ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/898

(2004/C 84 E/0992)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: ECHO and Chechnya

Many aid organisations which wish to provide humanitarian aid to people in the Chechnya region in Russia complain that the EU's humanitarian aid office ECHO does not process their aid applications sufficiently quickly and efficiently and that accordingly aid does not reach its destination. What criteria does ECHO apply to aid to Chechnya, and can the Commission accelerate the processing of aid applications from church and other organisations which provide humanitarian aid?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware that many aid organisations which wish to provide humanitarian aid to people in Chechnya complain that the EU's Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) does not process their aid applications sufficiently quickly and efficiently.

ECHO, which is in charge of humanitarian aid to the Northern Caucasus, has never received such complaints. The Office is working with quick procedures which allow for a rapid signature of grant agreements and disbursement of funds.

The Commission adopts, in general, two funding decisions every year for the victims of the Chechnya conflict. These decisions are based on previous discussions with potential partners who are asked to submit concept papers where they explain which operations they would like to see funded by ECHO. ECHO then decides to retain a certain number of these on the basis of the needs, the experience of the non governmental organisation (NGO) and the coherence with ECHO'S strategy.

Once the decision has been adopted, and approximately one month before the start of the operation, ECHO asks the partner to submit a proposal. The proposal is then discussed in detail and a contract is signed in the following weeks. There is therefore no possibility to accelerate the processing of applications, which is already very short.

As for the destination of the aid, there are very strict mechanisms put in place by ECHO'S partners in order to ensure that the aid reaches the intended beneficiaries. Partners work on the basis of a list of beneficiaries, which is established after an assessment of the households' economy and needs. The aid is delivered directly to these beneficiaries, without an intermediary, which ensures that the people who are on the lists do receive what they are entitled to.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/775

(2004/C 84 E/0872)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0335/04

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: Extension of operating licence for Sosnovy Bor nuclear power plant

In the autumn of 2003, the operating licence for the Sosnovy Bor nuclear power unit, the same type as Chernobyl, expired and an application has been made to extend it.

In the light of the EU's cooperation with Russia under TACIS, does the Commission consider that safety at this nuclear plant meets international standards? Does the administration granting the licence meet the standards that must be required of such an authority? Any there any guarantees that the nuclear waste is managed and dealt with in accordance with international conventions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Sosnovy Bor nuclear power plant has four RBMK-type reactors (1) of which two are first generation (commissioned in 1973 and 1975) and are considered by experts as not complying with internationally-recognised safety standards. The Commission has always recommended the decommissioning of these and other Soviet first-generation reactors. The Commission and the Russian Federation form part of a joint working group (JWG) which has been set up to look at how Russian first-generation reactors might be decommissioned. The Group's work programme was endorsed by the G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group at its last meeting in Geneva on 4 February this year.

The Russian Federation has been a contracting party to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Nuclear Safety since 1996 and the Russian government has undertaken to guarantee the independence and authority of the nuclear regulation agency (Gosatomnadzor) under the Convention.

The Russian Federation is responsible for the development and implementation of its own nuclear regulation system. Since 1994 Gosatomnadzor has received assistance under the Tacis programme from a European consortium of European national safety authorities which has been helping it build a strong, independent and competent organisation tailored to Russia's particular needs and respecting the fundamental principles set out in the Nuclear Safety Convention. Assistance has focused on promoting a licensing system, developing quality assurance systems and improving safety analysis criteria. Significant progress has been made on legislation, regulations, procedures and working methods. However, Gosatomnadzor's independence vis-à-vis the operator of power plants and the political authorities is of course a matter for the national authorities.

Although Russia signed the IAEA's Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management in January 1999, the Convention has not yet entered into force in Russia. It is therefore impossible at this stage to guarantee that the management and handling of waste comply with international practices.

(1) Graphite-moderated water reactors.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/956

(2004/C 78 E/1012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: CAP: intended change in the ratio between payments to large and small farms, a ceiling for aid per farm and limiting the damage caused to third countries

1. When the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy proposed by the Commission are implemented, what impact does the Commission expect them to have on the ratio between payments to large and small farms: will it remain unaltered or will it change? What impact does the Commission intend the reforms to have in this respect?

2. Apart from the changes which the Commission has already proposed, does it consider additional measures necessary to prevent further emigration from rural to urban areas, which would ultimately cut agricultural production for the EU's internal market?

3. Will the Commission work towards a subsidy model which safeguards the interests of small farmers better than at present, for example by setting a limit — e.g. EUR 30 000 — for financial aid to a single farm?

4. When weighing up the shape which the reform of the CAP should ultimately take, will the Commission also bear in mind the impact on small farmers in other parts of the world, particularly their uncertainty regarding the supply of food and industrial raw materials for the internal market in the Third World due to market-distorting, relatively cheap imports of farm surpluses from EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/451

(2004/C 84 E/0526)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0824/04

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

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Vaccination of pet farm animals

The number of hobby farmers in Europe is growing rapidly. There are already 250 000 hobby farmers in the Netherlands alone. These farmers own chickens, turkeys, guinea fowl, ducks, geese, swans, quails, pheasants, peacocks, partridges and walking birds (ostriches, emu and nandos) and doves that are not kept for consumption.

As a result of the outbreak of avian influenza in 2003, I asked the Commission a number of questions on the preventive culling of poultry kept by hobby farmers (Written Question E-1401/03 (1)).

In answer to my question, Commissioner Byrne indicated, on 2 June 2003, that the decision to introduce emergency vaccination around an outbreak may be taken by an affected Member State, following notification to the Commission. The Member State is free to choose between preventive culling and preventive vaccination, in both cases following notification to the Commission.

This means that, in practice, pet farm animals may be vaccinated.

The European Commission and the Council of Agriculture Ministers are currently drawing up a new law.

How will the position of hobby farmers be regulated in the new law: is there to be a separate status for pet farm animals (with the possibility of preventive vaccination), or will the possibility remain that pet farm animals will still have to be culled?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission is in the process of assessing the outbreaks of avian influenza in the European Union during 2003 and the present outbreaks in Asia and North America. The lessons learned from these events and the opinions delivered by scientists will be the basis for drafting a proposal for a revised legislation on avian influenza, which the Commission intends to submit to the Parliament and the Council in 2004. In this framework the issue of vaccination of both commercial and hobby birds will be considered taking into account all relevant epidemiological, socio-economic and animal welfare implications. It is clear, however, that the Commission will have to consider also the evolution at international level in this field and in particular the standards of the OIE (Office International des Epizooties).

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 196.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/518

(2004/C 88 E/0531)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0627/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Failure to comply with Community legislation during border veterinary checks in Spain

The Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health (SGSEV) of the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs has issued instructions (1) ordering official veterinarians at border inspection posts to allow the entry of consignments as direct landings of fishery products when they do not fulfil that condition under current Community rules, and even exempting certain products from compulsory veterinary checks (and, consequently, from the corresponding charges) when these rules contain no provision for doing so. The SGSEV is also allowing the captains of fishing vessels, an interested party in the trade transaction, to sign not just a simple declaration but also health certificates on behalf of the competent authority in the country of origin.

Bearing in mind the provisions of Directive 97/78/EC (2) laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, Directive 91/493/EEC (3) laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, Decision 93/13/EEC (4) (updated and extended by Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (5)) laying down the procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products from third countries and Regulation (EC) No 1093/94 (6) setting the terms under which fishing vessels of a third country may land directly and market their catches at Community ports:

— can the Commission guarantee that the practice currently being applied by the SGSEV complies with Community legislation protecting human and animal health and the rights of consumers and citizens in general;

— does the Commission not consider, furthermore, that the Spanish authorities are favouring certain import companies that are subject to fewer health and financial requirements when placing products from third countries on the market over producers in the EU Member States?

(1) Instructions from the Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health dated 1 October 2003 concerning documentary checks on direct landings of fishery products.

(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9.

(3) OJ L 298, 24.9.1991, p. 15.

(4) OJ L 9, 15.1.1993, p. 33.

(5) OJ L 21, 28.1.2004, p. 11.

(6) OJ L 121, 12.5.1994, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/553

(2004/C 88 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: School milk in Portugal

I have learned that in Portugal, a significant number of Portuguese schools are being supplied with milk provided by Spanish companies, although Portuguese production is adequate to the task and Portugal is in economic recession.

In view of the difficulties of Portuguese milk producers in selling their product, is it not possible for the ‘milk for schools’ programme to make preferential use of nationally produced milk, and thus participate in protecting small milk producers and family farms, since there is no question of the specific nature of Portuguese agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission, while emphasising the value of the scheme for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, considers that the actual operation of the EU School Milk Scheme should be consistent with horizontal internal market policies, notably competition policy.

Therefore, it is excluded to discriminate the suppliers of school milk on the basis of their nationality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/553

(2004/C 84 E/0631)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0230/04

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Utilisation of Community appropriations in the Member States at the close of 2003

Can the Commission provide a breakdown for each Member State of the level of commitments and expenditure effected by the close of 2003 under the Community Support Frameworks?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a computer print-out containing the information requested.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/198

(2004/C 88 E/0204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Roma people in Slovakia

Has the Commission noted the measures adopted by the Slovakian Government to cut the social security entitlements of local Roma people and the consequent unrest, ‘inter alia’ in Trhoviste, and does the Commission consider the human rights policy of the Slovakian Government to be in accordance with the policy required of an EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission has noted the introduction of a new social benefit system in Slovakia that has led to a significant reduction of the social benefit payments since the beginning of March 2004. It has also been concerned about the Roma unrest and looting in Eastern Slovakia.

In general, the Commission obviously rejects the use of any kind of violence as a way of making social or any other claims. The Commission has been in contact with the Slovak authorities on this issue and has expressed its hope that the Slovak Government will urgently use all the means at its disposal to reach a reasonable and measured outcome to this sensitive issue. Particular attention should be given to ease the hardship of the poorest sectors of the population which are likely to suffer most from the reduction of the benefits. Job opportunities should be enhanced in the poorest parts of the country and in Eastern Slovakia in particular. In this context, the Commission welcomes a 14-point paper presented recently by the Slovak Government on ways to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged citizens, particularly Roma. The Slovak authorities have also reassured the Commission that they will closely monitor police behaviour in the east of the country.

The Commission is determined to support the Slovak authorities as far as it can to solve this issue as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/675

(2004/C 88 E/0693)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0002/04

by Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Definition of sexual and reproductive health

On 16 December 2003 the Italian Presidency of the Council told me that ‘sexual and reproductive health’ did not cover the possibility of financing abortions. Is this also the Commission's understanding?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Regulation (EC) No 1567/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries (1), recital No 16 states that: ‘No support is to be given under this Regulation to incentives to encourage sterilisation or abortion …’. This line is in keeping with the Programme of Action adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo 1994, on which Community policy is based.

(1) OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/653

(2004/C 84 E/0736)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0679/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Bushmeat — border controls

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, and with reference to the Commission's response to Written Question E-2445/03 (1) (22 July 2003), what representations has the Commission made to Member States about the need for improved border controls to prevent this trade?

What action does the Commission propose to take to prevent illegal imports of bushmeat into Europe and coordinate efforts to encourage the tightening-up of external Community frontier controls and end this illegal trade?

(1) See page 492.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/515

(2004/C 88 E/0526)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0606/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject: The Spanish Government's respect for the principle of additionality in the funding of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund

Has the Commission, in recent years, made any specific assessment of the principle of additionality in the financing of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund by the Spanish Government? What were the results? Has the Commission checked the relationship which exists between the zero deficit budgetary policy of the Spanish Government and its respect for the Community principle of additionality, so that the full application of new public investment which the Community funds back up is guaranteed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), we are required to carry out a mid-term verification of additionality in the Member States and regions receiving Structural Fund support. Additionality does not apply to the Cohesion Fund.

The results of the exercise show that Spain has complied with the additionality requirement. National public expenditure increased by an annual average of 3,61 % over the period 2000 to 2002 compared to the level set at the beginning of the period by the Spanish authorities in agreement with our officials.

Compliance with additionality — the requirement that national is not replaced by Community funding — is not by definition incompatible with a sound budget policy. Macroeconomic stability is necessary in order to create the conditions for economic growth. The experience of the cohesion countries is that budget discipline can be reconciled with maintaining a high level of investment in well targeted priorities for the less favoured regions.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
1.

The Commission has always attached great importance to updating and adapting, in line with technical progress, the provisions of directives on the protection of the health and safety of workers at work and, in particular, Council Directive 92/58/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the minimum requirements for the provision of safety and/or health signs at work (2). The question concerning the need to adapt Directive 92/58/EEC has therefore been put to the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (3). At its 61st plenary meeting on 19 December 2000, the Commission asked the Advisory Committee to state its opinion on the difficulties experienced by the various Member States in implementing Directive 92/58/EEC and on the possible need to amend it. While highlighting the need for more systematic collection of data on problems concerning the legibility and/or comprehension of signs, the Committee did not consider a revision of Directive 92/58/EEC to be a priority. In this opinion, despite the acknowledgement of problems related to comprehension of the signal for evacuation in the event of fires or other accidents, the three interest groups (government, employers and workers) felt that there was indeed no urgent need to amend the Directive but that more work should be done on collecting information.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/298

(2004/C 84 E/0345)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0039/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Amount of EU legislative acts

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the number of legislative acts adopted by the institutions of the European Union in 2003, broken down by institution (Commission, Council and EP/Council) and by nature of the acts (Recommendation, Decision, Directive, Regulation, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

A table giving the number of legislative instruments which were adopted, repealed or expired in 2003, listed by type of instrument and institution concerned, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The data is taken from the General Report on the Activities of the European Union for 2003, which each year, is transmitted to Parliament on the second Tuesday of February under Article 212 of the EC Treaty.