (7) database. CATS is a huge and very detailed database, containing over 137 million data records and around 4,09 billion related number of fields (8). Obviously it is not possible to check all these individual fields. In order to improve the data quality, the Commission has continuously refined the CATS database since its creation, as well as the corresponding Regulation. Data quality is a constant concern and, as a result of the yearly checks, the quality of the computer files is steadily improving. As for the specific controls of the data from the financial year 2000 onwards the Commission examines four different quality aspects of the computer files received from the Member States pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999. Each year, the Commission undertakes a reconciliation of the amounts declared from the Member States with the respective annual declarations. Possible differences need to be justified. The second aspect is the respect of code lists. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 requires standard codes for a certain number of fields. From the financial year 2002 onwards, compliance with the code lists is automatically checked during the transmission of the computer data to the Commission. The third quality aspect includes the completeness of the data supplied by the Member States in respect of the budget posts. From the financial year 2002 onwards, some data elements are already checked during the transmission process. The last item within the quality control is the respect of the deadline of 10 February for sending the computer data to the Commission. Each year, the Commission communicates the conclusions and findings made in the quality checks to the Member States in order to improve the quality of the computer data for the next financial year. This feedback also allows Member States to adapt their computer systems before sending the computer files for the next financial year.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/3

(2004/C 84 E/0003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Hunger strike by Mr Jebali

Mr Hamadi Jebali, the former editor of the Al Fajr weekly periodical, has been on hunger strike since 13 January 2003, i.e. for 36 days. According to Tunisia's International Association for Political Prisoner Support he was transferred on 12 February 2003 to the emergency ward of a hospital in Bizerte. Despite numerous appeals from within Tunisia and around the world calling for Mr Jebali's release, there has still been no reaction from the Tunisian authorities. On 6 February a member of Reporters sans frontières, who had asked to be allowed to visit Mr Jebali in the Nador prison in Bizerte (in the north of the country), had his request turned down by the Directorate-General for Prisons. Mr Jebali's lawyer, Mr Mohamed Nouri, and his wife have reported that he is coming under intense pressure from members of the State Security Department to abandon his hunger strike. His wife and his daughters — whose house is under surveillance — have now had their passports taken away from them. In 1992 the military court in Tunis sentenced Mr Jebali to 16 years in prison for ‘belonging to an illegal organisation’. At the time he had just completed a one-year prison sentence for having published an article in which he criticised the military court system.

What action has the Commission taken in order to help Mr Jebali? Has it been able (via its delegation in Tunis) to make direct enquiries regarding the conditions in which Mr Jebali is being held and the state of his health, now that he has been on hunger strike for over a month? Has it raised the issue of a general amnesty for crimes of conscience committed during the 1980s and 1990s and, if so, how have the Tunisian authorities reacted?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/143

(2004/C 78 E/0148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 2000

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 beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

(a) the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2000: — 311650 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 164 007,53, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,53/kg; — 701 150 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 356 906,17, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,51/kg;

(b) the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2000: — 312 400 kg were exported from Germany and 1 126 000 kg from Austria to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that: — unwarranted aid of EUR 356 906,17 was paid on an additional 701 150 kg not shown in the OECD data; — no application was made for aid of EUR 583 260,26 for the export of 1 126 750 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 78/648

(2004/C 78 E/0689)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3815/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Judicial inquiry by the Salerno Prosecutor's Office into EUR 30 million fraud against the European Union

On 2 December 2003 the AGI Italian press agency published a report entitled ‘EUR 30 million fraud against the EU: seven arrested in the Salerno region’. According to this report:

— an organisation which illegally obtained state and Community funding has been dismantled by the regional branch of the Guardia di Finanza police, who arrested seven people;

— investigations were coordinated by the Salerno Public Prosecutor's Office;

— companies and property amounting to EUR 100 million were confiscated in the country;

— the people under investigation had set up a group of interconnected companies which had received funding between 1997 and 2003 amounting to EUR 30 million;

— the organisation, which could count on the cooperation of three officials at the Ministry for Productive Activities, had claimed public funds to cover false expenditure, based on forged accounts and off-accounts documents.

Will the Commission state:

— whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter?

— whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the European Antifraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into alleged instances of fraud against the Union.

As judicial proceedings are already in motion in Italy, at the Prosecution Service for Salerno, OLAF is available to provide the judicial authorities with all such assistance as they may request.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/144

(2004/C 78 E/0149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2642/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 2001

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 beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

(a) the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2001: — 24 150 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 10 118,61, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,42/kg; — 2 285,30 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 1 016,39, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,44/kg;

(b) the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001: — 96 000 kg were exported from Germany and 1 207 700 kg from Austria to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that: — unwarranted aid of EUR 1 106,39 was paid on an additional 2 285,30 kg not shown in the OECD data; — no application was made for aid of EUR 551 674,62 for the export of 1 279 550 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?

Joint answer to Written Questions

E-2631/03, E-2632/03, E-2633/03, E-2634/03, E-2635/03, E-2636/03, E-2637/03, E-2638/03, E-2639/03, E-2640/03, E-2641/03 and E-2642/03

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

The Honourable Member has received data from various sources, which all have been collected in a certain context and for certain purposes and consequently have their own significance as it has been explained in the Commission's joint reply to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 (2) and to its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2586/03 (3).

As it has been stated in these replies, both databases are conceptually different and therefore no conclusions can be drawn upon possible discrepancies.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(2) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(3) See page 129.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/626

(2004/C 88 E/0644)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2622/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject: Relations with Libya

Earlier this month the Libyan leader, Colonel Gadaffi, accepted responsibility for the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. That act of terrorism claimed 207 lives. Libya is now prepared to pay compensation to the next of kin, its intention in so doing being to have international sanctions lifted.

On 18 August 2003, Commission President Prodi had a telephone conversation with Colonel Gadaffi; they spoke about the normalisation of Libya-EU relations. Libya is being invited to take part in the Euro-Mediterranean Process.

Problems in connection with Libyan terrorist attacks in the past have not yet been completely resolved, however. France opposes the lifting of sanctions against Libya until compensation has been paid to the next of kin of the victims of the attack on a UTA aircraft over Niger in 1989. That attack claimed 170 lives. Is the Commission planning to normalise relations with Libya before this French request has been complied with?

Libya has a dirty past with regard to conducting and backing international terrorism. Is normalisation of relations with the EU tied to conditions and guarantees in this respect? What formal agreements are being sought in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2003)

United Nations (UN) sanctions have been imposed to Libya in 1992 and 1993 in relation to the Lockerbie bombing. In 1999, against the background of Libyan co-operation with the Lockerbie investigation, the UN suspended those sanctions. As a result of an agreement reached on Lockerbie between the United States, the United Kingdom and Libya, a draft UN Security Council Resolution has been introduced by United Kingdom/Bulgaria on 18 August 2003 to lift the UN sanctions.

It is in this context that Colonel Kadhafi called President Prodi. The President encouraged Libya to solve Lockerbie and all other issues, on the basis of requests from the international community. Should the UN sanctions be lifted as a result of a positive UN vote, yet to take place, this will constitute an important step towards the reintegration of Libya into the international community. At present, Libya is an observer to the Barcelona Process, and is invited to become a full member under the strict condition that it accepts the Barcelona ‘acquis’ without any conditions (and also the lifting of the UN sanctions). Libya is also included in the new neighbourhood policy of the Union, in the context of a relationship based on the respect of shared values.

The UTA issue, which had been judged by the French judiciary, is being rediscussed as a result of the Lockerbie deal (delaying the sanctions). If the UN sanctions are lifted, then those discussions between France and Libya should conclude satisfactorily.