ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/120

(2004/C 78 E/0121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2497/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject: Foreign direct investment

Will the Commission list the different figures produced by different international organisations (such as Eurostat and also the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) and Member States for foreign direct investment, and will it clarify any differences in definitions that might lead to discrepancies in the figures?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

Section 1 (of the annexes sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat) provides a comparison between FDI data published by Eurostat and by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation (OECD). Section 2 (of the annexes sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat) provides the same comparison for the European Central Bank (ECB). Section 3 is about national data published by the Member States. A summary of Eurostat data collection process for FDI is also included (particularly in section 1), showing the links and differences with data collections of the OECD and of the ECB.

Main conclusions are as follows:

— there are no methodological differences between Eurostat and the OECD with respect to FDI data. Existing differences in data published for the EU15 Member States (1995-2002 is the period considered) are of limited impact on total numbers. Differences are due either to rounding (exchange rate effect, data in billions or in millions), or to temporary differences in timing of data revisions for latest years. Maximum total difference 2 % (Table 2);

— there is one methodological difference of a certain importance, concerning the Netherlands, between the data published by Eurostat and the ECB for the Eurozone. Eurostat and the ECB are working actively with the Netherlands to eliminate this difference during the course of next year 2004;

— Member States also apply the international methodological definitions in their data collection on which are based the data collected by Eurostat, the OECD and the ECB. Concerning the publication of data, some temporary differences may exist due to differences in timing of data revisions for latest years.

Please find the development of these conclusions in Annex A supported by tables 1, 2 and 3 that are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/707

(2004/C 78 E/0756)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1237/03

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: EEA Agreement on enlargement of the EU

Will the Commission confirm the timetable for consultation with the European Parliament in respect of the conclusion and ratification of the EEA Agreement with the acceding States on enlargement of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

As a consequence of the Union enlargement, the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), which extends the internal market to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, must also be enlarged. This has to be negotiated with these three EEA European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. As the EEA Agreement is a mixed agreement, the Commission has obtained a mandate, adopted by the 9 December 2002 General Affairs Council, to negotiate on behalf of the Community and the current Member States. The negotiations were launched on 9 January 2003.

Much progress has been achieved in the very difficult negotiations over recent weeks, and a set of extremely finely balanced elements for an agreement is now there, which the Commission believes will enable to conclude rapidly the negociations. The Commission has had several exchanges of views with the Parliament on the subject of these negotiations.

The Commission hopes to conclude the negotiations with the EEA EFTA countries and the Acceding Countries on the enlargement of the EEA Agreement in the near future. Once the negotiations are concluded, the draft EEA enlargement instrument will be transmitted to the Parliament. As for the timetable, it is expected that the EEA enlargement instrument will be ratified in parallel to the Treaty of Accession to the European Union. As for the involvement of the Parliament it shall give its assent in accordance with Article 300 (3) second subparagraph of the EC Treaty, since the EEA Agreement belongs to the category of agreements concluded by the Community in accordance with Article 310 of the Treaty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/71

(2004/C 84 E/0076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3599/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Payable Internet services

One of the main Italian providers has made its Internet and e-mail services subject to payment since 11 November this year. From now on all those who want to continue using its services will have to pay an annual fee of around EUR 30.

This is a worrying sign of the direction in which Internet providers are moving. There is a tendency towards privatising the Net, which runs counter to the programme announced by the European Council in Lisbon. Furthermore, users only knew about the introduction of the new system when they were denied access to their own data and were asked to pay for the service, without a clear warning from the provider.

1. What steps will the Commission take to ensure free access to the Internet for European citizens?

2. Does the Commission not consider that the behaviour of the Italian service provider referred to above is a blatant abuse and detrimental to the people who trusted it to handle their private correspondence?

3. Does the Commission not consider that this action is contrary to the proposals announced by the European Council in Lisbon regarding the creation of a knowledge-based society?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

1. The Commission believes that efficient and unencumbered access to new electronic communication services, including Internet services, can best be achieved in the first instance by there being an open and competitive market for such services. This is part of the basic motivation behind the common regulatory framework for electronic communications and services adopted last year and now being implemented within the Member States.

2. Much of the Internet, and indeed its content and services, are the result of private investment. It is not unreasonable to expect that private companies will aim to make a return on that investment, as they would with any other investment. The Internet has permitted a range of commercial and non-commercial models to co-exist. Some of the models involve direct payment by consumers and some others are financed by advertising. It is not unusual for service providers to change their terms and conditions, and this can include charging for a particular service. If however this were done in an abusive way, for example without adequate warning, then the matter could be taken up with the local consumer protection authorities, for example.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/451

(2004/C 78 E/0476)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3287/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Europe Houses

The concept of democratic deficit is used mainly to highlight how the European Union suffers from a lack of democracy and appears inaccessible to citizens as a result of the complex way in which it functions. It conveys the feeling that the Community's institutional system is still rather opaque to the uninitiated.

One of the tasks assigned to the Europe Houses on their founding was to dissipate this idea of the distance and inaccessibility of the Community's institutions. Their primary aim was to strive to bring the European people and the institutions closer together by providing information and removing the air of mystery surrounding the working of the Community.

It cannot be denied that, in this sense, they perform this role most worthily on a daily basis, displaying competence and energy. I was all the more amazed to discover, therefore, that the Commission is preparing simply to withdraw their operating grant for 2004, with notice given on 29 September. Aside from the organisational difficulties this cut will bring (particularly with regard to the employment of convinced young Europeans who have invested for years in this great enterprise), thought must also be given to the impact on the European Union's image. As the EU debates its future Constitution (and the procedures for its entry into force) and prepares to welcome 10 new members (whose accession is sometimes a cause of worry among citizens) and Europeans are called upon once again to express their opinions in the European elections next June (and we are all aware of how difficult it is to persuade voters to take part in this ballot), the European Commission is suddenly washing its hands of the EU's largest information network in the Member States.

As the reasons behind this decision are difficult to grasp, can the Commission shed some light on the matter?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/131

(2004/C 84 E/0168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4015/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Toxic sites

Can the Commission indicate whether any current European legislation places restrictions on the remediation of toxic sites?

Can the Commission indicate whether any future European legislation will result in a ban (or place restrictions) on the clearing of, and rebuilding on, toxic sites?

If so, will the Commission indicate why it believes that such a ban (or restriction) is necessary?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

At the moment, there is no Community legislation which addresses specifically the remediation of contaminated sites. Nevertheless, some provisions pertaining to the recovery and disposal of contaminated soils can be found in waste legislation and in particular in the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC as amended (1). Furthermore, the Commission is currently developing a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use and the Protection of Soil which will address, ‘inter alia’, the contamination of soils. This strategy will include proposals for action in the domain of prevention and remediation of contaminated sites.

In general, measures affecting land use and planning are predominantly a Member State competence and the subsidiarity principle applies. It is unlikely that a comprehensive, standardised, EU-wide approach will be developed, as each land and site is unique and the solutions needed to achieve a sustainable land use have to be customised. However, it is clear that some approaches are unsustainable and these should be discouraged. Through its funding programme the EU is seeking to promote sustainable approaches to dealing with contaminated sites. For example, the Structural Funds Regulations and Guidelines for the period 2000-2006 (2) set out the need for sustainable approaches to the use of urban land, including priority to be given ‘to the rehabilitation of derelict industrial sites (brownfields) over the development of greenfield sites’. The URBAN II initiative supports ‘mixed-use and environmentally-friendly brown-field redevelopment, involving reduced pressures on green-field development and urban sprawl’. Interreg has offered similar opportunities. The future Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment could also include recommendations for the Member States to promote the rehabilitation of brownfield sites which might imply their remediation, if these are found to be contaminated, before their redevelopment.

(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(2) Commission Communication concerning the Structural Funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund. Guidelines for programmes in the period 2000 to 2006, OJ C 267, 22.9.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/159

(2004/C 78 E/0163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2736/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Monkfish quotas

Recent reports say that Cornish fishermen are putting their livelihoods and communities at risk because they have to throw back large amounts of their catch so as to comply with excessively strict quotas. In the light of this situation, will the Commission relax the restrictions on the populations of certain species, for example Monkfish, so as to prevent the loss of large quantities of dead fish that are thrown overboard?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of reports of large amounts of discarding of small anglerfish (also called monkfish) in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Division VII (South-West Cornwall). This appears to be due to a higher than expected abundance of small anglerfish on the fishing grounds, in an area where a mixed fishery with megrims and sole is pursued.

It is clearly important to avoid waste caused by killing and discarding many small fish. However, allowing more fishing of these small fish is not a solution by itself, since many of these fish are too small to be marketed and the fish which are killed will not have a chance to grow and produce higher yields for the long term. It is also necessary to moderate fishing effort so that healthy adult stocks are maintained.

The Commission services requested additional scientific advice from ICES on this matter on 28 August 2003. ICES' revised advice is that the sum of the total allowable catches (TACs) for areas VII and VIII a, b, d, e could be increased from 19 372 tonnes (t) to 21 000 t for 2003, if this can be implemented without increased targeting of small anglerfish and without increased effort.

Based on this advice, the Commission services are preparing for the consideration of the Commission a proposal to increase the TACs for Division VII from 15810 t to 17138 t and for Sub-Divisions VIIIabde from 3 562 t to 3 862 t. The increase is allocated to two TACs because biological advice indicates that the stocks concerned are distributed in both areas. The Commission services are also keeping under review complementary measures that would avoid increased targeting of small anglerfish and also avoid increases in effort.

These proposals will be prepared for a decision at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 17 and 18 November.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/295

(2004/C 78 E/0297)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Health and safety for the elderly and disabled

It has been brought to my attention that there is little provision to ensure health and safety for elderly and disabled people in hotel bathrooms.

One of my constituents has highlighted the need for grab rails at elbow height, for example.

Could the Commission please state what measures, if any, are in place to ensure the health and safety of elderly and disabled people in public places across the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The primary responsibility in the area of accessibility to the public built environment belongs to Member States and most actions in the field of accessibility are effectively dealt with at national level. Nevertheless, the Union can be a driving force for change, encouraging and pushing the public authorities in the Member States to seize new opportunities.

The Commission has, therefore, given priority to improving ‘Accessibility to the public built environment’ in its Communication ‘Equal opportunities for people with Disabilities: A European Action Plan’ (1) adopted on 30 October 2003.

The Commission undertakes, inter alia, to promote Design for All, which is a concept that takes into consideration — with accessibility as a general objective — questions related to health and safety. Further measures are related to the development of adequate European standards in all areas related to the built environment, including planning, design, construction and use of buildings, and safety evacuation procedures for people with disabilities. In addition, it is foreseen to review the essential requirements laid down in Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (2) to include provisions on accessibility for all.

Furthermore, the Commission recently set up an expert group to examine aspects of accessibility in the Member States. The report of this group, entitled ‘2010: A Europe Accessible for All’ has been published and is available on the Commission's website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/index/ final_report_ega_en.pdf).

(1) COM(2003) 650 final.

(2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/506

(2004/C 78 E/0526)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3275/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Destruction of Russian forests

It is reported that the Russian Government plans to sell off a vast proportion of Russia's forests to private logging companies. Such forests act as a giant ‘carbon sink’ second only in importance to the Amazonian rainforests. Is the Commission aware of this situation and, if so, what does it believe that the EU can do to dissuade the Russians from a policy that can have enormously damaging environmental consequences?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission is not aware of any plans on the part of the Government of Russia to sell off a vast proportion of Russia's forests to private logging companies although it has seen press reports regarding the new Russian Forest Code. Concessions granted to companies, private or otherwise, may or may not have an adverse effect on the management of those forests. The Russian Government has expressed its commitment to the sustainable management of its forests in various international fora, among them the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe. The Commission expects Russia to live up to those commitments and implement the relevant resolutions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/820

(2004/C 78 E/0873)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3505/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Information on the level of EU funding granted to Saarland between January 1997 and December 2002

1. For what measures was EU funding granted to Saarland between 1997 and 2002, and what were the sums involved from: (a) the European Social Fund; (b) the Fifth Framework Programme for Research; (c) the European Regional Development Fund; (d) EU environmental and energy programmes; (e) the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section and Guarantee Section); (f) other EU programmes?

2. How much was paid from the individual programmes and funds for cross-border projects involving Saarland and, respectively, Luxembourg, Belgium and Lorraine?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/418

(2004/C 88 E/0425)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2571/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Violations of freedom of religion in Azerbaijan

Given that:

— on 13 July 2003, at a private flat in Gyanja (Azerbaijan), police burst into the meeting of a Baptist group, alleging it to be illegal, confiscating all the group's religious publications, including Bibles and hymnbooks, and arresting two people;

— the two persons arrested, Mr Ismailov and Mr Musayev, were filmed at the police station: they were interrogated for approximately three-and-a-half hours and their identity cards were confiscated. The film was later broadcast on local television;

— Mr Ismailov was fined 65 000 manats under Article 299 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which punishes ‘violation of the regulations on the creation and functioning of religious associations’;

— Mr Musayev, who had recently returned to Azerbaijan from Russia, was fined 165 000 manats under Article 300 of the same code, which punishes ‘religious propaganda by foreigners’;

— the Gyanja Baptist church belongs to the International Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians/Baptists, which rejects the notion of official registration of religious associations in the former Soviet republics, believing that such registration leads to state interference and unacceptable restrictions on church activity;

— the authorities concede that believers have the right to ‘meet privately’, but insist that such meetings of unregistered groups are illegal even if the laws on religious observance do not make registration mandatory;

— Azerbaijan's international human rights obligations give it no authority to place restrictions on freedom of belief or association.

In view of the excellent relations of cooperation existing between the EU and Azerbaijan, can the Commission state whether it is aware of the above facts and indicate what initiatives, in the context of the cooperation relationship, could constitute an effective and workable means of inducing Azerbaijan to ensure respect for freedom of religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the arrest of Mr Ismailov and Mr Musayev.

The Commission is of the opinion that dialogue with Azerbaijan within the Partnership and Cooperation framework will provide the best mechanism for addressing the issues to which the Honourable Member refers. Therefore, it is proposed to raise the general issue of freedom of belief with the Azerbaijani authorities at the earliest opportunity.

The Commission is working actively with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions on promoting human rights in Azerbaijan.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/545

(2004/C 78 E/0576)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3428/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

On 8 July OLAF forwarded its file to the judiciary in Luxembourg. Did President Prodi or his staff contact Commissioner Solbes or his office to discuss the measures required?