ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/187

(2004/C 78 E/0194)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2909/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Future status of Tibet

In a recent interview published in Le Figaro, the Dalai Lama stated that he ‘hope[d] that there would be others [other contacts with the Chinese] and that they would lead to serious discussions’. He believes that ‘at present there is basically nothing new. Since the 1980s we have been demanding self-determination and no longer independence. The Chinese know that perfectly well.’ The Dalai Lama added: ‘Tibetan youth organisations clearly want independence. They do not agree with me. But there is no conflict between us on that account. To be honest, if my approach were to fail, these young people would have a perfect right to take up the torch and demand independence. One must be patient. It is barely a year since contacts with China were resumed. But, if in two or three years’ time they have not borne any fruit, it will be difficult for me to explain to young people why the ‘middle way’ in the right one.'

Is the Commission aware of the radical change in the position of the Tibetan leadership which is implied by the unambiguous statement that it will be necessary to find a solution very soon (within two or three years)? Ought not the European Union to do everything it can to induce the Chinese authorities and the Tibetan government in exile to reach agreement quickly on defining a fully autonomous status for Tibet in all fields except defence and foreign policy? Is the Commission aware that, after the period of two or three years mentioned by the Dalai Lama, Tibet is liable to become a fresh source of tension or even the scene of violence and bloody repression? Could not the Commission help to bring about the opening of such negotiations by proposing that the EU Member States recognise the Tibetan government in exile?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

In its regular dialogue with China, particularly on human rights, the Commission has unfailingly expressed its opinion that establishing direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama is the only realistic way of seeking a practical and lasting solution to the Tibetan question based on granting the region full autonomy.

In this connection, it followed with interest the visit by the special envoys of the Dalai Lama to China between 25 May and 8 June 2003 and considers that everything should be done to avoid compromising the contacts made recently between the parties concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/244

(2004/C 78 E/0247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3260/03

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Approving the setting up of a driving school

The royal decree adopted by Belgium on 23 March 1998 sets out the arrangements for approving the opening of a driving school in Belgium. It would seem that, in practice, this decree prevents the setting up of any new driving school.

By taking this step, is Belgium not in breach of EU law, particularly competition law? If so, what does Belgium have to do to conform with EU rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The situation described by the Honourable Member does not appear to fall within the scope of the rules of Community competition law.

The Belgian Royal Decree of 23 March 1998 is a State measure.

The rules of Community competition law which are not addressed to undertakings but to the Member States, are the rules regarding State Aid (Articles 87 and 88, EC Treaty) and public or privileged undertakings (Article 86, EC Treaty). The provisions of the relevant Royal Decree do not appear to fall within the scope of those rules.

However, in certain cases Community competition law can also be applied to State measures if these measures impose or induce anti-competitive behaviour by undertakings. It is, therefore, required that the undertakings concerned adopt an anti-competitive behaviour which in itself constitutes a violation of Community competition rules. The requirements for the accreditation of driving schools, laid down in the Royal Decree, do not appear to impose or induce anti-competitive behaviour of driving schools.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/677

(2004/C 78 E/0721)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3951/03

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

(22 December 2003)

Subject: Genetically modified GloFish

On Monday, 5 January 2004 the US firm Yorktown Technologies plans to start marketing the first genetically modified pets. The GloFish is a genetically modified zebra fish. A green fluorescent gene from a jellyfish and a red fluorescent gene from a sea anemone make the zebra fish glow green or red in the dark under ultraviolet light. The GloFish was originally developed in Singapore as an indicator for toxic substances in water, as the fish lights up red when it comes into contact with poisonous substances. This transgenic zebra fish is now in danger of becoming a sought-after pet, at a price of USD 5.

Does the European Commission not agree that the genetic modification of these fish is in breach of the Protocol on protection and welfare of animals included in the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam?

What steps does the European Commission intend to take to prevent the import and sale of such fish in the European Union, in line with the current moratorium on GM products?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

In relation to the animal welfare aspects of this question, the Commission currently has no information as to whether the genetic modification of this particular species would compromise its general welfare when kept as a pet in a domestic aquarium.

No animal welfare rules exist at Community level for fish kept as pets, and therefore this aspect is entirely within the competence of the Member States.

With regard to the import and commercial exploitation of genetically modified fish within the European Community, the Commission would like to point out that, under Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (1), a GMO cannot be marketed in the European Union without first obtaining authorisation for placing on the market in accordance with part C of the Directive, based on a case-by-case scientific evaluation of the potential risks that the GMO in question could pose to human health and the environment. To date no request has been made to release the organism in question into the environment for experimental or commercial purposes.

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/456

(2004/C 88 E/0468)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3249/03

by Richard Howitt (PSE), Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) and Renate Sommer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Annual report on Turkey

Will the Commission address the following urgent questions in its annual report on Turkey's progress towards meeting EU accession criteria due on 5 November:

1. Do the Host Government Agreements for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline breach the terms of Turkey's Accession Partnership by moving away from the ‘acquis communautaire’ and the prospect of implementing the Copenhagen criteria?

2. Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation?

3. What is the potential environmental impact of the project, and has a proper environmental impact assessment been carried out?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-3247/03 and E-3249/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

In its regular report on Turkey's progress towards accession published on 5 November 2003 (1), the Commission sets out its assessment of developments over the last year and the overall situation with regard to human rights and the protection of minorities.

As regards the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project, any potential violations as regards human rights or the protection of minorities arising from the implementation of the pipeline project would have to be considered in the context of the Copenhagen political criteria. Turkey is at this stage not bound by the environmental ‘acquis’, but the Commission is aware that environmental impact assessments have been carried out for this project, for example, to meet the conditions of international lending organisations.

(1) COM(2003) 676 final.
1.

According to article 33 of the sixth VAT Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2), Member States are allowed to maintain or introduce, among other taxes, stamp duties, provided that they are not characterised as turnover taxes. In practice, a charge can be characterised as a turnover tax if it exhibits the same essential features as VAT which, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, can be outlined as follows: — VAT is generally applied to transactions relating to goods or services; — it is proportional to the price of those goods or services; — it is charged at each stage of the production and distribution process; — it is imposed on the added value of goods and services. In the judgement of 16 December 1992 (case C-208/91 Beaulande (3)), the Court of Justice analysed the specific case of stamp duty imposed by France in addition to VAT on the acquisition of building land. The judgement held that a charge of this kind did not have the essential characteristics of VAT as described above. In this regard, the Court established that the levy of both this tax and of VAT was not contrary to the Sixth VAT Directive. In particular, the Court stated that ‘stamp duty is not a general tax, as it is not intended to apply to all economic transactions. Secondly, no production and distribution process is involved, as the stamp duty is charged only when the real estate passes into the ownership of the final consumer. Furthermore, it is not deductible from duty of the same kind paid on subsequent conveyances. Finally, the levying of such duty does not take account of the added value but is based on the full value of the property’ (points 16 to 18).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/170

(2004/C 65 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Conflict of interests for the Commission's Accounting Officer

On 1 January 2003 Mr Brian Gray was appointed Accounting Officer of the Commission. He is also Deputy Director-General for the Budget.

Does the Commission consider that this dual role is in keeping with the provision of the new budgetary rules, which require a strict functional separation between execution of the budget and accounting?

The Directorate-General for the Budget's organization chart on the Internet shows that while a number of heads of division of this Directorate-General report directly to Mr Gray this is not true of the accounting services.

Will the Commission say whether this is an oversight? If not, to whom do the accounting services report?

The organisation chart also shows that the Secretariat of the Commission's Audit Progress Committee reports to Mr Gray. He thus has a considerable say as regards inspections carried out by the Commission's internal audit service and the evaluation of its findings.

Does the Commission agree that this situation creates a potential conflict of interests for Mr Gray, in particular if the internal audit service wishes to inspect accounting and cash management?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2003)

In recognition of the importance of the role played by the Accounting Officer, the Commission decided that this function should be occupied at the level of A1, and appointed Mr Brian Gray, the Deputy Director-General of Directorate General (DG) Budget. The execution of the budget is the responsibility of the delegated authorising officers in the operational Directorate-Generals. DG Budget is responsible for the execution of own resources and of its own administrative expenses. Mr Gray has no sub-delegations for any revenue or expenditure operations, nor do any staff of the services which report directly to him, namely Directorate C, and Unit 01. The Commission considers therefore that there is a strict functional separation in his respect.

The work associated with the responsibilities of the Accounting Officer, as set out in Articles 61 and 63 of the Financial Regulation (1), is undertaken by Directorate C of DG Budget, the Director of which reports directly to the Deputy Director-General. The organisation chart will clarify this issue.

In order to facilitate the organisation of the Audit Progress Committee meetings, which concern several Commission services and external experts, the Commission decided on 9 July 2003 to transfer the Secretariat of the Audit Progress Committee to the Secretariat General. The organisation chart will be updated in this respect once the administrative procedures to implement this decision have been completed.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/170

(2004/C 33 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1785/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Structural Funds

What is the current procedure for making public the amounts and timing of Structural Funds to regions? Are there breakdowns available for regions, the Euro constituencies of MEPs or parts of Euro constituencies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission collects and publishes financial information according to the nature of the intervention concerned. For interventions that are delivered at regional level under Objectives 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds, financial data are available at the level of each regional programme. These data are published on the website of the Directorate general for Regional Policy (http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/index_en.htm). For specific information on the interventions supported by the European Social Fund, financial data can be found on the website of the Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/esf2000/member_states-en.htm). For interventions supported by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), data can be found on the website of the Directorate General for Fisheries (http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/policy_en.htm). Finally, for rural development programmes supported by the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), data can be found on the website of the Directorate General for Agriculture (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ agriculture/rur/indexfr.htm).

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the management of Structural Funds is highly decentralised and the managing authorities at Member State and regional level are responsible for the selection of individual projects for support. In conformity with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds (1), these authorities are required to inform the general public as well as possible beneficiaries about Structural Funds programmes, resources allocated and application procedures.

(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/101

(2004/C 33 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1252/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Common European packaging return scheme

European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (1) refers to the need to harmonise national measures concerning the management of packaging and packaging waste in order to prevent or reduce its impact on the environment, thus providing a high level of environmental protection, and to ensure the functioning of the internal market and to avoid obstacles to trade and distortion and restriction of competition within the Community.

Since this directive was adopted, various packaging return schemes have been set up in some Member States, including Denmark where Dansk Retursystem A/S uses a deposit system to ensure re-collection of the packaging of beer and some soft drinks. In practice, however, this system, which was introduced to protect the environment, has first and foremost closed the Danish market to imports of foreign beer.

Does the Commission therefore intend to submit a proposal for a common, uniform and harmonised deposit system applicable to all Member States in order to prevent effectively technical obstacles to trade and distortion and restriction of competition?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/273

(2004/C 33 E/283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2580/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Expectations of an increase in the production of counterfeit euro bank notes in thinly-populated countries where the euro is important as a parallel currency

1. Can the Commission confirm that, to date, the production of counterfeit money in the euro zone has been concentrated in thinly-populated areas in France and Spain and that this has resulted in losses of EUR 16 million for consumers and business?

2. Do new technologies where, for example, computer printers replace offset presses increase the potential for producing counterfeit bank notes which are difficult to distinguish from genuine ones, despite the use of watermarks, holograms and metal strips?

3. What is current ratio of counterfeit euros to the other widely used currency, the US dollar? Is the counterfeiting of euros moving towards the dollar level?

4. Does the Commission share Europol's expectation that the combination of the enlargement of EU territory and easily crossed frontiers, together with the increasingly important role of the euro as a parallel currency in countries with low incomes and high unemployment, increases the likelihood of a sharp increase in the near future of the production of counterfeit euros in thinly-populated areas and the transport thereof to densely-populated areas?

5. How will the Commission duly protect consumers and business in the future from the risk that they may unwittingly come into the possession of counterfeit bank notes which, on discovery, will not have the face value ascribed to them when they were accepted?

Source: The 18 July 2003 edition of ‘Rotterdams Dagblad’, a Dutch newspaper.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

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 65/159

(2004/C 65 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2468/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject: Introduction of digital tachographs

Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 (1) lays out the rules relating to the acceptable driving, resting and working times of drivers of commercial vehicles and buses. The hours of such drivers are recorded and controlled by use of tachographs in accordance with Regulation (EEC) 3821/85 (2). More recently Regulation (EC) 2135/98 (3) was published, paving the way for the introduction of digital tachographs (which record on smart cards) in place of the current tachographs (which record on paper charts).

Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of Regulation 2135/98 states:

24 months from the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities of the act to be adopted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, as amended by this Regulation, vehicles put into service for the first time must be fitted with recording equipment in accordance with the requirements of Annex IB to Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85.

Would the Commission please confirm that the act referred to in this paragraph is that which was published as Regulation (EC) 1360/2002, published on 5 August 2002 (4)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2003)

Herewith the Commission confirms that Commission Regulation (EC) No 1360/2002 (5) is the act referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 (6).

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 8.

(3) OJ L 274, 9.10.1998, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 207, 5.8.2002, p. 1.

(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1360/2002 of 13 June 2002 adapting for the seventh time to technical progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, OJ L 207, 5.8.2002.

(6) Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 of 24 September 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and Directive 88/599/EEC concerning the application of Regulations (EEC) No 3820/84 and (EEC) No 3821/85, OJ L 274, 9.10.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/173

(2004/C 33 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1805/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Repeal of Commission rules on traditional shipments of sugar from the Azores

The European Court of Justice's ruling of 15 May 2003 on Case C-282/00 establishes (point 46) that responsibility for the determination of traditional shipments of sugar from the Azores lies with the national courts.

When does the Commission intend to repeal its legislation relating to implementing provisions, in particular Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 (1). which runs contrary to the Court decision?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

In its judgment of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00 RAR ν Sinaga (not yet published), the Court of Justice held that it was for the referring court to assess whether shipments of sugar which had been refined in the Azores and which had benefited from the specific supply arrangements forming the subject of the main action possessed the characteristics of traditional shipments.

The Court of Justice stated in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the judgment that

… if the Community legislature intended to take account of traditional trade flows it was not for the purpose of acknowledging historical rights but in order to prevent the introduction of the specific supply arrangements, intended for the benefit of the Azores, from resulting in the loss of markets on which their products were regularly sold.

It follows that the shipments of sugar must satisfy relatively strict conditions in order to be classified as traditional trade flows or traditional shipments. Those requirements refer as much to the magnitude of the shipments as to their frequency and the fact that they are ongoing. Sporadic and small-scale shipments made in the past cannot satisfy those requirements.

The Commission considers that the practice followed up to now of quantifying the volume of products which may be re-exported or reshipped on the basis of the average annual volume of shipments/exports in the three years before Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (2) entered into force is in accordance with the principles stated by the Court of Justice in the above judgment.

The Commission does not therefore intend to repeal Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 (3) at this stage.

(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.2002, p. 1.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/02 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products — OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 of 28 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing the specific supply arrangements for the outermost regions introduced by Council Regulations (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001 and (EC) No 1454/2001 - OJ L 8, 11.1.2002.