ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/575

(2004/C 88 E/0588)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1155/04

by Marco Formentini (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2004)

Subject: Request for the Commission to intervene in the dispute between the company Invesmart bv and the Czech Republic regarding the bankrupt Union Banka

Under the conditions for entry into the European Union the accession countries were supposed to bring their national legal systems and administrative procedures, and the behaviour of public administration into line with the legal principles observed within the Union. The aim of this question is to highlight a series of abuses and instances of wrongful treatment suffered since December 2002 by the Dutch firm Invesmart bv and its majority shareholder Prof. Paolo Catalfamo, an Italian national, as a result of their investing in Union Banka, which at the time was the fourth largest bank in the Czech Republic.

The investment, as well as the broad restructuring plan accompanying it, were agreed by the investors with the Czech Central Bank and the Minister of Finance. After the investors had spent a year and a half fulfilling various difficult obligations the Czech authorities suddenly (and improvidently) declared the bank bankrupt, which seriously damaged investors. These events were widely publicised both in the Czech Republic itself and in the international economic press.

Can the Commission obtain information directly from the Czech authorities — who, when proceedings were brought for damages of around EUR 300 million, stated that the Czech government was willing to settle the dispute amicably — as to what their intentions actually are and ask them to settle the dispute in a correct and fair manner?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The banking sector in the Czech Republic has gone through a difficult restructuring process. In order to protect the common market, the Commission has to make sure that a level playing field is maintained by preventing State aid from being granted contrary to EU competition rules.

Bankruptcy proceedings are a judicial process in the Czech Republic and the Commission cannot comment on proceedings under way. It is for the Czech judicial system to produce a decision in this case.
It is not possible to break down the proposed ceiling for expenditure under Heading 1A by Member State. The weight of each programme under Heading 1A will only be determined at a later stage. At any rate, each programme will consist of a global financial envelope rather than nationally allocated envelopes.

The amounts for the Solidarity Fund correspond to EUR 1 billion per year in current prices. Since the table contained in the Commission Communication is expressed in constant 2004 prices, the equivalent amounts are:

(million euro) Year Amount 2007 942 2008 924 2009 906 2010 888 2011 871 2012 853 2013 837

The amounts of the European Development Fund will be negotiated and decided at a later stage.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/640

(2004/C 84 E/0721)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0627/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(6) OJ L 121, 12.5.1994, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/441

(2004/C 84 E/0514)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0645/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject: Expert advice in the JHA sector

How many expert groups advise the Commission in the JHA sector? What actions have been taken as a result of their recommendations without reference to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

About sixty expert groups advise the Commission in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) sector and eleven more are expected to be created in 2004. These groups consider and exchange information on issues related to the practical application of Community legislation, discuss on an informal basis preliminary drafts of legislative proposals or policy documents, bring together interested stakeholders to discuss new approaches, or support the Commission in the development of Large Scale IT systems. The Parliament is very often invited to the meetings, and the activities of many of these groups are reported to it.

These groups do not formulate or adopt any formal recommendations and no particular conclusions are drawn up. Opinions expressed by experts in these groups are not to any extent binding upon the Commission. However, the Commission takes into account the views or comments expressed by experts as one source of input in the development of policies and in the preparation of legislative proposals or policy documents.
2.

As part of its examination of whether state aid schemes are compatible, the Commission takes into consideration the objectives of other Union policies, including those of employment policy, and incorporates them into its analysis. First of all it has to determine on the basis of objective criteria whether the funding in question constitutes state aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty. If a state scheme distorts free competition and affects intra-Community trade by conferring an advantage on one or more enterprises it constitutes state aid. As part of its examination of whether the aid is compatible with the EC Treaty, the Commission then takes account of the scheme's effects, which naturally include social effects, on other Union policies. The Lisbon strategy could only be considered incompatible with policy on state aid if the measures taken to implement it were classified as state aid that is incompatible with the EC Treaty. To date no decision has been taken on the status of training funds. Although in certain circumstances funds may cause distortion of competition, training funds do not necessarily do so. Taking account of those funds' undoubtedly beneficial effects and their contribution to attaining the Lisbon strategy objectives, the Commission sees no reason to consider the training funds of which it is currently aware to have a significant impact on competition and intra-Community trade. It considers that the public authorities are justified in giving firms incentives to improve employment levels and workforce skills. Consequently, the objectives of the Lisbon strategy and those of state aid policy are certainly not incompatible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/909

(2004/C 84 E/1004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: The Threshold for British teachers in the European Schools

Further to my questions E-2583/03 (1) and E-3295/03 (2) and the Commission's answers, what legal advice has the Commission received on the compatibility of the UK's contract with Art 12.4(a) of the European Schools' Convention?

In Case C-6/89, Commission v Belgium (1990), ECR 1-1595, the Commission acted against the Belgian Government for flouting Article 12 of the European Schools Statute. Will the Commission consider similar proceedings against the Government of the UK for failure to grant eligibility for the Threshold?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is carefully examining the issue of accessibility of the United Kingdom Threshold assessment system to British teachers employed by the United Kingdom Government with United Kingdom contracts but detached to the European schools. Consideration of legal issues in particular is on-going.

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 180.

(2) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 252.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/492

(2004/C 88 E/0504)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0266/04

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Imports of poultry meat into the EU

Can the Commission state what quantities of poultry meat have been imported into the European Union in the most recent six-month period for which statistics are available, and whether a suspension of such imports would have any significant effect on the European market for meat?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

During the first six months of 2003 the imports to the EU of poultrymeat (including live poultry and poultrymeat products) amounted to 411 000 tonnes (t). The level of imports was 26 % higher than in the corresponding period of 2002.

It is estimated that in 2003 imports of poultrymeat reached the level of 800 000 tonnes, an amount equivalent to 9 % of poultrymeat and 2 % of all meat consumed in the EU, respectively.

The main suppliers of poultrymeat to the EU in 2003 were Brazil (estimated 400 000 t), Thailand (estimated 190 000 t) and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

The complete suspension of poultrymeat imports to the EU market can be regarded rather as a hypothetical exercise. Although it may reduce availability of poultrymeat to the EU consumers, it would do so to a lesser extent than the 9 % indicated above. That is because the lack of imports would be compensated at least partially by European poultrymeat supply and by European pigmeat. It should be kept in mind that the EU has exported around 1 000 000 tonnes of poultrymeat in 2003 and had a trade surplus of 200 000 tonnes of that meat.

Any impact of the suspension would be, proportionally, smaller, the shorter the period in which it would be applied. In addition, any reduction in availability of meat in the EU-15 after 1 May 2004 will be mitigated by greater availability of meat from the new Member States.
1.

The Wadden Sea is an area that has to be protected as a special protection area in the sense of Council Directive 79/409/EECof 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and as a special area of conservation in the sense of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3). The Commission is aware of a number of studies indicating that natural gas extraction from sub-surface layers in the Wadden Sea may have direct and indirect negative effects on the Wadden Sea ecosystem, such as a subsidence of the soil, a decreasing area of tidal mud flats and tidal marshes, changes in the sedimentation regime, noise, visual disturbance and pollution risk. It is the responsibility of the competent Dutch authorities to evaluate if the impact of the exploitation of another 40 billion cubic metres (m3) of natural gas on the Wadden Sea is likely to be significant or not. Should it appear that significant negative effects are likely to occur, then an appropriate assessment according to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC must be made. The competent national authorities may agree to the further exploitation of natural gas in the Wadden Sea only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. The Commission is of the opinion that in this context the precautionary principle has to be taken into account. The provisions of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC apply in the case of a negative assessment of the project's implications for the site.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/326

(2004/C 84 E/0383)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0174/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

How has the Commission ensured that the necessary human resources, IT infrastructure and organisational structures are in place for the reform of the accounting framework?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/196

(2004/C 88 E/0201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0585/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: WTO talks Cancun and Geneva

After the failure of the WTO talks in Cancun and the resumption of talks in Geneva, I would be obliged if you could provide an update of what progress has been made.

Is the European Union still insisting on new issues being introduced?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

Following the failure of the Cancun Conference, the Commission reviewed its position as set out in its Communication to the Council, to the Parliament and to the Economic and Social Committee of 26 November 2003 on ‘Reviving the DDA — the EU perspective’ (1), the orientations of which were endorsed by the Council on 9 December 2003 (2). It can be seen from this that the EU has adopted a different and more flexible approach to some of the ‘new issues’ referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Parliament discussed the Prospects for the Doha Development Round at its sitting of 13 January 2004. The Commission very much welcomes the broad support that was given to its approach of giving priority to multilateral negotiations, being ready to be more flexible on certain topics including the so-called Singapore issues and itensifying the dialogue with trading partners with the aim of using the coming months to progress the negotiations in the way that should have happened in 2003.

Since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) General Council meeting on 15 December, where there was a clear expression by all WTO Members of their political will to continue the DDA negotiations, the Commissioner responsible for Trade has travelled to Brazil for a meeting with the G-20, to India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Kenya, met the G90 in Geneva, attended the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Addis Ababa and visited to Washington as well as holding other meetings in Brussels. Further such discussions will be held in the run up to the May WTO General Council meeting.

(1) COM(2003) 734 final.

(2) 15535/03 of 5.12.2003.
Every year, following a call for proposals, the Commission awards operational grants to European consumer organisations. This leads to a greater involvement of these organisations in Community policies, one of the three key objectives of the Strategy for Consumer Policy (2002-2006) which is supported by the Parliament. Moreover, this form of financial support has a clear legal basis in the provision for financing consumer-oriented activities (1). This total funding cannot exceed 50 % of the expenditure for eligible activities.

The total Community funding to be awarded to the BEUC under these operational grants amounts to EUR 1 172 790 in 2004.

Furthermore, the Commission regularly, and following a call for proposals, grants subsidies to specific projects which aim to promote consumer interests in Member States (Articles 2 C and 6 of Decision No 283/1999 and action 18 of Decision No 20/2004, aforementioned).

Following the call for proposals published in September 2002 (2), the project ‘European Consumer Law Group’ submitted by the BEUC was selected (Community contribution requested: EUR 56 422,79).

The subsidies awarded will be published shortly on the Internet site of the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/632

(2004/C 84 E/0710)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/04

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Relationships between the media and recording companies

Can the Commission clarify its position with regard to the relationship that broadcasters have with record companies? It is felt by many smaller record companies that they are unfairly treated by radio and TV companies in comparison to the bigger record companies and are therefore squeezed out of the market.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

The Commission services in charge of competition policy have dedicated significant attention to European music markets, particularly over these past years when digital technology and media convergence seemed to push vigorously towards heavy concentration amid the major players. These issues were raised with particular emphasis in 2000 during the AOL/Time Warner merger proceedings and the EMI/Time Warner attempted merger. In the ongoing merger proceedings of the global recorded music businesses of Germany's Bertelsmann AG and Japan's Sony Corp the Commission has decided to open a full investigation into the proposed merger due to concerns that the transaction might create or strengthen a collective dominant position of the major record companies in the markets for recorded music. In the course of the investigation, the Commission will also investigate further competition concerns related to the vertical integration of the parent companies in other markets, such as the possible implications of the notified joint-venture on Bertelsmann's activities in the broadcasting sector (1).

The activity of the Commission in the field of competition policy does not only cover mergers but also restrictive practices and agreements such as the ones referred to by the Honourable Member. In order to intervene in unregulated markets such as the music business, however, the Commission requires a solid factual basis allowing it to properly assess claimed distortions in the functioning of the markets. Also, the jurisdiction of the Commission under Community competition law only exists where an appreciable effect on trade between Member States is shown.

So far, the Commission did not come across factual evidence allowing it to suppose the existence of restrictive practices in the relationship between different types of record companies and broadcasters such as to have an appreciable effect on trade between Member States.

(1) The press release is available at:

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/04/200|0|RAPID&lg=EN
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/757

(2004/C 84 E/0852)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0068/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families

To date, not a single one of the 15 current Member States nor any of the ten future Member States of the European Union has signed the International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families, which was adopted at the 45th session of the UN General Assembly on 18 December 1990 and entered into force on 1 July 2003.

What is the Commission position on the Convention referred to above?

1. To what extent is the Convention in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established?

2. On what issues is the Convention not in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established?

3. From the European point of view, are there any serious objections to the signing of the Convention by a Member State of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Member States are [probably] better placed than the Commission to explain their reasons for not ratifying the United Nations International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families.

Nevertheless, one of the main obstacles to ratification seems to be that the Convention recognises rights in respect of all migrant workers regardless of whether they are in the host country legally or illegally.

Furthermore, it seems that many of the rights listed in the Convention are also guaranteed at EU level for citizens and third-country nationals alike in other instruments (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, European Convention on Human Rights). However, the wide range of provisions guaranteeing the same rights leads to varying interpretations which could prove damaging to legal certainty for individuals.

Because of the complexity of the provisions of this Convention, the Commission intends to launch a study on the points in common with — and those on which it differs from — common immigration policy as it has developed at EU level since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/928

(2004/C 84 E/1025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1001/04

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Subject: Critical dialogue with Iranian theocracy on minorities

Has the issue of minorities been discussed during the critical dialogue with the Iranian theocracy and, if so, when and how, and what plans or strategies are in place for future dialogue concerning the position of minorities in Iran?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The EU and Iran have held specific discussions on Human Rights through three rounds of the EU — Iran Human Rights Dialogue. These meetings comprise the EU Troika and Iranian officials (including Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Parliament and Judiciary), as well as representatives of Human Rights institutions, civil society and academia from both sides. Since the third and most recent round in October 2003, representatives from the Parliament also participate.

On the occasion of the first round in Tehran on 16/17 December 2002, two main themes were focused upon: Discrimination and Prevention of Torture.

The rights of minorities (ethnic and religious) were discussed under the theme Discrimination. This dialogue also feeds into the semi-annual Comprehensive Dialogue Meetings with Iran, held at deputy ministerial level and covering bilateral, regional and global matters including Human Rights.

As Council conclusions confirm, the EU monitors the Human Rights Dialogue and assesses progress on the issue of minorities, as well as other themes, on the basis of concrete benchmarks.