ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3437/02

by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Standardisation of lingerie and underwear sizes in Europe

At present, there are at least four different systems in use in the EU for indicating lingerie and underwear sizes. Italy, France and the United Kingdom each use their own system, while the other Member States and most of the applicant countries apparently all use a standard sizing system. This disparity makes shopping difficult for consumers and hampers manufacturers wishing to export their products. Labels on products giving all four sizes are bewildering and are also very big.

With a view to the completion of the internal market, would it not be sensible to eliminate this barrier to trade by standardising sizes? If so, how would the Commission set about attaining such harmonisation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

The Commission does not at present foresee any initiative to standardise or harmonise lingerie and underwear sizes and labelling in Europe.

Although the existence of different sizing systems in itself has not been recognised as a barrier to trade, many operators in the Community clothing sector claim that a harmonised system would improve industrial competitiveness. This means that the only way forward would be to establish voluntary agreements between all interested parties (manufacturers, importers, and consumers ) and national authorities. However, the Commission is not aware of any Community-wide consensus between stakeholders and/or Member States on the matter.

The European Committee for Standardisation is currently developing work on size labelling for all kinds of garments, and on measurement methods. These standards have not been mandated by the Commission and are industry-led. Member States and industry will be free to apply these standards as and when they see fit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2618/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE)and Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: A mountains directive

The UN has declared 2002 the International Year of Mountains, and cultural and information activities are under way everywhere to draw attention to the importance of mountains, not only as an economic resource but also as a living environment for numerous species of flora and fauna. Nonetheless, mountain areas still do not receive the financial and legal opportunities and aids which they need if they are to deal with problems such as depopulation or ecological damage.

Given the importance of the matter, does the Commission not consider it desirable to introduce legislation for the financial and legal support of mountain areas, thus helping to conserve a key element of the natural heritage?

Does the Commission not consider that a directive is required on the subject of mountains and mountain areas?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

A number of Community policies, including regional policy and the common agricultural policy, already recognise the specific needs of mountain areas.

In the case of regional policy, 95 % (by extent) of mountain areas are eligible for Community aid under Objective 1 during this programming period. Community assistance includes specific measures to be build on the potential of these areas, reduce their handicaps, particularly depopulation, and ensure their sustainable development.

Community Initiatives such as Interreg III and Leader+ are further valuable instruments for these regions. Strand B of Interreg III Trans-national cooperation includes an Alpine arc covering the whole of the Alps and the territory of the Alpine Convention, i.e. Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland (with its own federal appropriations), Austria, Slovenia and Liechtenstein.

Leader+ also provides an opportunity for encouraging the implementation of innovative development strategies initiated at local level in rural mountain areas.

As in the case of Leader I and Leader II, a large number of local action groups selected under Leader+ are located in mountain areas.

The Union's rural development policy contains a broad range of measures of particular importance for these areas, including compensatory payments to those farming where land use is limited and production costs particularly high, agri-environmental programmes, forestry measures and a number of measures for the development and adjustment of rural areas.

As regards the future, the second report on economic and social cohesion adopted on 30 January 2001(1) proposed that areas with permanent geographical and/or natural handicaps, such as mountain areas, should be among those supported by the Union's regional policy after 2006. The Commission will publish specific proposals to this end in its third report on cohesion at the end of 2003.

With that in mind, it has launched a study to obtain an objective diagnosis of the situation as regards mountain areas.

(1) COM(2001) 24 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2839/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Assistance towards promoting greater liberalisation of agricultural leaseholds

Both EU public administrations and farmers themselves have pointed out that the number of farmers directly involved in working their own land is on the decrease. Thus ever-increasing numbers of farmers are leasing their land.

However many landowners fear that by leasing their land they will lose control of it, and the sector believes the issue of liberalising agricultural leaseholds merits proper discussion in order to stimulate the rural economy.

Given the current situation of farms, does the Commission agree that it is necessary to open a debate which would provide the basis for realigning national legislation on agricultural leaseholds in order to allow the leaseholder to concentrate on farming, and provide the landlord with sufficient guarantees that he can recover his land at almost any moment?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that it is vitally important for the future of agriculture, notably for the establishment of young people in the sector, that there continues to be an adequate supply of land for renting.

The terms agreed between landlords and tenants are however governed by national legal provisions that are often extremely different from one Member State to another, for reasons both historical and cultural. Further, the contractual provisions, sometimes of a derogating character, that apply to rural leases are closely linked to other bodies of law for which the Member States hold exclusive responsibility, such as inheritance and tax law, many provisions of which also exhibit fundamental differences within the Union.

Thus it would be impracticable to think of proposing a Community-level adjustment of national legislative provisions on rural leases.

The Commission will continue to bear this diversity in mind and to ensure that measures proposed at Community level can fulfil their aims without prejudice to these areas of national competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3399/02 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Appeal proceedings Nos 98/4010 and 98/4826.



Official Journal 110 E , 08/05/2003 P. 0212 - 0213



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3399/02 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission (29 November 2002) Subject: Appeal proceedings Nos 98/4010 and 98/4826 Further to the answer to my Written Question E-2470/02(1), can the Commission confirm whether, as stated in its answer, appeal proceedings Nos 98/4010 and 98/4826 have now been concluded and give details of the outcome? (1) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 176. Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (23 December 2002) Complaints Nos 98/4010 and 98/4826 were closed on 16 October 2002. The information provided by the complainants was insufficient in demonstrating the disproportionate nature of the Austrian regulation. The complainants indicated their intention to provide a scientific study. No such study was received. Given the length of the procedure, the Commission decided to close the case. If a scientific study is provided at a later stage, a new case can be opened then.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3202/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Aid for exports of Community products to the Swiss Confederation, the Principality of Andorra, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Principality of Monte Carlo, the Republic of San Maríno and Vatican City State

Does the Commission keep statistics on aid for exports of Community products to the Swiss Confederation, the Principality of Andorra, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Principality of Monte Carlo, the Republic of San Maríno and Vatican City State?

If it does, for each importing country, can it supply a list of products covering the past five years and showing the quantities imported, the amounts of aid provided and the names of the exporting countries?

Supplementary Answergiven by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/02

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Charges on European roads

Germany has recently reached an agreement on introducing a motorway tax as from 31 July 2003. Austria has also decided to introduce a similar charge as from 1 January 2003. At the same time many other EU Member States are considering similar initiatives.

While this obviously presents opportunities for promoting a modal shift, e.g. towards the railways, the above-mentioned decisions will hit some Member States' haulage firms harder than others.

Can the Council, therefore, explain how these schemes are compatible with the rules of the internal market, and how they can be justified in view of their competition-distorting nature?

In addition, what initiatives are being considered with a view to the introduction of a uniform European system of road charges, fuel taxes and eco-points?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The Council underlines that matters of national taxation fall within the competence of the Member States. Such taxation should at all times respect the fundamental principle of non-discrimination, it is for the Commission to check the compatibility of such measures with the general rules of the internal market.

As to the substance of the question regarding a uniform European system of road charges, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that the Commission:

- plans to present by the end of this year its Communication on a charging system for the use of infrastructure for all modes of transport;

- in its White Paper European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide, announces a proposal for a Directive designed to guarantee the interoperability of toll systems on the trans-European road network;

- with regard to taxation, presented, on 27 August, a proposal for a Council Directive(1) defining the conditions for implementing special tax arrangements for diesel fuel used for commercial purposes. This matter is under examination within the Council's preparatory bodies.

(1) COM(2002) 410 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1836/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: A Cohesion Fund for Latin America

It is generally agreed by political observers that the economic crisis in Latin America is undermining democracy, despite the democratic consolidation over the last fifteen years in such countries as Paraguay, Ecuador and Peru.

Following the excellent results obtained by certain initiatives, such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), it is now necessary to consider further initiatives. These could include the creation of a Cohesion Fund for Latin America, whose purpose would be to further the development of the least-favoured regions, in the hope of repeating the success of its EU counterpart.

Does the Commission consider that it should examine the possibility of creating such a Cohesion Fund, as a regional development instrument for Latin America, with the objective of supporting the least-favoured Latin American regions in their efforts to achieve a level of development which will contribute to consolidating democracy in Latin America?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2002)

The economic development of the less favoured countries and regions of Latin America is one of the priorities of the cooperation pursued by the Community in Latin America. 50 % of the EUR 3,4 billion allocated to cooperation with Latin America between 1993 and 2000 were devoted to social and human development and poverty reduction.

The creation of a cohesion fund for regional development in Latin America as well as the creation of a bi-regional solidarity fund proposed by the Parliament in its resolution on a global partnership and a common strategy for relations between the Union and Latin America, are interesting initiatives. Especially since poverty and social inequalities are two of the most striking problems in some Latin American countries.

However, the Commission is not in a position to create or run such funds. Neither does the Commission have the human resources nor the appropriate and flexible rules to manage or coordinate such funds.

The creation of these funds would require important financial resources. The Commission does not dispose of the financial resources necessary to create those funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2999/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

The Commission's CFP reform proposal's elimination of fleet renewal subsidies, given the high average age of the vessels, is a time bomb since the fleet will, as it ages, become less efficient, less profitable and less safe.

The proposal contradicts itself, allowing subsidies for modernising the fleet if these are limited to on-board safety, but not for improvements to hulls or the interior of the vessels. Why? Is the Commission not aware that improving hulls and vessel interiors plays an important role in reducing the risk of accidents?

Does the Commission not believe that its CFP reform proposal, which eliminates existing structural aid for fleet renewal in general, runs counter to the EP's position as stated in paragraph 4 and 6 of its resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1)?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The Commission is concerned about safety, working and living conditions. This is why in the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform the Commission has proposed to keep the financial aid for measures on these aspects, provided they do not concern tonnage or power. Under those conditions, any part of a vessel could be modified, with public aid support.

For modernisation of existing vessels, the Commission is ready to consider the possibility of agreeing upon some increase in tonnage for safety-related modernisation. However, this will be subject to strict conditions. Neither modifications affecting the hull nor increasing the volume under the main deck would be eligible for funding, as these directly contribute to an increase in fishing capacity. However, such modifications should not lead to an increase in power.

Regarding points 4 and 6 of the Parliamentary Resolution, the Commission recognises the need for a renewal of the fleet, but thinks that this objective has to be compatible with that of reducing excess capacity and adjusting the size of the fleet to the available resources. This is why, in the framework of the CFP reform the Commission has proposed to maintain the financial support for the scrapping. The Commission believes these measures will have a positive impact on the average age of the fleet, as older and less efficient vessels would be scrapped first.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/02

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Floods in Salento European Union intervention

The Commission recently proposed to the Community budgetary authorities that a Solidarity Fund of EUR 1 billion be set up to assist populations in the Union hit by natural disasters; the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have initially welcomed the Commission's decision.

The recent floods in Puglia, and in the Salento area in particular, have destroyed most of this year's harvest with obvious serious economic repercussions throughout the area. In view of the severity of the floods, they can be regarded as a major natural disaster.

Consequently, can the Commission include the Salento area in the areas eligible for exceptional aid provided by the future Solidarity Fund for natural disasters?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2002)

The condition for the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to be mobilised is the presence of a major disaster defined as causing damage of at least EUR 3 billion or 0,6 % of the gross national income of the affected Member State. In exceptional circumstances the Fund may also be mobilised for extraordinary disasters affecting the major part of a region's population with serious and lasting effects on living conditions and the economic stability.

The Commission does not possess an estimation on the nature and scale of the damages in Puglia. In accordance with the regulation governing the EUSF, it is for the national authorities to submit an application to the Commission for assistance from the Fund. Article 4 sets out the information required and establishes the deadline of 10 weeks from the initial damage for its transmission to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3169/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(6 November 2002)

Subject: CAP dairy payments

Under the Common Agricultural Policy dairy (milk and milk products) regime, what overall annual level of payments has been made to dairy processing and exporting companies in the EU over the last ten years? What is the breakdown of these payments by type of subsidy, by company, by product and by EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2002)

As the Honourable Member can see from the tables that have been sent direct to her and to Parliament's Secretariat, budget expenditure on milk in the last decade has fallen remarkably. The same is true for all the budget subheadings. So, while the budget for milk in 1991 accounted for 17,6 % of the total EAGGF budget, by 2001 it represented only 6 %, a fall in expenditure of EUR 3 billion.

The Commission does not have any information on the breakdown of aid by company as requested in the second part of the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3536/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: STAR 21 Review

How does the Commission intend to implement the recommendations made in its Strategic Aerospace Review (STAR 21)?

What effects will these recommendations have on the production and sale of weaponry for military use, in the Commission's view?

How does the Commission propose to ensure that promotion of the European aerospace industry does not lead to an increase in the flow of weapons and related equipment out of factories and into areas of conflict?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3536/02 and E-3537/02given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The members of the Advisory Group on Aerospace which presented its findings (STAR 21 report) to the President of the Commission on 16 July 2002, contributed in a personal capacity. Accordingly, the report represents the collective views of the Advisory Group's members. The Commission has, nevertheless, welcomed the report as a key contribution to identifying the framework needed to ensure the competitiveness of Europe's aerospace industry. The Commission is currently considering its position on the STAR 21 report and will present its views in a communication in the course of the coming year. In the meantime, the Commission welcomes and encourages comments on the Report from all interested parties.

Referring to specific issues raised by the Honourable Member, as regards the distinction between civil and military equipment the Commission notes that the Advisory Group, in highlighting a number of key characteristics of the aerospace industry, draws attention to the complementary nature of civil and defence products, noting that they share many of the same skills and technologies, yet meet the needs of two very different markets, both economically important.

As far as the defence sector itself is concerned, the Advisory Group's recommendations are made against the background of the efforts required to meet objectives already identified at Union level, for example in the conclusions of the 1999 Helsinki European Council setting a common European Headline Goal. The other recommendations in this area focus on the need to optimise expenditure and create an internal market in defence equipment while stressing that the overall level of ambition must necessarily be determined at the highest political level.

The production and trade of armaments are subject to government authorisation. The possible flow of weapons into areas of conflict is already covered by the Union code of conduct on arms exports adopted by the Council in June 1998. The STAR 21 report makes no recommendations on this aspect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2908/02

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Progress of infringement proceedings No 93/2212

With reference to the reasoned opinion (Article 226) on the failure to designate sufficient special protection areas under Directive 79/409/EC(1).

Will the Commission say what progress has been made in the above proceedings?

Has it received any reply from the city of Madrid authorities on this matter?

What specific measures will it take to resolve this matter and ensure that Community law is observed?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Following the Commission's own-initiative institution of infringement proceedings and the sending of a reasoned opinion to the Spanish authorities, the various autonomous communities have made a considerable effort over the last two years to designate special protection areas for birds.

Examination of the designations notified to the Commission shows that a number of autonomous communities have already complied with the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, others are close to complying and another group still has a good deal of designation work to do.

The Madrid Community has already designated seven new special protection areas, with the result that 23 % of its territory now has special protection area designation.

The Commission will decide during this month what further action to take in these proceedings.