ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/321

(2004/C 78 E/0330)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3794/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Fisheries certification

Has the Commission any plans to establish a transparent and comparable method of determining which EU fisheries are being managed in a sustainable manner; for example, along similar lines to the certification scheme established by the Maríne Stewardship Council?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

The consolidation of last year's reform of the Common Fisheries Policy will make it necessary to properly address the issue of eco-labelling at this juncture. To this end, the Commission intends to present in the first half of 2004 the Council and the Parliament with a communication, the purpose of which should be to consider available options and, thus, to launch an in-depth debate with all interested parties.

It is worth recalling that this topic has given rise to much controversy in international fora. Mainly developing States have taken a very reserved stance on this. In these circumstances, the Commission will draw upon both the experience gathered with existing certification schemes as well as ongoing conceptual work within the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).

A Community initiative should have the potential for bridging gaps and it should be capable of counteracting an increasing number of biased or poorly controlled private labelling programmes. Ecolabelling schemes should be accessible to all operators on a non-discriminatory basis, be adapted to the needs of small and medium-size enterprises in terms of the costs involved and be fully consistent with relevant World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/643

(2004/C 88 E/0660)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3357/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Affront to the church of Ayia Sofia in Istanbul

The church of Ayia Sofia in Istanbul (which forms part of the world cultural heritage and stands as the ultimate symbol of Christianity, regardless of creed) is yet again the target of the Turkish authorities' destructive and invidious policies. In the last few days, the international press has reported that an utterly tasteless, plastic ‘greenhouse’ has been set up inside the church(!) exhibiting ‘works of art’ made of … lettuce(!) by some Asiatic artist or other. This entire ‘creation’ is set off by the addition of television monitors placed at various points within the church which broadcast Muslim religious services at high volume. The contempt shown by the Turkish authorities towards a church whose history goes back several centuries and which stands as the symbol of a great Christian empire, the Byzantine, which flourished for more than 1000 years, is yet another indication of how Turkey (a candidate for accession to the EU) interprets respect for the symbols of other religions.

What action can the Commission take as a matter of urgency to place this symbolic Christian church under the protection of a European organisation (with the possible participation of the Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture) to guard it against the kind of desecration and damage described above?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

In its reply to written questions E-2962/03 by Mr Alavanos (1) and E-2995/03 by Ms Kratsa-Tsagaropouiou (2), the Commission has commented on concerns similar to those expressed by the Honourable Member. The Commission monitors the progress achieved by Turkey in adopting the relevant ‘acquis’ in the area of culture, as part of Turkey's preparations for membership. Safeguarding the national heritage is not part of Community competence.

As regards any possible action, the Community's financial assistance programme for Turkey does not allow to provide support for conserving and restoring religious or cultural works, such as those stored in the Hagia Sofia.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 771.

(2) See page 125.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/499

(2004/C 78 E/0520)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3237/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Access to Internet for Greek households

Despite the rapid expansion of Internet, relatively few Greek households are linked up to it or have access to it.

What information does the Commission have regarding access or potential access to Internet for Greek households? What is the position of Greece, compared with other Member States regarding Internet access calculated in percentage terms?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Almost all Greek households have the technical infrastructure for internet access. According to the information available to the Commission, 99 % of households have a fixed telephone connection.

However, the number of households linked up to the internet is still fairly low. Greece ranks lowest in the Community (15 Member States) with a figure for households of around 12 % (end 2002), while the Community average is 43 %.

Regarding the total on-line population (households and others), the figure for Greece is around 32 %, the lowest in the Community, along with Portugal (35 %) and France (37 %), the average being 52 %.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/774

(2004/C 78 E/0824)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3066/03

by Alain Esclopé (EDD) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Breaking-up of decommissioned US warships

The United States has decided to have hundreds of decommissioned US Navy warships, which are riddled with asbestos and contaminated with fuel oil, broken up in a port on the east coast of England. The towing of the ships to that port is exposing neighbouring national and international waters to serious environmental risks.

The logical course of action would have been for the ships to be broken up on US territory, rather than thousands of kilometres from their home port.

Pressure from US ecologists, combined with the financial incentives on offer, prompted the Americans to pass on the task of dealing with this ecological hazard to European countries which have already been badly affected by similar problems in recent years.

Against a background of world, and, more particularly, European, efforts to foster sustainable development, is it not strange that such practices should go unremarked?

It should be borne in mind that the Americans have adopted maritime legislation which authorises them to use military force to exclude vessels which pose an environmental risk from their territorial waters.

This story has demonstrated once again how easily safety issues are outweighed by financial considerations.

Does the Commission intend to take unilateral steps to remind the United States of its responsibilities, rather than simply allowing the countries concerned to act on their own account?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Following a complaint received on this matter, the Commission is currently investigating whether Community legislation has been complied with. The Commission has received information that suggests that the ships may leak oil, PCB and asbestos and that there may be some uncertainty that the recycling facility in the United Kingdom is ready to receive the ships and recycle them in an environmentally sound manner.

Further, the commitment made in Johannesburg to protect our vulnerable marine environment and the experience learned from the ‘Erika’, ‘Prestige’ and ‘Tricolor’ disasters should lead us to a precautionary approach.

The Commission has therefore expressed its concerns to the administrations of both the United Kingdom and the United States.

On 20 October 2003, the Member of the Commission responsible for the Environment made a declaration in the Parliament on this issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/729

(2004/C 84 E/0820)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Re-opening of Greek secondary school at Rizokarpasso

The Greek secondary school at Rizokarpasso has been closed since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Since that time, children of families living in the enclave who finish their primary education in the area and wish to go on to secondary school are forced to move to the non-occupied areas of the island. The outcome of this situation is that families are moving from their homes and the Greek population of the area is dwindling.

1. What steps will the Commission take to bring about the re-opening of the secondary school at Rizokarpasso given the fresh measures recently announced to bring Turkish Cypriots closer to the EU and the rapprochement between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities?

2. How can the Commission contribute towards securing the rights to education of the children of the enclave, which the Turkish Cypriot side guaranteed when it signed the Vienna III Agreement?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1983/03 and E-2033/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

In general, responsibilities in the field of education policies remain with the Member States. The competencies of the Community are limited.

Concerning the re-opening of the secondary school in Rizokarpaso, the Commission has taken note of the remarks of both of the Honourable Members.

Regarding the Commission's contribution towards securing the right to education of the children of Rizokarpaso, the Commission would like to refer to its Communication on promoting economic development of the northern part of Cyprus and bringing it closer to the Union (1). The Commission is proposing various measures bringing the northern part closer to the Union, ‘inter alia’, encouraging the participation in community programmes such as the Comenius programme for schools. The Commission is working on finding ways to implement these measures in consultation with the Government of Cyprus.

(1) COM(2003) 325 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/48

(2004/C 78 E/0046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Sausage meat

Is the Commission satisfied that the use of pork cheek or jowl in sausage meat is still consistent with healthy eating, particularly for children and old people, given the possible build-up of drug residues and disease in the pituitary glands?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Definitions of ‘meat’ and ‘fresh meat’ are set down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat (1). The terms mean that all parts of domestic swine which are suitable for human consumption and which have not undergone any treatment other than cold treatment to ensure preservation may be considered as fresh meat. The Directive prescribes ante mortem and post mortem health inspections and lists the meats that the official veterinarian declares unfit for human consumption. The use of hygienically produced pork cheek or jowl meat, in accordance with the requirements of the Directive, as raw material for the production of sausage meat is thus acceptable in principle. The term ‘sausage meat’, as such, is not defined in Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 laying down the requirements for the production and placing on the market of minced meat and meat preparations (2). Sausage meat must be produced in accordance with the requirements in that Directive for meat preparations.

The pituitary gland or hypophysis, being located at the base of the brain in the cranial cavity, is not harvested when cheek meat is removed.

In addition, Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (3) provides for a statistically significant surveillance in food producing animals. It also requires that Member States take measures to protect the consumers where prohibited substances or residues above the permitted limits have been found. The Commission reports on these actions on a yearly basis.

(1) OJ Ρ 121, 29.7.1964.

(2) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

(3) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/274

(2004/C 78 E/0275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3378/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: European financial assistance to European contact points

On 29 September 2003, the Commission's Directorate-General for Press and Communication informed the host institutions of the Info-Points Europe and the Carrefours throughout the European Union of the decision that, as from 1 January 2004, operating subsidies to these regional European information centres would cease. In practice this means that each centre will lose some EUR 20 000 per annum in subsidy.

The importance of these European information centres would be hard to overestimate, and in the present political context it would even be fair to describe them as essential. The forthcoming historic enlargement of the EU and the June 2004 European elections are just two of the many European developments about which the public need to be informed in their own region. If the Commission wishes to encourage public involvement in European affairs, it should also ensure that the requisite information is made available.

Without the European financial support on which they depend, the European contact points cannot possibly survive, and this will mean that the gulf between the European institutions and the citizens of the EU will grow yet further.

1. What are the grounds for the unexpected and ill-considered decision by DG Press and Communication to cut the operating subsidy to the European contact points?

2. Will the Commission revoke the decision by DG Press and Communication and investigate how extra European funding can be provided for the Info-Points and Carrefours, in view of their great importance to the public in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3007/03 by Mr Santini (1)

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 191.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/144

(2004/C 88 E/0153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3435/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject: Act of provocation by Bulgaria towards a Member State

Articles in the Greek press report that a postage stamp is in circulation in Bulgaria which shows part of Mount Athos (specifically the Zografos Monastery) as a part of Bulgarian territory. Despite protests from the Greek authorities, the Bulgarians refuse to withdraw the stamp on the grounds that it was issued in June 2001, under the Kostov government, and that to halt its circulation could provoke reactions from the opposition.

Is such provocative conduct by Bulgaria consistent with that befitting a country applying for accession to the EU? Will the Commission take action, and in what way, to prevent the circulation of the stamp concerned and make the Bulgarians realise that progress towards EU accession is not compatible with such conduct?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

According to information available to the Commission, the postage stamps referred to by the Honourable Member show the Zografos Monastery, a monastery in Greece with a Bulgarian speaking order.

However, the Union has no competence in matters relating to postage stamps. The Commission is, therefore, not in a position to take measures to prevent the circulation of the stamp concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/629

(2004/C 88 E/0647)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2910/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Difficulties at the German-Polish border

On Friday, 19 September the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) travelled to the Spree Forest town of Burg, Germany, for the rotating meeting of the Executive Committee, where I was informed of the following problem.

For reasons of cost, and in anticipation of Poland's entry into the EU, the customs administration announced the termination of the lease for the pre-border waiting area on the site of the former Preschen air base (Spree-Neisse administrative district) on the A15 at the border crossing point Forst-Olszyna with effect from 1 October 2003. Under its current management, the waiting area provides parking spaces for 700 lorries, with extra room for ADR and abnormal loads, empty vehicles and container carriages, and also sanitary facilities and sleeping places for drivers, enabling them to observe the rest requirements. The hours of waiting are made more bearable by the availability of proper waste disposal facilities, a canteen and snacks.

If no agreement is reached by 1 October 2003 and the termination of the lease is finalised, this will inevitably lead to mile-long truck tailbacks on the motorway with all the familiar consequences.

Alongside the continuing problems at the border crossing point Guben-Schlagsdorf, where lorries queue as far back as the town of Guben on an almost daily basis, the closure of the pre-border waiting area at Preschen would certainly result in traffic chaos.

As an MEP and President of the AEBR, I would like to know whether the Commission intends to take new measures to prevent this problem at the German-Polish border.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member concerning the possible future problem at the German-Polish border at the border crossing point Forst-Olszyna. However, as far as the facilities available for customs controls are concerned, on the basis of the available information, it is not clear to what extent these are directly affected by the expiry of the lease in question. Moreover, the administrative and organisational aspects of the customs services do not fall within the Commission's competence and are fully within the national competence of the Member States. Consequently, even if the Member States have to respect certain Community principles, the provision of such facilities and infrastructure is purely a matter of national competence. Finally, the Commission has no power to intervene with regard to local contractual arrangements on which such facilities may depend.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/604

(2004/C 88 E/0622)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0985/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pesaro

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/279

(2004/C 78 E/0280)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3397/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Dental instruments and risk of infections

Numerous studies carried out in Italy and worldwide have shown that infections, including those of a severe nature, can be caused by dental instruments. The water and air tubes often go unchanged for years: a biofilm forms inside them which creates a favourable breeding-ground for bacterial and viral colonies. The tubes which hold an aspirator a few centimetres away from an open cavity are infected throughout with incrustations left by saliva, blood, plaque, filings and remains of metal, and this can go on for days, months or years. There are 170 million hepatitis C sufferers worldwide, and it now has to be admitted that some of these have been infected in the course of dental treatment.

In the light of EU Directive 93/42/EEC (1), which concerns biological risks from electromedical instruments and is based on statistical studies:

1. Is the Commission aware of these risks?

2. Is the Commission in possession of studies concerning the incorporation of Directive 93/42/EEC and the results obtained in the Member States?

3. Does the Commission not consider it desirable to urge the health ministries in the Member States to ensure that this directive is applied in full?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission is aware of risks of contamination associated with the use of medical devices. In this respect, a distinction must be made between medical devices themselves and the use which is made of devices.

Medical devices Directives, in particular Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993, define the essential requirements devices have to meet in terms of quality, safety and performance to be put on the market and into service. The devices in question are assessed by a third party, the ‘Notified Body’, and only those that meet the state of the art requirements are CE marked and available for health care purposes. An essential element of the Directives concerns the instructions for use, in particular re-sterilisation and replacement.

The question to know to what extent health care providers properly implement instructions for use when using medical devices, is a different one, that falls with national health policies based in Article 152 of the EC Treaty. According to this Article, the Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

The Commission would welcome every initiative that, at national level, Member States may implement to increase the degree of safety and health protection of patients.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.
4.

In the TABD process it is up to business to identify the issues on which they wish to give recommendations to the governments. The Commission considers the TABD as an important interlocutor in transatlantic economic relations. The implementation of the recommendations of the TABD is considered based on their own merit and in respect of the acquis and the competencies of the Commission. As a general rule the Commission gives positive consideration to all efforts to dismantle barriers to transatlantic trade and to reduce transaction costs for doing business. In doing so, it takes into account also other policy considerations, and in particular those related to the common commercial policy and the competitiveness of the European enterprises.