ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/440

(2004/C 78 E/0461)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2877/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: The ‘Sentiers de l'Europe’ international architecture competition and Place Jean Rey

Further to written question E-0405/03 (1):

1. It has been established with reference to the international architecture competition ‘Les Sentiers de l'Europe’ that the requirement of independence was not fulfilled in the case of the chairman of the jury and the second-placed participant, since direct and formal economic links were detected between the two (see Moniteur Belge No 980804 — Atelier Place Léopold S.A.). In view of this state of affairs, will the Commission claim reimbursement of the amounts paid in respect of the second-placed participant?

2. Can the Commission finally indicate, following its consultations with the Belgian authorities (see Mr Kinnock's answer of 21 May 2003 to written question E-0405/03), whether or not the Belgian authorities' awarding of the service contract for the ‘Place de l'Union Européene’ (Place Jean Rey) to the ODC architects office conformed to the provisions of Council Directive No 92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

A complaint procedure concerning the ‘European Footpaths’ international architectural competition was brought to a close by a Commission Decision of 24 April 2002. Contacts are being established between the Commission and the Brussels Region to discuss the reimbursement of the prize awarded to the winner. In the context of these contacts the Commission also intends to discuss the question of the independence of the President of the Jury vis à vis the second winner.

On the public procurement procedure for the study ‘Place de l'Union européenne’, the Honourable Member is referred to the letter sent by the Deputy Director General of Directorate General Internal Market dated 4 August 2003 to the Honourable Member. In this letter, it is explained that the contract had been awarded to ODC in 1986 according to the then existing Belgian law. The Directive 92/50/EC (3), which came into force at a date later than the date the contract was awarded, could therefore not be applied.

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 98.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(3) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/273

(2004/C 78 E/0274)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Denmark's prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16

Several countries — Sweden, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Cyprus etc. — expressed their desire during accession negotiations for a similar arrangement to that which Denmark has under Protocol 16 concerning the acquisition of holiday homes. They were all refused a permanent arrangement such as Denmark has but were granted temporary transitional arrangements as set out, for example, in draft law L 222 on enlargement to the east, pages 26 and 27. Will the Commission say whether any countries have already argued, or are expected to argue during the forthcoming renegotiation of the protocols, that it is unacceptable for Denmark to have a permanent arrangement while they themselves were refused one?

Further to my question concerning the legal implications of ratification of the EU's draft constitution, what is the Commission's assessment of Denmark's prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16 at the Intergovernmental Conference so as to retain its derogation concerning the right of EU citizens to purchase holiday homes in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Danish restrictions on the purchase of second homes are the only country specific exception to the free movement of capital within the Community. The Protocol on the acquisition of property in Denmark is an integral part of the EC Treaty, following the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, and, unlike certain other temporary exceptions, such as transitional measures granted in the context of accession negotiations, there are no time limits set on its duration. As the Honourable Member is aware, any changes in this particular provision would require a modification to the EC Treaty agreed by all Member States, including Denmark.

As regards Candidate Countries, the Treaty of Accession to the European Union 2003, signed in Athens on 16 April 2003 and currently being ratified by Member States, includes a special permanent arrangement for Malta for the purchase of secondary residences (Protocol No 6) as well as transitional arrangements for other candidates.

The Honourable Member may already know that the Commission participates in the group of legal experts of the Intergovernmental Conference whose task is, among others, to adapt the Treaties' Protocols to the new legal environment provided for by the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. In this sense, the Commission can confirm that, following the adaptation, the content of the aforementioned Protocol is substantially the same.
6.

Greece has not yet completed its bovine identification and registration system pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (3), which had to be fully in place by 1 January 2000 at the latest. Likewise, the system whereby sheep and goat farmers are required to maintain flock movement registers, pursuant to Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals (4), does not operate correctly. Greece's Land Parcel Identification System that pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 was to be finalised by 1 January 1997 at the latest is still incomplete. These deficiencies relate to key components of IACS. Consequently, the regulatory and administrative controls, such as computerised cross-checks, cannot be applied and on-farm inspections are not fully reliable. The Commission constantly monitors the situation in Greece, and has received certain undertakings from the Greek authorities regarding progress expected during 2003 that, if such a program is confirmed, would significantly enhance IACS performance in respect of the claim year 2004, payable in financial year 2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/119

(2004/C 84 E/0155)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3931/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Rehabilitation of areas devastated by the summer 2003 forest fires in Portugal

The summer 2003 forest fires in Portugal devastated 410 000 hectares, i.e. 5 % of Portugal's landmass and 12 % of its woodlands, destroying numerous Natura 2000 Network areas, various cork oak, holm oak and oak forests, causing numerous deaths, destroying homes, killing animals and destroying crops in some of the country's most fragile and deprived rural regions.

Support provided under the aegis of the Solidarity Fund, although extremely useful, is nowhere like equal to the enormous task of rehabilitating incalculably valuable natural heritage on this scale, and a rural economy which is under threat of total disappearance.

At the Budgetary Committee meeting which discussed the Solidarity Fund contribution to Portugal, it was claimed that a total of EUR 180 million was going to be reprogrammed from Portuguese Structural Funds to cope with the challenge.

Could the Commission explain:

1. Why amounts programmed for the 2000-2003 Structural Funds, and not yet taken up, cannot be reprogrammed to this end?

2. Whether the Portuguese authorities have already submitted specific proposals for reprogramming the EUR 180 million, and whether this amount is earmarked for rehabilitating the natural heritage and the rural economy of the areas devastated?

3. What other means it thinks could be used to support this rehabilitation which, while of direct concern to Portugal, is of no less concern to Europe?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Solidarity Fund provided EUR 48,5 million of funding for urgent infrastructure restoration work following the summer 2003 fires in Portugal. Both further infrastructure restoration work and restoration of production potential in forestry and agriculture can be assisted using reprogrammed Structural Fund appropriations or from the Cohesion Fund. It falls to the programme management authorities in the affected zones to make proposals to this end. In addition, following mid-term evaluation of the national Community support framework the Portuguese authorities have confirmed their intention of using approximately EUR 180 million of the performance reserve to make good damage caused by the fires and reinforce preventive measures.

Negotiations with the Portuguese authorities are in progress. We cannot at present provide complete information on the programmes and measures concerned.

We attach great importance to action to help avert natural disasters. In the case of fire prevention various types of measure can be supported: increasing fire-fighting capacity, deployment of means of detecting and preventing fires, anti-erosion work, afforestation observing fire prevention standards etc.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/21

(2004/C 88 E/0021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1282/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Red diesel in agricultural vehicles

Dutch farmers and contractors carrying out agricultural activities both in the Netherlands and in Germany encounter problems in Germany if the fuel tanks of their agricultural vehicles contain red diesel. The German tax authorities have already fined Dutch contractors on a number of occasions.

Although, in certain specific instances, Member States may themselves decide whether to allow the use of red diesel, Article 8(1) of Directive 92/81/EEC (1) seeks to prevent double taxation. Member States may therefore not levy excise duty on fuel obtained in another Member State.

According to a statement by the Netherlands' State Secretary for Finance, this issue has been discussed on the Commission's Excise Committee. The Commission has pledged to make a proposal to resolve the problems referred to.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made on producing the proposal to resolve the problems referred to and when it thinks it will be able to submit the proposal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-0904/03 (2) by Mr Jan Mulder.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12.

(2) See page 17.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/140

(2004/C 88 E/0148)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3303/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Turkey and latest report of the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD)

In its latest report, the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD) states, following a detailed description of cases, that the number of human rights violations committed by the various state bodies in Turkey over the last six months is equal to the total number of violations for the previous year.

What is the Commission's opinion on this general statement by the IHD, i.e. does it consider the statement to be accurate? Is the Commission aware of all the cases mentioned by the IHD in this report and, more generally, the cases mentioned in the various reports published by the IHD and other Turkish human rights organisations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the report produced by the Turkish Human Rights Association. The Commission receives on a regular basis reports prepared by this Association along with a number of other non-governmental organisations working in the area of human rights. These reports are useful sources of information in assessing the human rights situation in Turkey.

In its Regular Report published on 5 November 2003 (1), the Commission gives a detailed assessment of the reform process underway in Turkey and the impact of the measures taken on the human rights situation.

(1) COM(2003) 676 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/625

(2004/C 88 E/0643)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2527/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Rum

The EU has recognised the importance of the rum sector for the economic and social development of some ACP countries. Special provisions for rum are contained in the EU-US Agreement on White Spirits to back up this recognition. The terms of the Special Memorandum on rum attached to this zero for zero agreement establishes a residual tariff that provides both ACP and EU rum producers in the French DOM a small measure of continuing preference in the European market until such time as traditional suppliers might move from the production of commodity rums to value-added branded products able to compete with large and often subsidised producers in third countries.

Would the Commission, therefore, outline what measures it intends to take during the upcoming GSP review to ensure its commitments to ACP rum producers are kept? Would the Commission confirm that rum is excluded from the GSP review?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Joint Declaration on Rum (Declaration XXV) of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP) — Union Partnership Agreement recognises the importance of the rum sector for the economic and social development of several ACP countries and regions and the challenges it faces, inter alia, from the liberalisation of the European rum market.

In the aim of honouring the declaration and providing support to enable ACP rum exporters to increase competitiveness and notably to assist the ACP rum industry to move out of bulk commodity production into higher-value branded rum products, the Union has approved a EUR 70 million programme. This programme is now fully operational, the regional association of Caribbean rum producers, Wirspa, having been strengthened in order to take care of the management of the different programme activities.

Rum is not included in the general arrangements of the Union's current General system of preferences (GSP) scheme which ends on 31 December 2004 although it is included in the GSP's scheme for the least developed countries for which imports of all products except arms and ammunition are duty-free (under the so-called Everything but arms (EBA) scheme). The Commission does not foresee a change to the situation with regards to rum even after the review of the current GSP.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/442

(2004/C 88 E/0450)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2956/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Increased financial support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

Although the US State Department cleared the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) of accusations of abortion and forced sterilisation, the US House of Representatives decided on Tuesday, 23 July not to make any further contributions to the Fund. As a result, the Fund will be deprived of nearly USD 100 million in 2004 and 2005.

The Fund helps developing countries to improve gynaecological healthcare and is an important body in the fight against population explosion and other demographic trends that lead to poverty. One of the Fund's responsibilities in this area is (advice on) contraception. The cancellation of American contributions will lead to two million unwanted pregnancies and 800 000 abortions going unprevented. It is estimated that thousands of mothers will die in childbirth and children at birth for lack of resources.

What is the Commission's view of this step by the USA, and has it made its position known to the US Administration?

Is the Commission prepared to provide UNFPA with extra financial support so that countless lives can be saved?

If so, how much will the Commission make available?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission is very disappointed at the decision taken by the United States House of Representatives to end contributions to the UNFPA. The Commission fully supports the policies set out in the Programme of Action adopted at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. The Commission considers that this latest decision by the United States House of Representatives puts implementation of the Programme at risk.

The Commission has supported UNFPA projects on many occasions. Last year the Commission financed a project to support UNFPA for EUR 20 million as part of a EUR 32 million package for sexual and reproductive health agreed after earlier cuts in United States support. A further EUR 12 million has been set aside for an extension of this programme. The Commission is also ready to review any proposals received from UNFPA in the call for proposals launched under 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). In the draft budget for 2004, this budget line has been increased to EUR 17,8 million in order to respond to increased needs in this field.

(1) OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/365

(2004/C 88 E/0371)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1677/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Cuba – Cotonou

Following the tragic events of recent weeks, the Commission has announced that consideration of Cuba's application to accede to the Cotonou Agreement has been suspended for an indefinite period. This decision is to be welcomed even though it should have been taken earlier, given the clear evidence of an extremely serious deterioration in the human rights situation.

It should be borne in mind that, at the time of the opening of the Commission representation in Havana, Commissioner Poul Nielson stated that he could see no obstacles to Cuba's accession to the Cotonou Agreement.

In view of the above:

— Did the Commission have information on the real situation in Cuba before the recent events occurred?

— Did the information available at the time of the opening of the Commission's representation – especially the situation denounced by Oswaldo Payá at the Sakharov Prize award ceremony (see my Written Question of 12 March 2003) – not already constitute sufficiently alarming evidence regarding the Cuban Government's attitude?

— What minimum conditions (an end to political persecution, unconditional release of all political prisoners, democratisation of political structures and methods?) must the Cuban Government fulfil in order to regain the Commission's trust?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The Commission has always followed the situation in Cuba closely and is now even better placed to do so since opening a Delegation in Havana.

During his visit to Havana of 9 to 15 March 2003 the Member of the Commission responsible for Development and Humanitarian Aid met a group of dissidents and hearing at first-hand their views on human rights in Cuba. Some of these representatives of Cuban civil society expressed concerns about Cuban membership of Cotonou. Others, among them Osvaldo Payá, described it as a historic opportunity and possibly the only agreement signed by the Cuban government in 44 years with binding provisions on democratisation and human rights.

The Presidency's declaration of 26 March 2003, the Council's conclusions of 14 April 2003 and the Parliament resolution of 10 April 2003 all condemned these actions and stated that they would affect the Union's relations with Cuba and the prospects for increased cooperation. At its meeting of 30 April 2003 the Commission again roundly condemned the situation and considered that examination of Cuba's application to accede to the Cotonou Agreement should be deferred. Noting Cuba's re-election to the UN Commission for Human Rights, it considered that the conditions for membership of that Commission should be seriously reviewed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/605

(2004/C 78 E/0639)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3601/03

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

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Buy American Act

The Buy American Act is a piece of legislation which relates to products purchased by US government bodies in connection with projects which they finance. The purpose of the Act is to support American businesses and employees by preferentially purchasing their products.

During tender procedures, for example, American businesses are given information about bids by foreign — e.g. European — businesses. The American businesses are then given the opportunity to submit a lower bid.

1. Is the Commission aware of the role played by the US administration and government bodies in tender procedures on the basis of the Buy American Act?

2. Is the Commission aware of the disadvantages which this Act entails for many European businesses, for example Dutch biotechnology companies?

3. Is this Act protectionist and does it contravene WTO provisions?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The legislation the Honourable Member is referring to is well known by the Commission and originates in a United States Law (the ‘Buy American Act’) adopted in 1933, in the middle of the Great Depression, aiming at developing industry and construction and stimulating jobs creation in the United States. The spirit of this law is maintained in numerous legal acts affecting procurement by United States public entities and agencies. Most of the provisions aim at excluding foreign goods or foreign bidders from tenders launched by public entities. The Buy American provisions apply also to activities financed by the United States public budget. As an example, one could take the obligation to use United States air carriers when the flight is financed by the United States Federal budget (thus obliging all officials or Members of Congress on mission or even students benefiting from public grants to travel in United States-owned air carriers). These protectionist measures are expensive for United States tax payers and introduce inefficiency and unfair competition in many economic sectors.

In 1996 the United States signed the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement, granting non-discriminatory access to bidders from 12 signatory countries (including the Community as a whole). At that time the United States had to introduce important changes in the ‘Buy American’ legislation to accommodate to the new WTO rules. Unfortunately, the scope of this agreement is quite limited and many important contracts and procurements continue to escape its rules.

The Commission is not aware of any United States provision that may allow a procuring entity to request proposals from foreign bidders and then offer a right to domestic suppliers to overtake the foreign bid. The Commission is ready to examine the WTO compatibility of this and other measures that may create obstacles to Community exporters in the biotechnology sector or in any other sector. The Commission has not received any complaint from Community companies in this regard.