ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2041/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Subject: State aid preferential treatment of Community airline

In a recent meeting, the Commission decided to approve aid of EUR 1,4 billion to Alitalia and to conclude proceedings in respect of previous aid to the same airline of EUR 129 million.

This decision met with negative comments in the European press which described it as biased in favour of Alitalia compared with the uncompromising position adopted by the Commission when examining similar cases of state aid in relation to other European airlines.

With this decision, is the Commission introducing a new, more flexible strategy towards state aid?

In what spirit will it approach the investigation being conducted into possible state aid to Olympic Airways, the sum involved being EUR 19,5 million, i.e. 75 times lower than the corresponding figure for Alitalia?

Is the Commission prepared to support a restructuring programme to improve the competitiveness of Olympic Airways in a public sector context, if the Greek Government makes such a request, which is possibly the most realistic scenario for saving OA in view of the situation on the international air transport market?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

On 19 June 2002, the Commission gave the go-ahead for two financial measures concerning the Italian airline Alitalia. It authorised the transfer of the third tranche of EUR 129 million of restructuring aid approved in 1997 as compatible with the EC Treaty, and decided that the capital increase of up to EUR 1,4 billion to be put to the company's shareholders did not constitute State aid.

As regards transferring the third tranche, the Commission found that the company had honoured its economic and market conduct undertakings of 1998. Though the transfer had been deferred, the Commission was satisfied that the company had largely kept its promises in the interim.

As regards the plan to increase capital submitted in April 2002, also referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the State participation entirely satisfies the criterion of an investor in a market economy. The operation is intended for the public and private shareholders and for the private sector at the same time, and will make a significant contribution (38 %).

The Commission's green light for Alitalia aid therefore stems from detailed study of the airline's situation and does not call into question the Commission's policy on State aid for restructuring airline companies based on the one time, last time one-off payment principle.

Accordingly, in making its final decision after the investigation it launched on 6 March 2002 into whether State aid was given to the Greek airline Olympic Airways, the Commission will weigh up the case on its own merits in accordance with the EC Treaty, favouring as always the measures least likely to distort competition between airlines, and applying if necessary the market economy investor criterion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1184/02

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Persecution of Christians in China, Indonesia, Laos, Vietnam and Burma

It would appear that in spite of earlier assurances given by the respective governments religious persecution and human rights violations continue to occur.

Would the Council indicate what representations have been made to the respective governments and what meaningful assurances have been received regarding protection of the religious freedoms of Christians in China, Indonesia, Laos, Vietnam and Burma?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Council, in its global approach to human rights, supports promotion of respect for the freedom of religion and belief, whatever the faith of those concerned. It has raised particular concerns regarding respect for this freedom with the Governments of China and Vietnam. In the case of China, these concerns have not been restricted to the rights of Christians, but have extended to other religious groups including Muslims and Buddhists. The Governments concerned have, in each case, responded that they do indeed respect this fundamental freedom. The Council would assure the Honourable Member that it will continue to monitor respect for this and other fundamental freedoms in these countries and elsewhere, whenever and wherever exercise of those freedoms may be put at risk.

The Council would like to bring to the attention of the Honourable Member that on 11 March the European Union issued a declaration welcoming the peace agreement signed on 12 February for the Indonesian province of the Moluccas, as an important step forward in the reconciliation of the Muslim and Christian communities. In the declaration the European Union urged the government of Indonesia to take the necessary measures against intruders seeking to disrupt the ongoing peace process in the province.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1932/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Eastern section of the A73 south motorway

In its reply to my question concerning the construction of the A73 south motorway in the Netherlands (E-2244/01 of 26 July 2001(1)), the Commission states that it is currently investigating the complaint that the proposed construction of the A73 motorway on the East bank of the river Maas between Venlo and Maasbracht is incompatible with the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC(2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).

The Commission also states in its reply that it will ask the Dutch Government to give a formal reply to a series of questions regarding the likely effects of the A73 south project on the state of conservation of the species and habitats listed in the Community nature protection directives (directives on the conservation of wild birds and habitats) and provide details of compensation measures envisaged.

What is the present situation with regard to the request for a formal reply from the Dutch Government?

What is the Dutch Government's formal reply?

In the light of that reply, are further measures called for in relation to the Netherlands, and if so, what?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 137.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The Commission is investigating several complaints regarding the compatibility of the proposed A73 motorway on the East bank of the river Meuse between Roermond and Venlo and the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), and the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2).

The Commission is in contact with the Dutch Government on this case. In particular, the Commission is preparing a letter putting questions to the Dutch government as regards the likely effects of the A73 project on the state of conservation of the species and habitats listed in the two Community Nature Protection Directives referred to above and the details of the application of the safeguards foreseen by these Directives.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0698/02

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2002)

Subject: Exchange of sexual favours for humanitarian aid

The international press has reported that officials from non-governmental organisations involved in the distribution and management of humanitarian aid on behalf of the United Nations have been accused of sexually harassing refugees.

This information derives from enquiries carried out by the United Nations during operations to monitor aid activities in crisis zones.

The practice apparently involves giving food, medicines, and other aid in exchange for sexual favours from young women (in many cases under age).

This violent and contemptuous behaviour is exacerbated by the fact that no precautions are apparently taken, thereby encouraging the spread of AIDS, which is already at alarming levels in these regions.

Furthermore, it would seem that incidents of this kind have occurred in Liberia, Ivory Coast and East Timor, suggesting that this is by now an established practice.

Bearing in mind that United Nations humanitarian aid programmes are co-funded by the EU, what measures will the Commission take to shed light on these regrettable incidents, whose perpetrators, instead of bringing aid to populations in crisis, are humiliating and exploiting the very people they should be helping?

If these reports are found to be true, what will the Commission do to punish the guilty parties and ensure that incidents of this kind do not recur?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-0687/02 by Mrs Sanders-Ten Holte(1).

(1) See page 43.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Food allergies and restaurant ingredients

Would the Commission consider taking steps to ensure that, in an attempt to alleviate the problems faced by food allergy sufferers, restaurants and other eating places are bound by a legal responsibility to declare ingredients used in their dishes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000(1) names the particulars which must be indicated on the labelling of pre-packaged foodstuffs and provides, inter alia, for the indication of a list of ingredients.

A proposal amending Directive 2000/13/EC(2) is currently under discussion within the Parliament and the Council. The Parliament completed its first reading in June 2002. This proposal aims to establish more detailed labelling requirements in terms of ingredients, in order to take account of the problem of food allergies and intolerances.

As set out in Article 1, Directive 2000/13/CE concerns the labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer; however, it does not apply to meals served in restaurants, which are not foodstuffs delivered as such to the ultimate consumer.

Nevertheless, to the extent that the Directive also applies to foodstuffs which are delivered to restaurants and used in the preparation of meals, restaurateurs are already in a position to provide the information requested of them with regard to the ingredients of these foodstuffs.

(1) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2) COM(2001) 433 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1331/02

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Council

(8 May 2002)

Subject: Fish exports to Poland

The fishing industry in the UK, and in particular in the Shetland Islands, is currently being denied a level of access to the Polish market for their fish products equal to that of their Norwegian counterparts. Import tariffs on imports of British fish remain in place, while Norway receives favourable access under a bilateral agreement with Poland.

On behalf of the Community, the Commission recently approved an additional protocol to the EU/Poland Europe Agreement phasing out import tariffs on fish products. Will the Council outline the agreed measures and confirm the date on which they will definitively enter into force?

Reply

(11 November 2002)

The Honourable Member is referring to the Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement with Poland, which, on 17 December 2001, the Council decided to conclude acting on a proposal from the Commission, further to negotiations which the latter had conducted with Poland (and with the other associated countries) with a view to the liberalisation of trade in fish and fishery products. As a result of this Agreement, the duties applied by both Parties to the Agreement for imports of these products shall be reduced by a third when the Protocol enters into force, and by a further third one year later, to attain full liberalisation two years after the entry into force of the Protocol (or earlier if commonly agreed).

The Protocol was signed with Poland on 14 June 2002, and on 18 June 2002 the Parties notified each other of the completion of their respective internal procedures. Consequently, pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, the date of entry into force is 1 July 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0727/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: Buying cigarettes with memory-chip cards

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany's Federal Drugs Commissioner has spoken in favour of preventing under-16s from buying cigarettes from cigarette machines. Machines would need to be adapted so that they only accepted debit cards. The person's age would be stored in the debit card's chip.

What action is the Commission taking to protect young people against soft drugs (tobacco), which can lead to dependency and thus cause serious damage to health?

Would it be possible to extend such an approach protecting young people from having easy access to cigarettes to the whole of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

From a public health point of view, it would be desirable if there were some impediment to access to tobacco products for children and young people. However the establishment of a minimum age for the purchase of tobacco products, the control of the adherence to such an age limit, as well as the general regulation of the sale of tobacco products, do not come within the competence of the Commission, but that of the Member States.

In view of the importance of this subject the Commission intends, within the coming months, to put forward a proposal for a Council Recommendation for the prevention of smoking and for initiatives for a more targeted campaign against tobacco consumption and targeting youth in particular. In this proposal the Commission intends to include recommendations to the Member States on access to cigarette vending machines.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that its proposal for a Directive on tobacco product advertising and sponsorship(1) which has been before Parliament since the middle of last year and Directive 2001/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products(2) favour the protection of children and young people.

(1) COM(2001) 283 final.

(2) OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2138/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Jamaica

With reference to Jamaica, will the Commission say which projects were financed in 2000 under the EU budget?

Will the Commision specify the total amount of aid allocated during 2000 to all the initiatives relating to Jamaica?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1099/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Tax rebate and judgment of the Court of Justice in case C-249/00

Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 August 2001 in case C-249/00, Greeks who have worked abroad, Greek seafarers and Greeks resident abroad will no longer be able to benefit from a reduced rate of tax on the transfer of property where the property is purchased with foreign currency.

Since applications have been made for tax rebates by foreign nationals of Member States of the Union in relation to transfers of property at various periods of time, will the Commission say at what point a possible tax rebate would be justified in the above circumstances? On publication of the judgment, from the point at which the reasoned opinion was issued, or from another point in time?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

There has been no Court judgment, but only an administrative decision to withdraw the case from the register(1). In fact, the Commission refrained from pursuing its infringement procedure before the Court after Greece eliminated the provisions which discriminated against non-Greek European citizens.

The Greek legislation of 1950, (modified partially in the area in question in 1997) provided for a preferential tax treatment of Greek nationals. This became incompatible with the EC Treaty when Greece joined the EC in 1981. However, the elimination of this preferential treatment only applies from the fiscal year 2001 and not retroactively to cases between 1981 and 2001.

Under the Community law principle of non-discrimination Union citizens may claim to be treated on an equal footing with Greek citizens. Therefore, for the years prior to 2001, they can in principle benefit from the tax rebate originally designed for Greek nationals only. However, as in all Member States, national rules limit the possibility of reopening closed cases. Normally taxes unduly paid (i.e. in relation to purchases made prior to 2001) can only be reclaimed to the extent that the respective assessments have been kept open (normally by an administrative or judicial appeal).

In any case, these national rules may not jeopardize or discriminate the enforcement of a claim based on Community law in comparison with the enforcement of a claim based on national law.

(1) OJ C 348, 8.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Further development of the EU-Mexico Agreement

In its last report on the EU-Mexico Agreement (A5-0036/2001) the European Parliament expressed its wish to be closely associated with and informed about the evolution of this agreement. Since the agreement has been in place, Joint Council and Joint Committee meetings have occurred.

Has the Commission introduced any of the recommendations given in the above mentioned report into the bilateral meetings it is competent for?

Does the Commission envisage introducing a clause on consultation with civil society, similar to the one foreseen in the draft agreement with Chile?

Has the Commission proposed or is it ready to propose an amendment to the agreement referring to the Biodiversity Protocol, to the relevant ILO conventions as well as to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of which both parties are members of?

Is the Commission willing to talk to the Mexican side in order to eliminate the inconsistencies of the agreement with the Basel and the Rotterdam Conventions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2002)

Referring to the recommendations included in the last Parliament's report on the Union-Mexico Agreement (A5-0036/200l), the Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that:

- The Union-Mexico Global Agreement is sufficiently asymmetric as regards all the economic and co-operation provisions to take into account the different level of development of Mexico and the Union.

- The Decision-making procedures of the Joint Council follow internal laws and procedures. Every time that the Joint Council is to act, it does so on specific legal bases; should the consultation of Parliament be envisaged, its views will duly be taken into consideration. Mexico also applies its own internal laws.

- Concerning human rights, the Commission is using the existing mechanisms to follow the situation in Mexico and in Europe. The political dialogue included in the agenda of the Joint Council and Joint Committee offers an opportunity to share information on this issue.

At present, the Commission does not envisage any amendment to the Agreement. However, given the importance that both parties attribute to the dialogue with the civil society, in the Joint Committee of 2 October 2001, the Commission agreed to organise a civil society forum at the end of 2002.

Moreover, the Decisions establishing a Free Trade Area (FTA) between the EC and Mexico include revision clauses concerning specific products or sectors not included in the first Decision. At the moment of revising the FTA Decisions, the Commission will take into consideration any new protocol, conventions or guidelines agreed at multilateral level, which both parties are members of.

The Commission attaches high importance to all multilateral instruments and would like to reassure the Honourable Member that no bilateral agreement or any interpretation of such will be inconsistent with the Community multilateral obligations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2805/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Directive 2000/35/EC on combating late payment in commercial transactions

Article 6 of Directive 2000/35/EC(1) on combating late payment in commercial transactions states that Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 8 August 2002.

Has Directive 2000/35/EC already been transposed into law in all the Member States? If not, in which Member States has it not been transposed and what does the Commission intend to do?

(1) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2002)

More than half the Member States have already transposed Directive 2000/35/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions. However, as of 30 September 2002, the Commission had still received no notification from the following: Greece, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria and Portugal.

Since this subject is of great interest to the public in general, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular, the Commission has developed an internet web site accessible to the public. Among other information is a list of national transposing legislation which is updated as the Commission receives this information from the Member States. The website can be found at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/regulation/late_payments/index.htm

In the case of those Member States that have not yet transposed, the Commission opened infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty on 30 September 2002.