ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/931

(2004/C 84 E/1029)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1026/04

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Axle weighing of HGVs at the German-Czech border

With enlargement to the East, all checks at the Union's internal borders will be abolished, including checks on individuals. However, when I visited the Schirnding border crossing I was told that the Czech Government intends to continue with the weighing of HGVs, in particular axle weighing. This would result in considerable waiting times at the border crossing, hence undermining one of the tangible advantages of enlargement, namely an end to lengthy delays at borders.

1. Is the Commission aware of the Czech Government's intentions in this matter?

2. Would the continuation of this practice be compatible with the obligations of membership of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 of 21 December 1989 on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport (1) stipulates that controls performed pursuant to Community or national law in the fields of road and inland waterway transport between Member States must no longer be performed as frontier-control but solely as part of the normal control procedures applied in a non-discriminatory fashion throughout the territory of a Member State.

Annex V to the Treaty of Accession, dealing with transitional measures applicable to the Czech Republic, makes no provision for a temporary derogation from this rule. For the Czech Republic to continue applying systematic border controls after it joins the Union, as the Honourable Member indicates, would not therefore appear to be compatible with Community law if confirmed as such.

In any event, the Commission would point out that the Czech Republic has not been granted a transitional period in respect of the application of Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 (2), as amended by Directive 2002/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 (3), laying down for certain road vehicles the maximum authorised dimensions in international traffic. This Directive will be fully applicable as soon as the Czech Republic joins the Union.

(1) OJ L 390, 30.12.1989.

(2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.

(3) OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/916

(2004/C 78 E/0968)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0025/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Possibility of ‘BSE’ (OSE?) in sheep

In the UK in September 2003, some 28 sheep tested positive for a TSE but negative for scrapie, raising the possibility that they could have ‘BSE’, which is linked to the human vCJD.

Given the potential negative implications that this could entail for human health, lamb consumption and animal welfare (in terms of mass slaughter), can the Commission advise:

1. What was the outcome of UK investigations into this incidence? How have the puzzling DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) results been interpreted?

2. What progress has been made at EU level in the survey to ascertain levels of scrapie in Member States?

3. Does the EU have concerns about a BSE-type infection in sheep (ovine spongiform encephalopathy?) as a distinct disease from scrapie?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

1. The United Kingdom reported in September 2003 that in the course of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) testing of healthy slaughtered sheep between April 2002 and March 2003, positive reactions obtained in 28 sheep using the Biorad screening test could not be confirmed by the routine confirmatory method. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown, but there are a number of possible reasons, for example extremely low levels of scrapie or the presence of a hitherto unrecognized strain of scrapie. The Commission has asked the Community Reference Laboratory for TSEs in Weybridge to include these results in the discussions of its strain-typing expert group. The Commission stresses, however, that it has no reason to believe that these results are likely to indicate the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in sheep.

2. In line with the recommendation of the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) opinion of 19 October 2001, Member States have been carrying out an intensive active TSE monitoring programme on sheep and goats since early 2002. Up to the end of November 2003, 600 000 healthy slaughter animals and 200 000 risk animals had been tested in the EU, in addition to continuing passive surveillance of clinical cases. This combined surveillance has led to the confirmation of 3 344 cases of TSE in sheep and goats during this period, and has greatly improved the estimation of prevalence of the disease in most Member States. It has also led to the confirmation of the first cases of scrapie in two Member States (Portugal and Finland).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/319

(2004/C 84 E/0366)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0149/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Revenue from denationalisation used to cover current expenditure

The Greek Government holds account number 234 339/0 with the Bank of Greece, into which is paid the revenue obtained from the denationalisation of public enterprises. Finance Ministry documents put before the Hellenic Parliament have revealed that between 2001 and 20 September 2003, EUR 3,9 billion was drawn from that account to cover current government expenditure.

The Finance Ministry documents refer to specific funds for the Olympic Games, the staff insurance fund of the Greek Telecommunications Organisation (OTE), the Skaramanga shipyards, the Thessaloniki Water Company, the ‘Bambakos’ organisation, hospitals, and meeting the needs of the Public Company for Transferable Securities (DEKA), etc.

Under the terms of the relevant regulations, can the revenue from denationalisation be used to cover current budget expenditure or only to reduce the public debt? What measures does the Commission propose to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

In the context of the Community budgetary surveillance procedures, government accounts — notably the government deficit/surplus — should be compiled according to the rules laid down in the European System of National and Regional Accounts (ESA95) (1).

According to the ESA95 accounting rules, privatisation proceeds — including proceeds from indirect privatisations — are financial receipts (see ESA95 paragraphs 4.165(g) and 5.86). Therefore, such receipts are not taken into account in the calculation of the general government deficit/surplus. This means that if an EU government decides to increase expenditure, and finances such spending through a privatisation, its deficit will increase.

Since the government debt that is relevant for budgetary surveillance procedure is defined in gross terms (2) — that is, without netting government assets such as shares in public enterprises — privatisation lead to a reduction in the government debt level insofar as they reduce the government debt issuance or allow the government to buy back debt.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community, OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

(2) The general government debt is defined in Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, OJ L 332, 31.12.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/556

(2004/C 84 E/0634)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/04

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) and Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Revision of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, icecream and other foodstuffs

We have received queries from medium-sized bakeries with regard to the obligation to provide detailed evidence in respect of butter consumption in excess of seven tonnes per year, and to the problems this causes.

It is impossible for a medium-sized bakery to provide evidence that every single gram of butter sold at reduced prices has been processed, or to bear the huge administrative costs this would entail. This results in regular fines and thus gradual increases in the prices of pastry products.

In this context, is the Commission considering revising the above Regulation (2571/97/EC (1)) so that the obligation for bakeries to provide evidence of processing butter in excess of seven tonnes per year is greatly simplified or abolished? Has a revision procedure to this effect already been started on the initiative of a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

This disposal measure is an important means to maintain a reasonable balance on the butter market and avoid purchases of butter into public intervention.

Appropriate control measures are needed in order to ensure that the rules of the Regulation are respected and to protect against abuse of Community funds. However, the control requirements specified in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 vary subject to tracing or not of the subsidized products and to the quantities used by the operators incorporating the subsidized product into the intermediary or final products.

For smaller operators undertaking in writing to purchase less than nine tonnes of butter equivalent per 12-month period, the controls are less severe (see Article 23(6) of the Regulation). However, an increase of the maximum quantity of nine tonnes for smaller operators is at present under consideration in the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products.

It is the responsibility of the competent authorities in the Member States to introduce control measures ensuring that the maximum quantities, for which a less severe control applies, are respected.

For other operators the control requirements for incorporation into the final products and the control frequency are described in Article 23(4). Checks of recipes and records as well as sampling at a frequency based on the quantities used, and, in the case of traced products, at least once a month if five tonnes or more is used in the establishment per month, are required. The control requirements for medium size and bigger operators are considered reasonable measures ensuring that the conditions of the Regulation are respected.

(1) OJ L 350, 20.12.1997, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/358

(2004/C 84 E/0416)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0308/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: The French language at the Commission

If my information is correct, the Commission intends to spend more than EUR 20 million on French courses for its employees. On what basis does the Commission train its staff specifically to improve their command of French, and does it intend to promote the position of French at the expense of other languages within the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

The Honourable Member's information is not correct, and neither are the similar figures that have recently appeared in some newspapers, together with misleading reports about French as a working language of the Commission.

The Commission has not taken any decision which gives or will give the teaching of French a privileged place by comparison with that of the other official languages.

Courses for each language for each year are planned on the basis of the previous year's take up. Apart from demand from staff seeking to improve language skills the only other factor taken into account is the budget limit set for language training. For 2003 this was EUR 5 000 000. French courses accounted for 23 % of the total in 2003, English for 20 %, Spanish for 10 %, German for 10 % and the remaining 37 % was used for courses in 28 other languages.

For some languages demand does not noticeably vary. For others, principally English, French and the languages of the acceding countries, there has been an average increase in demand of about 10 % a year since 2001. This trend will probably strengthen from 2004 following enlargement and entry into force of the new Staff Regulations which give increased importance to multilingualism, particularly by requiring officials to attain the ability to work in a third Community language before a first promotion can be secured.

It should be noted that the priority given to a staff member's language training provided or financed by the Commission depends, and will continue to depend, on the requirements of the job that he or she does (1).

Clearly, it is not possible to estimate precisely which languages will be most in demand in the immediate future. The Commission assures the Honourable Member that it will continue to be committed to providing its staff with accessible opportunities for learning or developing their capabilities in all the official languages.

(1) Commission Decision on staff training C(2002) 1577 of 7 May 2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/517

(2004/C 88 E/0529)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/04

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Export of military ammunition to African countries as hunting ammunition

Various prestigious NGO's (Oxfam, Amnesty International, Greenpeace) and the Autonomous University of Barcelona's Peace Culture School have claimed that Spain has been exporting military ammunition, as if it were hunting ammunition, to the following African countries: Ghana, Guinea Conakry, Central African Republic, Mauritania, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal, Guinea Bissau, Angola, Burkina Fasso and Cameroon.

Apparently the Customs Registers of the Spanish Tax Agency show that the cartridges exported weighed on average 40 kg, and cost an average of EUR 120 each.

Given that it is difficult to believe that hunting ammunition of such dimensions exists, and that these exports of munitions brought in over EUR 4 million in 2002, is the Commission aware of these Spanish exports?

If the Commission is aware of the claims, has it taken or does it intend to take any steps?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the exports in question nor does it possess the authority or the means to confirm or deny any possible misrepresentation of the stated end use of such exports.

Full responsibility for the licensing of arms exports rests with national governments. Consequently, it is not for the Commission to comment on Member States' practices in this area.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/945

(2004/C 78 E/1000)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Relocation and unemployment

Yet another multinational in the textile sector — Brax Portuguesa, Fábrica de Confecções, Lda. — now appears likely to cease activity, raising the spectre of unemployment for over 400 workers, most of them women, at its plant in Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal).

In view of the seriousness of this state of affairs, in a region and a Member State where unemployment is constantly rising, it is essential that the Commission and the Portuguese government take all possible measures to prevent yet another multinational from closing its operations in Portugal and, possibly, relocating to another European country.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Were any Community funds received by the firm Brax Portuguesa, Fábrica de Confecções, Lda. of Aldeia Nova, Serzedo, Vila Nova de Gaia in Portugal? If so, can the Commission provide details?

2. Was any financial support granted by the EU to the parent company or any of its branches? If so, can the Commission provide details?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take to put an end to the constant relocations of multinationals and the resulting unemployment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 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 84/296

(2004/C 84 E/0343)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/04

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Practices of some Luxembourg insurance companies

Since the beginning of 2004, some insurance companies in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg have required independent experts in the automobile sector to work with the Belgian loss adjuster Informex.

Does the Commission take the view that this practice is compatible with the principle of the free movement of services established by Articles 14 and 49 of the EC Treaty? If not, what measures will it take to put an end to these discriminatory practices?

Some of the companies involved prescribe which garage their clients must use for their repairs.

Does not the Commission share my view that that practice infringes the principle of the free movement of services established by Articles 14 and 49 of the EC Treaty referred to above? If so, is it prepared to take the measures required to put an end thereto?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission has taken note of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. However, in accordance with Article 49 of the EC Treaty and in light of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not able to act in this case in accordance with the infringement procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty because the facts refer to existing contractual relations between several private entities.

The provisions of the EC Treaty which relate to providing services are formally addressed to the Member States. Although this does not mean that rights cannot be conferred simultaneously on any individual who may be affected by the observance of the rules, as defined here, contesting the practices of private entities falls mainly within the competence of the national courts. In fact, it is established case law that it is firstly the responsibility of national courts to apply Community law and to establish the implications of the case law of the Court of Justice within the procedural framework. Since it is a question of the interpretation of Community law, it is necessary in any event to mention the possibility for national courts to use the mechanism of the preliminary question provided for in Article 234 of the EC Treaty to obtain an interpretation of the provisions of Community law from the Court of Justice, which alone has jurisdiction in this respect.

If the choice of Informex by each insurance company was made in cooperation with competing companies and not independently, such cooperation could be interpreted under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. This Article prohibits agreements between companies which are likely to affect trade between Member States and which are aimed at restricting competition. However, the Commission does not have any information which indicates that such cooperation might exist.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/889

(2004/C 84 E/0982)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0831/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Radar installation on Pico do Areeiro — Environmental impact study

In the answer given on 5 March 2003 to my Written Question E-0157/03 (1) on the continuing use of Pico do Areeiro (Madeira) as a radar installation site, Mrs Wallström indicated that she would await the environmental impact study to be carried out at the request of the Portuguese authorities, before stating an opinion.

According to reports in Portugal an environmental impact study has apparently already been produced.

What, therefore, is the Commission's view on the study?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has examined the environmental impact study for the radar project in question on the site of Community importance ‘Maciço Montanhoso Central’ and the special protection zone ‘Maciço Montanhoso Oriental da Ilha da Madeira’, which includes a nesting site used by Pterodroma madeira.

According to the study, the main impact of the project will be the effects of the radar illumination on the birds' orientation. However, the study found that if certain measures were taken, such as reducing the strength of the beam and directing the beam towards the ground, the impact would be minimised. The study also found that both the nesting site and the flight corridors used by the birds were situated outside the radiation zone.

As an environmental impact study has been carried out for the project and has not indicated any significant impact on the abovementioned protected species, the Commission does not consider that the situation contravenes the relevant provisions of Community law and has therefore decided to close complaint 2002/5069 on the project in question.

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 101.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/567

(2004/C 84 E/0644)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0292/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Ship-building in Italy

In Trieste, Italy in recent years, shipyard capacity has increased substantially and orders have been received for ships in a way which prompts observers to suspect that operators there may have received State shipyard subsidies in a manner which differs from the practice in other EU Member States and on more favourable terms. Has the Commission investigated whether the Italian State is paying shipyard subsidies on the same basis as other EU Member States, or whether different, more favourable conditions apply there? If the conditions are more favourable, this distorts both competition in shipbuilding and subcontracting of work on ships.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

In the EU, the aid to ship-building is regulated, since 1 January 2004, by the Framework on State aid to shipbuilding (1) that replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (expired on 31 December 2003) (2).

Italy has adopted a number of schemes based on the (EC) No 1540/98 Shipbuilding Regulation. These schemes were notified and approved by the Commission.

The Commission is not aware of any unwarranted applications or any illegal aid granted by the Italian State to the ship-building companies.

(1) OJ C 317, 30.12.2003.

(2) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.