ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0591/02

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Interception of e-mails in Ankara

Can the Commission confirm that a series of e-mails from the EU delegation in Ankara has been intercepted and published in a Turkish weekly magazine?

Has the Commission been able to establish how they were intercepted?

During the European Parliament's inquiry into Echelon it was stated that the communications of the EU delegations were to be made more secure. What progress has been made in carrying out this intention? Or is this left to the Turkish authorities in the case in question?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission confirms that e-mails from its Representation in Ankara have been illegally obtained. The stolen information was published in a weekly magazine, in other media and diffused through the Internet. Following a court injunction, copies of the magazine in question were seized by the Turkish authorities. Furthermore, legal proceedings by the Public Prosecutor continue under the Turkish penal code. It should be noted that the intrusion concerns only the Representation's e-mail system, whereas the traffic of encrypted classified documents was never affected.

The Commission has asked to investigate and to find out who carried out these illegal activities and to prosecute those who committed this crime.

On the basis of the Parliament's resolution on Echelon, the Commission has adopted a Secure Communications Action Plan with a view to establishing a modernised and extended Cypher network between Commission Headquarters and Commission Delegations worldwide. Concrete measures are under preparation. The Commission will gradually introduce from 2003 onwards the upgraded Cypher system and the related necessary physical security measures if the budgetary authorities provide the necessary funding and staff. Meanwhile, appropriate steps have been taken to reinforce the security of the communications systems of the Ankara Representation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2120/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) and Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Direct aid to farmers

Does the Commission have any statistics on direct aid to farmers in the 15 Member States? Can it provide them, broken down by amount (in EUR 10 000 bands) and by size of farm?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

In the past it was not possible for the Commission for legal reasons to answer positively to the Honourable Members as to others who have addressed similar requests to the Commission (see also answer to the Honourable Member's written question 1949/02(1)). However, the Commission has adopted on 6 March 2002 an amendment to Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999(2). The new Article 2 of this Regulation

allows the Commission to use the accounting information of the paying agencies in the context of the clearance of account procedure and to monitor developments as well as to provide forecasts in the agricultural sector. The accounting information transmitted to the Commission remains, however, confidential and is communicated only for the purposes given in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999.

In carrying out the new two actions, the Commission is obliged to respect the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data(3). Therefore it renders the information anonymous and processes it in aggregated form only.

In conclusion, the Commission will be soon in a position to provide statistical information on the amounts paid to farmers. Detailed statistical information will be shortly made available to the public which will in principle cover the request made by the Honourable Members.

(1) See page 123.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 419/2002 of 6 March 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the accounting information that the Member States must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section accounts, OJ L 64, 7.3.2002.

(3) OJ L 8, 12.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(18 July 2002)

Subject: The conclusions of the European Council in Seville: EU visa requirements for third-country citizens and the case of Latin American countries in their relations with Spain and Portugal

The conclusions of the European Council in Seville envisage revising the list of third countries whose citizens may be subject to visa requirements. In the case of Latin American countries, where many citizens have dual nationality, that of the country concerned and of Spain or Portugal, and which in general have a special human and cultural relationship with the countries of the Iberian peninsula, a decision to introduce visa requirements would be in serious conflict with the simultaneously European and Latin American nature of the societies and states concerned. Is such an unacceptable historical, cultural, human and political situation likely to arise?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

In the context of the follow-up to the conclusions of the Seville European Council, the Commission, which has exclusive right of initiative in this area, was instructed to review and make suggestions concerning the possible amendment of Council Regulation 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders.

On the basis of the Commission proposals, it will be for the Council to decide in due course whether changes need to be made to Regulation 539/2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/02

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Conclusions to be drawn from the Swedish pension fund experience

A new system for the funding of pensions was brought into force in Sweden in 2000. Under the new arrangements, over and above the general system which will provide future pensioners in Sweden with a minimum pension guaranteed by the State, workers may contribute to 450 investment funds managed by sixty or so international fund managers which should, in principle, provide members with a supplementary pension based on the appreciation of the contributions paid.

What initial conclusions may be drawn from the new Swedish system? What was the average performance of these investment funds in 2001? Can the Commission say whether any lessons have been learned from the Swedish experience?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2002)

The reformed Swedish pension system will continue to be the main source of income for pensioners and partially replaces earned income before retirement up to 7,5 income base amounts (SEK 38800 in 2002, i.e. a total of 291000 or roughly EUR 32 000 per annum). The contribution rate amounts to 18,5 % of earnings of which 16 are channelled into the pay-as-you-go system and 2,5 % into the premium reserve system under which individuals are free to choose up to five funds among currently 600 different funds with varying risk profiles. Every year, all those covered by the new pension system receive detailed information on their accumulated pensions capital accrued both within the pay-as-you-go and the premium pension system.

The Swedish national strategy report on the future of pension systems has just been submitted to the Commission. It will be subject to indepth analysis by the Commission together with the reports of the other Member States, the conclusions of which will be published towards the end of 2002. It is, however, already possible to notice that the total assets accumulated by the premium pension system on 31 December 2001 amounted to 3 % of the gross domestic product (GDP). The report does not evaluate the financial performance of these funds (which can be expected to differ considerably depending on the portfolio of each fund). However, data published on the Premium Pension Authority's website (http://www.ppm.nu/) suggest that the latest market values of funds (15 September 2002) are well below the average value at which they were purchased by pension savers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1753/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Action programme on VAT

The Commission is working on the reforms needed to eliminate the errors that currently exist in the transitional VAT system and fulfil the requirements of the work programme laid down in the Action Programme on VAT.

Can the Commission indicate what stage it has reached in its work in this area?

Does it consider the objective of establishing a definitive VAT system based on the country-of-origin principle to have been dispensed with?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2002)

In June 2000 the Commission, in a Communication to the Council and the Parliament, proposed a new strategy to improve the operation of the VAT system within the context of the internal market(1). This new approach is focused not on changing the current transitional system but on its improvement by simplification, modernisation and a more uniform application of the current rules as well as ensuring closer administrative co-operation. Nevertheless, an origin based definitive system remains a long-term goal for the Commission.

This new strategy has produced new impetus and has already led to the approval of the following Directives:

- the person liable for payment (2000/65/EC);

- minimal level of the standard rate (2001/41/EC);

- improving mutual assistance on recovery (2001/44/EC);

- invoicing and electronic invoicing (2001/115/EC);

- e-commerce (2002/38/CE). A Regulation (2002/792/CE) on administrative co-operation on this matter was also approved by the Council.

Three other Commission proposals, presented in the light of the VAT strategy, are currently under discussion in the Council:

- administrative co-operation and mutual assistance(2);

- Fiscalis 2007 Programme(3);

- special scheme for travel agents(4).

A more detailed list of the above-mentioned Directives, Regulations and proposals is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) COM(2000) 348 final.

(2) COM(2001) 294 final.

(3) COM(2002) 10 final.

(4) COM(2002) 64 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2342/02

by Jean-Claude Martinez (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Thermal plasmas

According to a number of scientists and in particular the La Roche environmental laboratory, thermal plasma treatment could be used to process waste including contaminated meal.

Can the Commission Directorate-General for the Environment give its views on such waste processing by plasma torches?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2002)

The Commission organises an information exchange between Member States and industry concerned on best available techniques (BAT) in industrial activities which are covered by the Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC)(1). The work is co-ordinated by the European IPPC Bureau, which is hosted by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint Research Centre in Seville, Spain.

One of the industrial activity sectors where such an information exchange takes place is the thermal treatment of waste. In this work several techniques for thermal waste treatment are scrutinized and at a later stage it is determined whether the discussed techniques are considered as BAT or emerging techniques. Plasma treatment could be discussed in such an information exchange if detailed information on the technique were to be delivered to the European IPPC Bureau.

For the time being the Commission is not able to give any further assessment of this technology.

As regards the needs for research, the Commission is supporting research and technological development projects. For instance, one project deals with the vitrification of hospitals waste.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2186/02

by Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: Subsidies under ISPA

The ISPA Programme supports infrastructure projects involving transport and the environment, including projects in the field of waste disposal. However, criticisms are being levelled by industry, since it is alleged that only projects submitted by public authorities are being subsidised. As a result of this competitive advantage, waste disposal continues to be carried out in a large number of towns in Slovenia exclusively by local authority waste disposal undertakings.

Is this information correct, or have I been misinformed? If it is correct, does the Commission see any way in which this potentially deplorable state of affairs might be remedied?

The real aim of EU support should be the improvement of environmental standards in the newly democratised countries of Central and Eastern Europe, irrespective of who carries out the project. Particularly in the target countries receiving such support, local authorities are frequently underfunded and have an insufficient number of vehicles and inadequate facilities to do the job properly. In such instances, a private partner could be very useful. Why should private undertakings not be able to submit a project jointly with a local authority?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2002)

One of the objectives of ISPA is to support the candidate countries in their efforts to comply with the Community environmental legislation, and in particular to help to support the costs of the infrastructure investments required.

It is the responsibility of the national authorities to decide how the objectives of Community legislation should be met, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

Among existing Member States, the responsibility for the management of household waste is largely delegated to the regional or municipal authorities and it falls to these authorities to decide on the type of undertakings that will carry out the collection and treatment of such waste (private, public or mixed undertaking). In the case of Slovenia, the removal and management of municipal waste is predominantly performed by the existing municipal service companies.

Under Article 6 of the ISPA Regulation(1), ISPA may provide up to 75 % of public or equivalent expenditure on individual projects, including expenditure by bodies whose activities are undertaken within an administrative or legal framework rendering them equivalent to public bodies.

It is, therefore possible, under certain conditions, for private undertakings to submit a project jointly with a local authority for support under ISPA.

The conditions that apply are intended to avoid market or the generation of excessive returns to private operators as a result of public grants.

The Commission intends to present operational guidelines in order to assist both private and public partners to prepare projects for support under ISPA.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 establishing an Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2634/02

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Destruction of Europe's heritage by the Belgian Railway

Is the Commission aware that the Belgian National Railway (SNCB/NMBS) has destroyed an old and important railway locomotive class 44 number 44 201 built in 1906 even though its major parts were still in working order?

Can the Commission confirm that such destruction of Europe's railway heritage amounts to a deliberate act of vandalism and is to be condemned?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Article 151 of the EC Treaty provides that the Community may take action to:

- encourage cultural cooperation between Member States;

- support and supplement Member States' actions (financially if necessary) in the following areas:

- improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;

- conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;

- non-commercial cultural exchanges;

- artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

Article 151 also establishes that the Community is not responsible for harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States(1) in the field of culture, for which the Member States alone continue to be fully responsible.

The question raised by the Honourable Member therefore does not fall within the competence of the Community but is a matter solely for the Member States.

(1) Article 151 of the EC Treaty, paragraph 5, first indent.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2352/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2002)

Subject: British drugs policy and how it relates to European policy

The UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has confirmed that in the wake of recommendations made by the UK Parliament from July 2003 cannabis will be deemed a type C drug in the UK, alongside steroids and antidepressants.

He claims that this is not legalising cannabis (which is legal in all EU countries except France, Sweden, Finland and Greece), and he actually announced that the current five-year sentence for drug traffickers will be raised to 14.

The decision is based on a successful, if controversial experiment carried out in south London, where the police took a lenient approach to cannabis consumers and focused on hard drugs.

Does the Commission believe that the UK Government's position is in line with European policy on fighting drug addiction?

How do the Commission and its relevant Agency view the experiment carried out in London?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Drug policy falls mainly within the competence of the Member States. All Member States have signed and ratified the three United Nations Conventions on Drugs (from 1961, 1971 and 1988), which provide a common framework for national legislation on drugs, while at the same time allowing for some leeway in national implementation of the legislation. For its part, the Commission carried out a study on the drug legislation in Member States when preparing its proposal for a Council Framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking(1).

This study shows that trafficking in cannabis remains illegal in all Member States. However, some Member States have decided that the consumption of cannabis and possession for personal use should not be criminal offences. According to a recent study published by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), there is a general tendency throughout the Union for prosecutors and/or the courts to find alternative arrangements to criminal sanctions in relation to use or possession of cannabis for personal use.

The proposed British legislation, where greater priority is given to policing and prosecuting cannabis dealers and traffickers is in line with this trend. It does not imply the legalisation of cannabis but provides for the law enforcement resources to be targeted more effectively against trafficking in cannabis e.g. by raising the maximum sentence for trafficking to 14 years.

As far as the experiment in South London (Lambeth) is concerned, it is too early to draw any far-fetching conclusions since the experiment only finished at the end of July 2002 and no thorough evaluation of the experiment is available as yet.

(1) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2062/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Subject: State aid

Would the Commission consider state aid exemption for businesses which suffer hardships due to extreme circumstances, for example the Foot and Mouth crisis in the UK?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty provides that aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences shall be compatible with the common market.

Normal entrepreneurial or insurable risks are generally not considered natural disasters or exceptional occurrences. In the past the Commission has accepted that floods, earthquakes and landslides, avalanches, tornadoes, etc. could be considered natural disasters. Likewise war, internal disturbances or strikes, major nuclear or industrial accidents and fires have been considered as exceptional occurrences.

As regards the foot and mouth crisis, it should be noted that the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector explicitly state in point 11.2.1 as a general rule, the Commission does not accept that outbreaks of animal or plant diseases can be considered to constitute natural disasters or exceptional occurrences. Hitherto, the only exception has been the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-crisis which was recognised as an exceptional occurrence, because of its widespread nature and its completely new character.

Nevertheless, the Community guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector allow for aid to be granted to compensate for losses incurred as a result of the outbreak of animal or plant disease, including measures to prevent the further spread of disease.

Compensatory aid to offset indirect losses incurred by economic operators outside of the agricultural sector would not normally be permitted, because of the difficulties inherent in determining the causes of any losses incurred and quantifying their amount. However, depending on the precise circumstances of each case, a variety of aid instruments may be available, including aid for new investments to help businesses to diversify, aid for consultancy advice and aid for rescue or restructuring. Moreover, it should be recalled that under the so-called de minimis rule, aid of up to EUR 100 000 over any three year period is not covered by the Community State aid rules.