ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3540/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Safety at nuclear power stations

Recently, there has been a certain amount of debate about the safety of nuclear power stations. As the EU is involved in maintaining and improving nuclear safety through Euratom, I have the following question: are the electronics of cooling systems at nuclear power stations and nuclear waste processing plants within the EU safeguarded against terrorist attacks using flux compressors or microwave bombs?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on gehalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

First of all the Commission has to recall that the competencies of the Union in the nuclear field are laid down in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom Treaty), whose Chapter 3 (Title II) deals with health and safety.

Subsequently, sets of regulations, directives, etc, have been developed with the aim of protection against possible health detriments resulting from exposure to ionising radiation.

All the above provisions are related to the area of radiation protection, since the safety of nuclear installations is the responsibility of the operators under the control of safety authorities in the framework of national legislation. In other words, the responsibility to grant licences and regulate the siting, design, construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear installations rests within the responsibility of Member States and in particular within their Nuclear Regulatory Authorities.

Therefore, and based on the foregoing considerations, the design of instrumentation and control equipment associated to coolant systems is a national responsibility.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3651/01

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Subject: The dangers of the Rome underground system

The Public Prosecutor's Office and the Provincial Fire Brigade recently carried out safety inspections on the Rome underground system, particularly Line A, where the safety facilities and procedures have been found to have a large number of serious shortcomings.

The main problems include:

- the average number of passengers carried each day, which stands at around 450 000, thus exceeding the system's capacity by 200 000;

- inadequate fire extinguishing facilities and procedures and evacuation routes and a lack of proper facilities and adequate staff to provide first aid treatment to the injured prior to the arrival of the emergency services.

Given that the main problem identified during the inspections is that of evacuating passengers sufficiently quickly in the event of an emergency, and in view of the risk of further terrorist attacks following the events of 11 September, would the Commission state:

1. whether there are any directives covering this area;

2. whether it intends to make representations to or take action vis-à-vis the relevant authorities;

3. what view it takes of this matter?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

1. There are no Community directives covering the area of safety and security management for metros.

2. Metro systems in different cities are normally subject to local safety and security requirements and the design, engineering principles, extension of the network and the traffic intensity vary a lot between Member States and cities. For these reasons safety measures and emergency plans to assure the security of the users must be adapted to the local situation and elaborated in cooperation with the local rescue services and other relevant authorities. All these measures are best taken at Member State level, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

For the moment, and for this reason, the Commission does not plan to propose Community legislation with detailed safety and security requirements on metro systems and has no intention to intervene in the situation in Rome, which has to be handled by the competent national or local authorities.

3. For above-mentioned reasons the Commission has no possibility to take a view on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2914/01

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Increase in airline insurance premiums following the terrorist attacks

Is the Commission aware that, following the recent terrorist attacks, insurance companies have significantly increased the premiums payable by airlines and that there is a suspicion that they have acted in a way that contravenes EU competition laws?

Can the Commission indicate whether or not it is investigating the actions of insurance companies in this regard and the action which it is prepared to take?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The Commission is aware of the developments the Honourable Member refers to.

The Commission has launched own-initiative proceedings to verify the compatibility with the competition rules of the conditions under which the increases in premiums were decided.

In due time, the Commission will decide whether further action is appropriate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/01

by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: Chimpanzee testing at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in the Netherlands

The Commission has consistently stated that All research in Europe involving the use of animals is subject to Council Directive 86/609/EEC(1) (Answer to Written Question P-1813/01(2), among others). In that document, recommendations for the care of animals on which experiments have been discontinued seems to be limited to Article 9 which states that, at the end of an experiment, a decision should be made on whether the animal should be kept alive or killed by humane method, subject to the condition that it shall not be kept alive if it is likely to remain in lasting pain or distress. The Council Directive goes on to insist that, after experiments have ended, animals must continue to be kept in living conditions which satisfy the requirements of Article 5.

In the case of the chimpanzee colony at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in the Netherlands, some newspaper reports have suggested that up to 46 chimpanzees have been sent to zoos in Europe and China, where there is a chance they may be sent for further experimentation or breeding. If this is indeed the case, what steps does the Commission consider that the competent authority in the Netherlands should take in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of Articles 5 and 9 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC once the animals go to their new locations in Europe or in non-member states?

Does the Commission consider that there is any need to extend the scope of that Directive to cover the welfare of animals who have been retired from experimentation in Europe?

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 111.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

On the basis of the information supplied, the Commission will write to the Dutch authorities requesting clarification and further information on this issue.

With regard to Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the Commission is planning a revision of the Directive. This revision will incorporate also initiatives in the area of the use of non-human primates. The extension of the scope of the Directive to cover the welfare of animals who are no longer part of experimentation will be examined during the revision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3200/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Implementation of the programme of integrated interventions for combating unemployment in Greece

The programme of integrated interventions which is funded by the European Union seeks to place 3 000 unemployed persons in employment for 28 months in the Prefecture of Ioannina in an initial period, and the programme is then expected to be extended to other prefectures in Greece. A public body, the Organisation for the Employment of the Workforce, has undertaken the task of recruiting and placing the job-seekers. According to available national statistics, the number of registered unemployed persons in the Prefecture of Ioannina far exceeds the number of jobs subsidised by the programme.

1. Have specific criteria been adopted for the selection of the unemployed who have been or will be recruited, and what are these criteria?

2. Is so, how is it ensuring that the Organisation for the Employment of the Workforce complies with and implements these criteria?

3. Which other prefectures will the programme be extended to?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Only unemployed persons with whom a personal action plan has been agreed in accordance with the procedures in place are eligible for recruitment under the Integrated Interventions programme. Priority is given to persons who have become unemployed due to mass redundancies or the restructuring of companies; who are older than 45 years; who belong to vulnerable population groups (e.g. people with special needs, repatriates, immigrants, refugees, single parents); who are long-term unemployed; who are in subsidised employed; and to women.

Unemployed persons belonging to one of the first three categories mentioned above have an absolute priority to be selected; those belonging to the other three categories are selected for promotion to the programme on the basis of a points system in which the main criteria are: the length of the period of unemployment, the income of the unemployed person, the passage from passive to active measures and the gender of the person.

The above criteria and the relevant procedures are foreseen and described in a ministerial decree of the Ministry of Labour. The Greek National Organisation for Employment, is responsible for their implementation under the supervision of the Managing Authority of the Employment and Vocational Training operational programme, as provided for in the management system of the Community Support Framework 2000-2006 for Greece.

Currently, it is foreseen that such integrated intervention programmes will be implemented in seven prefectures, namely those of Fthiothida, Ioannina, Grevena, Larissa, Arta, Preveza and Thesprotia. However, only the Ioannina prefecture programme will be co-financed by the European Social Fund in the framework of the Employment and Vocational Training operational programme. The remaining six will be implemented with national resources.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3074/01

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Subject: Discrimination in Spain against disabled pilots

During the debates at the European Sports Forum held by the Commission in October this year one of the issues raised was sport for the disabled and its importance as a factor in integration. The existence of so many types and categories of sport, in particular sport at competition level, means that harmonisation is needed in all the EU countries, with the Commission itself taking the initiative.

At the World Air Games in Andalucia this year we were able to see non-Spanish disabled sportsmen completely integrated in the competition, flying on an equal footing with non-disabled sportsmen.

Spanish law does not allow disabled sportsmen to take the examinations to obtain a licence to engage in various aerial sports.

Is the Commission aware of the discrimination suffered by disabled sportsmen in certain Member States, who are denied the opportunity of obtaining a pilot's licence, in contrast with other people with the same degree of disability living in other EU countries?

Does the Commission consider that this fact constitutes discrimination against such sportsmen?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

As the Honourable Member pointed out, the Commission drew attention to the problems relating specifically to sport for the disabled during the European Sports Forum held in Brussels on 17 and 18 October 2001. At this forum, the importance of sport as a factor in integration and the well-being of disabled persons was emphasised, as was the need to remove obstacles to disabled people participating in sport.

Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that discrimination on the grounds of disability is only covered under Community law by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Directive is thus limited in scope. It would therefore appear that the Commission has no power to intervene in the specific instance referred to by the Honourable Member given that the discrimination concerned would not appear to be connected with access to employment. However, given that the Commission does not have the full facts of the case referred to by the Honourable Member, it is unable to set out its position definitively.

We would nevertheless draw the Honourable Member's attention to the proposal for a Council Decision on the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003(1). The aim of this initiative is to promote better understanding of disabilities and to encourage the active involvement of all interested parties at every level. Finally, the Year will offer an opportunity for a series of initiatives aimed at raising awareness within Europe of the problems faced by the disabled and at removing the obstacles preventing them from participating fully in many aspects of daily life.

(1) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3046/01

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Imports of salted chicken fillet

Over the past three years imports of salted chicken fillet into the EU have increased more than fourteenfold: during the first half of 2001 imports totalled 114 000 tonnes as against only 12 000 tonnes for the whole of 1998. At the same time, imports of unsalted chicken fillet declined.

Lightly salting chicken fillet makes it subject to a lower import tariff than ordinary poultrymeat. The salt can easily be shaken off after importation. This improper use of customs tariffs is seriously distorting the European market in poultrymeat.

The chicken fillet concerned is not really salted but only sprinkled with salt.

How does the Commission intend to keep a check on this situation?

What measures does the Commission intend to take in the event of a breach of the relevant WTO agreements?

Under current WTO agreements, can the EU unilaterally change the import duty on salted chicken fillet, by raising the stipulated salt content of 1,2 %?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

The Commission follows with great attention the evolution of imports on the markets for all types of meat. Imports of salted poultrymeat have indeed shown rapid rates of growth over the last few years, rising from 3 500 tonnes (t) in 1996 to 109 000 t in 2000 and 150 000 t during the first eight months of 2001, while imports of un-treated boneless chicken meat have decreased by 25 000 t from 1997 to 2000. The strong demand for poultrymeat during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis after October 2000 gave an additional push to these imports.

The Honourable Member assumes that the meat in question is lightly salted and the salt may be shaken off. This fact would not be in conformity with the definition in the Combined Nomenclature which reads: For the purposes of heading No 0210, the terms 'meat and edible meat offal, salted, in brine' mean meat and edible meat offal deeply and homogeneously impregnated with salt in all parts, having a total salt content of not less than 1,2 % by weight.

The Commission is however not aware that imported salted poultrymeat does not comply with this definition.

The Commission has drawn the attention of the Member States to monitor closely the compliance of these poultrymeat imports with the relevant Community provisions in customs and veterinary legislation. Furthermore, the options to deal with any problems which may arise regarding the products in question are being examined at present by the various departments of the Commission. The outcome of this exercise cannot be prejudged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3515/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE)and Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Exclusion of official languages from the LIFE programme

According to an article published in English on 16 November 2001 on the internet website www.medeuropa.net and in Spanish on 8 November 2001 at www.aquieuropa.com, the Commission requires anyone wishing to submit proposals under the Community's LIFE programme to communicate with it henceforth in writing in English and French only. This policy is totally contrary to the rules applying hitherto under which the 11 official languages of the Union were used for communication within the LIFE programme and the other Community initiatives.

Is there a requirement that only two of these languages should be used for LIFE and, if so, why? To what extent is this requirement consistent with the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the parity of all its official languages (Articles 290 and 314) and with the constant references to the multicultural nature of the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2002)

The Commission does not require that those wishing to submit proposals under the Community's LIFE programme do so only in English or French.

All the information concerning the submission of proposals under the Community's LIFE programme is available in the 11 official languages at the following Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/life/life3.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3454/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Aid for sheep and goats

What amount was paid from the Community budget in compensation for sheep and goats for the year 2000? What was the amount per animal? What is the amount of aid for eligible sheep and goats for 2001? Were those funds given to the Greek authorities and, if so, when?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

During the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section 2000 financial year, Greece effected and declared expenditure under sheep/goat aid totalling approximately 227,25 million.

The EAGGF Guarantee Section accepted the expenditure but refunded it only in part, because of the penalty imposed on the Member State for late implementation of the integrated administration and control system.

Community financing was therefore reduced by that penalty, which amounted to approximately 24,25 million. The expenditure and the correction applied are subject to the clearance of accounts procedures in order to determine the final contribution from the Community budget.

The variable premium for non-dairy ewes for the 2000 marketing year was 17 477 per head. For dairy ewes and goats the premium was 13 982 per head.

In less-favoured regions, non-dairy ewes qualify for an additional fixed rural area premium of 6 641 per head; for dairy ewes and goats the amount is 5 977 per head.

When the second instalment of the variable premium for ewes for the 2001 marketing year was set on 21 September 2001, the estimated premium for non-dairy ewes was 10 779 per head. For dairy ewes and goats the estimated premium was 8 623 per head.

The final value of the variable premium for 2001 will be set in January 2002. Given that sheep prices are stable, the final premium should be lower than the estimates already made.

During the EAGGF Guarantee Section 2001 financial year, Greece effected and declared expenditure under sheep/goat aid totalling approximately 200,58 million. The EAGGF Guarantee Section accepted all the expenditure included in the monthly declarations.

Under the EAGGF Guarantee Section's financial system, expenditure incurred and declared by Member States is reimbursed at the latest on the third working day of the second month following the month of declaration. The Commission met that deadline in full.

The expenditure is subject to the clearance of accounts procedures in order to determine the final contribution from the Community budget.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3103/01

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Supply to third countries of equipment which might be used for internal repression

The Commission has already proposed regulations banning the supply to certain third countries of equipment which might be used for internal repression. It did so in the case of Indonesia in October 1999, and the Council adopted this regulation.

Is the Commission minded to propose this type of regulation in the case of other countries which carry out campaigns of internal repression, for example Turkey, against the Kurdish population, and Morocco, against the Western Saharan population?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

In the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Commission has proposed restrictions on the exports of certain non-military equipment which might be used for internal repression, in line with Common Positions adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union.

In this framework, the Commission and the Member States carefully review the situation of third countries and will take the measures that are considered necessary to achieve the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, where warranted.

Since, up to now, the Council has not adopted any restrictions on arms exports or other economic sanctions against Turkey and Morocco, any proposal of that order would constitute a major change in EU policy. The Commission does not, therefore, consider that there are grounds to propose restrictions on the exports of certain non-military equipment to these countries.