ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/847

(2004/C 84 E/0941)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0698/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Tinned food and olive oil

The Community's Mediterranean countries are the world's largest olive oil producers. This sensitive product, one of the Mediterranean area's major agricultural crops, is used for a considerable range of preserved, semi-preserved and prepared fish and seafood, either as the liquid in which these products are preserved, or as an ingredient, since it has significant nutritional qualities, and on foreign markets, has become a synonym for quality and healthy eating.

The production costs faced by Community businesses are much higher than those of their third country competitors. If the elimination of reimbursements for the production of olive oil for preserving purposes persists, will the EU reduce or suspend custom duties on imported olive oil, so that Community businesses can continue to compete with their third country counterparts on an equal footing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Community accounts for 80 % of world olive oil production and intra-Community trade in olive oil makes up the bulk of the world olive oil trade. The international reference prices for olive oil are determined in the Community. Thus Community manufacturers of food products using olive oil have the advantage of operating where the biggest supply of olive oil in the world is to be found. In these circumstances reducing customs duty on olive oil to be used by food manufacturers would be unjustified when the market is operating in its normal way.

In our proposal for a new common market organisation for olive oil and table olives we include provisions whereby, in the exceptional event of extremely high prices in the Community, it would be possible, in order to allow the market to be adequately supplied, for customs duties to be suspended fully or in part or a reduced rate import quota opened. Given the proportion of the world total that Community production accounts for, the need to use these provisions would rarely occur.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/949

(2004/C 84 E/1048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Implementation of Work Discrimination Directive 2000/78/EC in Ireland

In response to my Written Question E-3840/03 (1), the Commission acknowledged receipt of the proposed Irish Equality Bill on 16 January 2004. After consideration of the proposed Bill, I believe that the Irish definition of employee in its Equality Bill appears to be in breach of the Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation Directive 2000/78/EC (2). Chapter 1, Article 3 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC states:

This Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors … in relation to conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity …

Section 3 of Ireland's Equality Bill 2004 fails to meet the requirements of Directive 2000/78/EC because the Bill denies protection under equality legislation to individuals employed in a private residence. Section 3 reads: ‘employee … does not include a person employed in another person's home for the provision of personal services for persons residing in that home’.

Has the Commission made representations to the Irish Government with regard to the apparent discrepancy that now exists between Irish legislation and EU Directives? What action is the Commission proposing to take to ensure that this matter is addressed?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Although Ireland has sent the Commission a copy of its Equality Bill, as far as the Commission is aware, this has not yet entered into force, and Ireland has therefore not yet transposed Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. As mentioned in the reply to the Honourable Member's previous question E-3840/03, infringement proceedings have been launched against Ireland because of this failure.

The Commission has started to examine in detail the legislation of those Member States which have transposed Directive 2000/78/EC into their national law, to check that the Directive has been properly transposed. Where the Commission is not satisfied that the Directive has been correctly transposed into national law, infringement procedures will be launched.

The Commission cannot take formal action against a Member State while its legislation is still in draft form. The points raised by the Honourable Member will be part of the examination of the Irish legislation for conformity with the Directive.

(1) See page 741.

(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/372

(2004/C 84 E/0431)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0356/04

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), Giorgio Ruffolo (PSE), Guido Sacconi (PSE) and Walter Veltroni (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Crisis in the steel sector in Terni

The company Thyssen Krupp (TK) recently presented its technical schedule, which indicates its decision to close the AST's electrical steel department in Terni, Italy, entailing the loss of 900 jobs in the area concerned.

Electrical steel is of decisive importance for the overall equilibrium of the Terni steelworks, in terms of production arrangements and synergies and the implications for employment; furthermore, TK promised to make Terni the European centre of excellence for grain-oriented electrical steel.

The plant is one of the company's European sites with the lowest product unit costs and there has been enormous public investment, including Community funding linked to the Objective 2 contract and the ESF, in developing local systems, infrastructure and vocational training, from which AST/TK has benefited both directly and indirectly.

Does the Commission intend to promote immediate moves to prevent the closure of the electrical steel department of TK's plant in Terni?

Does it intend to adopt a more decisive strategy to tackle industrial restructuring and its social impact, in order to prevent adverse repercussions not only on employment and working conditions, but also on regional planning?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/783

(2004/C 84 E/0879)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0396/04

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

(16 February 2004)

Subject: Guantánamo-on-Thames?

This question is being asked in the European press with regard to the situation of foreign prisoners in the UK, who, despite the fact that they have been declared innocent, remain held in the Belmarsh High Security Prison in London, under the provisions of the anti-terrorist laws enacted after 11 September 2001. These laws allow the British authorities to keep foreigners suspected of constituting ‘a threat to national security’ in prison indefinitely, thus violating the European Convention on Human Rights. What is the Commission doing in terms of approaching the UK Government to resolve this serious and intolerable situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

On the basis of information available to the Commission, it appears that the particular situation to which the Honourable Member refers does not fall within the scope of Community law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/582

(2004/C 84 E/0659)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0402/04

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject: Crossborder hospital in La Cerdanya

Recently, the Catalan and French health authorities obtained funding from the Interreg programme to investigate the viability and construction costs of a crossborder hospital in Puigcerdà, in La Cerdanya, a valley on the Franco-Spanish border.

Could the Commission tell me what stage has been reached with regard to the possible building of this crossborder hospital, which, should it go ahead, would help both to deepen the reality of European citizenship and improve the levels of healthcare provision available to the area's inhabitants?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Under the France-Spain Interreg III A programme EUR 45 000 was granted from the European Regional Development Fund for the study on the viability of creating a cross-border hospital at La Cerdanya. Carried out by the Languedoc-Roussillon Regional Council (project leader) and the Generalitat de Catalunya, it is now in the final stages.

At the moment therefore we await the study's findings. We favour part-financing of this type of project that can have a real lever effect on the quality of the daily life of border zone populations. In the case in point the question to be answered by the study is whether health resources and infrastructure can feasibly be pooled to the benefit of geographically adjacent populations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/528

(2004/C 88 E/0541)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0747/04

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

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Safeguard clause relating to satsuma imports

In November 2003 the EU introduced a temporary safeguard clause for the purpose of restricting imports of tinned mandarin oranges from third countries (in particular China) in response to the huge increase in imports which has occurred over the last few years and which is seriously affecting Community production.

The EU set a quota of 11 389 tonnes for tinned produce from China and 906 tonnes for imports from other countries.

Any exports to the Community market which exceed the above quantities are subject to additional customs duties which are, however, proving insufficient, since the volume of produce sent has already significantly exceeded the quotas laid down. Furthermore, the safeguard clause will expire on 10 April 2004.

Is the Commission intending to extend the clause beyond that date and to make the necessary changes in order to convert it into an effective mechanism for protecting the Community market?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

On 7 April 2004, after consultation with Member States, the Commission has adopted a proposal to impose definitive safeguard measures in respect of imports of canned satsumas to the Community. The provisional safeguard measures come to an end on 10 April 2004, and in order to avoid a gap in the protection afforded to the Community producers, the definitive measures will enter into force on 11 April 2004 and remain in force until 8 November 2007, thereby providing the Community industry with the necessary breathing space to implement restructuring.

Given the continuing high level of imports in the final months of 2003 and the evidence of stockpiling by importers before the imposition of provisional measures as well as the exchange rate fluctuations, the level of duty (EUR301/tonne) under the definitive measures is substantially higher than that applicable under the provisional measures (EUR155/tonne).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/680

(2004/C 84 E/0767)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0838/04

by Raquel Cardoso (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

— the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

— Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

— both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

— the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

— in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

— these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

— the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

— in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

1. Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

2. What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/938

(2004/C 78 E/0992)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Funding from the Culture 2000 programme for the conservation of valuable cultural works stored in Aghia Sofia

In its answer to my question No E-2962/03 (1), the Commission states that ‘The Community's financial assistance programme for Turkey does not allow to provide support for conserving and restoring religious or cultural works, such as those stored in the Aghia Sofia.’

These valuable cultural works, principally in the Byzantime tradition, are being ruined, forgotten in the vaults of the church, a fact which has aroused strong feelings among Turkish public opinion. The Culture 2000 programme has been extended by two years from 5 May 2003 and provides for cultural cooperation with third countries not taking part in the programme, such as Turkey, by allowing funding for projects taking place in a third country which focus on the common cultural heritage of the countries participating in the project. In the light of these considerations, can the Commission confirm that if a Member State submits such a project it will be eligible for funding? What is the deadline for submitting such proposals? Will the Commission inform and encourage the Turkish authorities to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Culture 2000 programme to conserve and restore these valuable cultural works?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the legislative procedure relating to the extension of the Culture 2000 programme (2) is still under way. The Commission cannot therefore provide any specific information at this point concerning the guidelines of the call for proposals for projects to be carried out in 2005.

Under current procedures, however, in order to be eligible, projects funded under the action for ‘annual cooperation projects in third countries’ must be carried out in a country which is not participating in the programme and must involve the cooperation of at least four organisations (one project leader, two co-organisers and one associated partner). These four organisations must include three cultural institutions belonging to three countries participating in the programme and one cultural institution from the third country concerned.

With regard to future calls for proposals, the publication dates will depend largely on the deadlines imposed by the legislative procedure approving the programme's extension and then by the deadlines for approval of the calls for proposals by the Management Committee.

In accordance with the current regulations, the Commission will ensure that information on the call for proposals is distributed widely, for example in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the Culture 2000 website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html).

(1) See page 771.

(2) COM(2004) 79 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/924

(2004/C 84 E/1021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0960/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject: Language discrimination in recruitment procedures for European institutions

1. Is the Commission aware that, in 2003, more than 700 notices of vacancy were published by European technical assistance offices, non-governmental organisations, agencies financed by the Commission and private companies which specified that only ‘native English speakers’ and ‘candidates with English mother tongue’ need apply?

2. Does the Commission share the view that this constitutes manifest discrimination against persons who have ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ knowledge of English but are not ‘native speakers’?

3. Does the Commission share the view that, this being the case, candidates whose mother tongue is not English find it more difficult to find employment in the European institutions?

4. Is the Commission prepared to take measures to combat such discrimination which is, in part, supported by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Concerning the issue of notices of vacancy published by European Technical Assistance Offices, Non-Governmental Organisations, agencies financed by the Commission and private companies, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions E-0046/04 and E-0086/04 by Mr Dhaene and others (1).

As for recruitment in the European Institutions, the language requirements in recruitment procedures for European institutions are laid down in the Staff Regulations. Open competition notices and vacancies advertisements never specify that only native speakers of any language or candidates with a specific mother tongue may apply. Some competitions or selection procedures, such as those for linguists, may require a specific knowledge of languages; however, even in these cases there is no request for candidates to be native speakers.

(1) See page 301.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/773

(2004/C 84 E/0869)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/04

by Marco Cappato (NI), Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI) and Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: Chinese New Year parade in Paris

On the occasion of the Chinese New Year parade in Paris, held on 24 January 2004, the mayor of the city and its police bureau refused to allow the French Falun Gong Association to take part in the parade.

The French Falun Gong Association asked to take part in the parade with performances of the Lion Dance, Chinese drummers, traditional dancing and decorated floats. Less than a week before the event, the City Hall refused the application due to bureaucratic problems linked to the registration date. The truth is that the documents were sent on time, back in October. Moreover, the French Falun Gong Association was not given authorisations for other activities during the festivity it had applied for, such as performing traditional Falun Gong exercises, and handing out information.

It seems that the Chinese Embassy threatened to cancel all of the festivities if the City of Paris allowed Falun Gong to participate. Other non-official voices, which the Chinese authorities have repressed, have also met with similar obstacles.

Is the Commission aware of the facts of what happened in Paris last week?

What does the Commission intend to do in order to avoid similar cases occurring again on EU territory?

Does the Commission intend to speak to the French Government, the City Hall of Paris and the Chinese Ambassadors to France and the EU, in order to remind them that freedom of expression and demonstration are basic human rights clearly protected by Article 6 of the TEU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The EC Treaty and the Treaty on European Union do not confer on the Community any general powers as regards fundamental rights. The Commission is entitled to act only where such rights have been violated in the course of applying Community law, which is not the case with the events referred to by the Honourable Members.

As a general point, the Commission would like to stress that it regularly brings up the cases of individual Falun Gong members whose fundamental rights have not been respected as a result of their belonging to that organisation as part of the EU-China dialogue on human rights, most recently at the session held in Dublin on 26/27 February 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/437

(2004/C 84 E/0509)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0625/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: If the French State prevents Jean-Marie Le Pen from standing in the regional elections it would represent a serious breach of Article 6 of the EU Treaty

The candidacy of the former MEP Jean-Marie Le Pen at the forthcoming French regional elections in the Provence-Alpes-Côtes d'Azur (PACA) region appears to have been blocked for specious, bureaucratic reasons, which appear all the more petty and politically motivated given that this politician, who received the most votes after Chirac in the recent French presidential elections, could legally have stood and been elected as a regional councillor in the aforementioned region of France.

Does the Commission consider that the possible exclusion for captious formal reasons of the right-wing political leader Jean-Marie Le Pen represents a serious breach of the principle of political freedom which forms the basis of the EU and that it goes against the guarantees laid down by the European Convention on safeguarding human rights and basic freedoms in terms of civil and political rights, which in a democracy must be enjoyed by all citizens?

In the case in point, does not the Commission consider that this is a clear and flagrant breach of Article 6 of the EU Treaty — intended to safeguard the principles set out above — and in particular of its paragraphs 1 and 2, on the part of the French authorities?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Under the EC Treaty and the Treaty on European Union, the Commission does not have any general powers regarding fundamental rights. It may act only in cases where those rights have been infringed in connection with the application of Community law.

Since no aspect of Community law is involved here, the Commission does not consider itself competent to answer the questions put by the Honourable Member.