WRITTEN QUESTION E-2238/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. Article 10 of the EC Treaty and Ireland.
Date: 2003-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European treaties, Ireland, bird, coastal region, exchange of information, national implementing measure, protection of animal life, waste management

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/81

Although the Paris authorities had by then already opened proceedings, the Commission called on OLAF,
in press releases of 19 and 21 May 2003, to continue with its investigations and take statements from the
two officials.

Has the Commission satisfied itself that such parallel investigations will not obstruct or compromise the
work of the French judicial authorities?

Was the agreement of the French judicial authorities obtained for continuing with the OLAF investigations
in this matter?

How does the Commission respond to the objection that continuing the OLAF investigations in this case,
after proceedings had been brought by the Paris Public Prosecutor, served no purpose, because the
necessary objectivity no longer applied and the impression could be created that the intention was simply
to collect additional proof for accusations that had already been referred to the judicial authorities?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

The Datashops file is in two parts: an external part concerning the activities of Planistat Europe SA and an
internal part concerning Community officials.

The Commission has been informed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) that the charges filed with
the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office on 19 March 2003 concerned the external part of the file.

Since the internal part of the file was not referred to the French judicial authorities, OLAF was not required
to seek the latter’s agreement for continuing its internal investigation.

(2004/C 70 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2238/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Article 10 of the EC Treaty and Ireland

In the answer to my question E-1491/03 (1) regarding the number of letters of formal notice and reasoned
opinions sent by the Commission to the Irish Government over its failure to respond to Commission
queries on environmental complaints (i.e. non-respect of Article 10 of the EC Treaty) in the period since
1 May 1999, the Commission replied that two letters of formal notice were sent on 15 May 2003 against
Ireland under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

In this answer, why did the Commission not refer to the letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions as
referred to in IP/00/1219 and IP/00/741 which highlighted the Commission’s concern about the lack of
cooperation from the Irish Government with regard to the application of the Waste Framework Directive
(Dir 75/442/EEC (2)) at Poolbeg in Dublin, Kilbarry and Tramore in Waterford, Lea and Ballymorris in
Laois, and Drumnaboden, Muckish and Glenall in Donegal, and the application of the Wild Birds Directive
(Dir 79/409/EEC (3)) in Dublin Bay?

Could the Commission provide a definitive list of all its queries to the Irish Government that have given
rise to the letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions to Ireland for non-respect of Article 10 of the
EC Treaty since 1 May 1999 similar to those referred to in the above two press releases and also set out
the current situation with regard to each of these queries?

(1) See page 47.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

C 70 E/82

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2004/C 70 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2289/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: Wage and pension levels in Greece

There have been particularly vehement protests in Greece about the relatively high rate of price increases
in Greece compared to the rest of the EU, in conjunction with the low level of wages and, particularly, of
most pensions. According to recent Greek press reports, Athens has been ranked 71st worldwide as
regards the cost of living, moving up from 111th place in the same survey announced in 2002 (covering
2001). Public opinion surveys in Greece show that citizens believe that the establishment of the euro (and
the rounding upwards of prices that followed) together with inadequate market inspections are responsible
for the rise in inflation.

Will the Commission provide detailed comparative data concerning the level of basic wages and the
minimum pensions and the cost of living in the 15 Member States of the European Union? What impact
does it believe the increase in the prices in all the eurozone countries and the fact that psychological
acceptance of the euro is diminishing are having on the image of the single European currency? Has it
recommended specific measures to keep prices down in the eurozone countries?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The source of the particular cost of living comparison the Honourable Member referred to in his question
is not clear and hence the Commission cannot comment on it. Many such comparisons are produced by
various institutions, for various purposes and often reported in the press. They differ with respect to the
statistical methods used and in particular the targeted population groups, the baskets of goods and services
covered and the internal weightings applied to these baskets.

Concerning the question of the supply of comparative data on the level of minimum wages, minimum
pensions and measures of the cost of living, the Commission would like to pont out that such information
is already publicly provided by its services. For data on minimum wages and cost of living comparisons the
source is Eurostat (see for example Eurostat’s Statistics in Focus Theme 3: 10/2003 and Theme 2: 56/2002),
while data on minimum pensions were compiled in table 1 of the Joint Report by the Commission and the
Council on Adequate and Sustainable Pensions adopted on 6/7 March 2003 by the Employment and Social
Affairs and Ecofin Councils (document number 6527/2/03 rev.2). The table is based on the Mutual
Information System on Social Protection in the Member States (MISSOC) and the Directorate-General for
Employment and Social Affairs (EEA), and contributions from the Member States.

As regards inflation in consumer prices, the annual average rate of change in the euro area for 2002 over
2001 was 2,3 %, the same as in 2001, as measured by the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP).
In its latest study on the impact of the changeover to the euro, Eurostat estimated that the contribution of
the euro changeover to the 2,3 % total most likely fell within the range of 0,12 % to 0,29 % percentage
points in the euro area as a whole (see the Annex to Eurostat News Release No 69/2003, 18 June 2003).
This analysis confirmed that, although consumers experienced significant price increases for some types of
goods and services, the changeover effect could not be seen as one of the main factors driving inflation in
2002. It is possible, however, that such significant price increases in some sectors (mostly small services
and some frequently bought items) may help to explain the perception of higher than actual inflation in