ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2462/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Maríne craft pollution

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of untreated effluent discharged into the EU's seas and rivers by boats and ships, and will it state whether it proposes any measures to reduce this amount?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that discharges of oil from seagoing ships, in general, result from the deliberate washing of tanks or the flushing of bilge or ballast water. Several international organisations are involved in preventing this type of marine pollution (e.g. Helsinki Convention, Bonn Agreement and Barcelona Convention). Reliable estimates of the total amount of oil discharged by seagoing ships are not available. However, information from airborne surveillance (coordinated by these organisations) clearly indicates that violations of existing regulations (i.e. Annex I of the Maríne Pollution Control Convention (Marpol) 73/78(1)) are frequent in all European seas, resulting in the oiling of seabirds, shellfish, other organisms and the coastline. So far, there is no clear downward trend.

In its Communication Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment, the Commission initiates action aimed at phasing out such illegal discharges by the earliest possible date.

Discharges of sewage from seagoing ships are covered by Annex IV of Marpol 73/78(2). However, this Annex has not yet entered into force due to insufficient ratifications. In the context of the Maríne Strategy, the Commission will undertake to achieve a rapid entry into force of this Annex.

The main Community instrument relevant to these types of marine pollution is the Directive on port state control and on port reception facilities(3). The provisions of this Directive cover a range of ships wastes including oil and sewage. Furthermore, a Community framework was set up in 2000, inter alia, to support Member States efforts in responding to deliberate marine pollution.

Reliable estimates of discharges from ships in European rivers are not available. At present such discharges are covered by various pieces of regional or national legislation. However, this situation should change in the near future as these discharges are covered under the Water Framework Directive(4).

(1) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (Marpol 73/78), Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oil.

(2) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (Marpol 73/78), Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships.

(3) Directive 2000/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(4) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1830/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Deportation of British subjects

Is the Commission aware of the actions of Cyprus with regard to the deportation of two British nationals? Does the EU Enlargement Directorate monitor the deportation process of Cyprus?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The Commission is aware of certain cases of deportation of British nationals in Cyprus and the Commission has had several exchanges of correspondence with the deportees.

The Commission wishes to stress that, as Cyprus is not a Member State, it is not bound by the Community legislation.

Nevertheless, once Cyprus becomes a full member of the Union, it will have to abide by Community Law and adapt its national law in order to respect the right to free movement of persons, including rules governing measures taken in order to restrict this right (e.g. expulsion).

The right to free movement of persons is a fundamental and individual right, which is conferred to each citizen of the Union by the Treaty establishing the European Community itself (Article 18). Restrictions to these rights are possible on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

Measures (such as denial of entry or an expulsion order) taken by Member States on those grounds, however, may only be used in compliance with Council Directive 64/221/EC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health(1), which provides for certain safeguards and guarantees in order to limit the discretionary power of Member States in this respect. It aims to ensure that the fundamental right to free movement is protected, in accordance with the European Court of Justice case law, which has interpreted its provisions.

Measures taken on grounds of public order or public security have to be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned and to be motivated by a present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. They have to be applied in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

Within the context of the accession negotiations currently underway between Cyprus and the Union, the Commission monitors closely the process of alignment of Cypriot domestic legislation with Community law and Cyprus' capacity to implement this Community legislation. It will continue to do so to ensure that, by the time of accession, Cyprus fully complies with all aspects of Community law related to the Free Movement of Persons enshrined in the EC Treaty, and in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 64/221/EC.

(1) OJ P 56, 4.4.1964.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1368/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Consideration of the shortcomings of the Everything But Arms initiative

An Oxfam International report claims that the EU is one of the industrialised economies operating the highest barriers this despite the Commission's recent Everything But Arms initiative, which offers the least developed countries comprehensive market access on a duty-free and quota-free basis.

Does the Commission intend to examine the actual shortcomings of this initiative, with a view to making access to the EU market a reality for the least developed countries and thus allowing them to reap the full benefits of trade?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2002)

The Union has provided quota and tariff free access for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) under the Everything But Arms initiative. As this constitutes complete access to the Community market, it is difficult to see how it can be further improved upon. The Commission does not therefore intend to re-examine this scheme.

The Commission does acknowledge that there are other issues that must be tackled so that the Least Developed Countries can take full advantage of this market access. Lack of trading capacity is one bottleneck which needs to be overcome, which is why the Commission is focusing on stepping up its efforts in the area of trade-related technical assistance. Lack of supply capacity is another serious obstacle preventing many LDCs from benefiting from market access. The Commission seeks to address this issue through the systematic integration or mainstreaming of trade aspects into its development co-operation and through support to developing countries' own efforts to do likewise as regards the integration of trade in their development strategies and polices.

Having said that, the Commission would encourage and invite all developed countries that have not done so to mirror this initiative in order to strengthen and reinforce the prospects for the LDCs to benefit from increased market access.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1632/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: Malta

Can the Commission confirm that, in Malta, it is illegal to criticise the Prime Minister in public? Does the Commission agree that this is an infringement of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.?

Does the Commission agree that such infringements of human rights may affect Malta's application to accede to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the existence of any Maltese piece of legislation that would make it illegal to criticize the Prime Minister in public.

Article 41 of the Maltese constitution provides that:

Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinion without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence.

The Commission is not aware of any law that would limit the freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution if this expression concerns the Prime Minister. On the contrary, reading the Maltese media confirms that it is a common and frequent practice in Malta to criticize the Prime Minister and the government.

The Commission stated in its 2001 Regular Report on Malta(1) that Malta continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria and the authorities' record on democratic and human rights remains generally good. The Commission will continue to monitor the respect of fundamental human rights and in particular the freedom of expression in Malta.

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1704/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 June 2002)

Subject: Tax legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany 15 % tax deduction at source

On 7 September 2001, the Gesetz zur Eindämmung illegaler Betätigung im Baugewerbe (Act to curb illegal activities in the building trade) entered into force in the Federal Republic of Germany. It requires any principal who commissions building work

to deduct 15 % of the gross contract sum from payments to the contractor and transfer it to the German tax authorities. This is intended as an advance payment towards any corporation tax, income tax and/or turnover tax which may be due in Germany.

In the Commission's reply of 21 December 2001 to my question of 22 October 2001 (E-2875/01(1)) on this subject, the Commission stated that it would examine whether the actual application of this new law led to indirect discrimination against foreign companies. It also said that if necessary the Commission would take the requisite steps to eliminate measures that were incompatible with the EC Treaty.

Since then I have again heard from those concerned that foreign companies are being required to comply with requirements different from those applicable to German companies in order to obtain exemptions from the advance tax deduction requirement. In practice, building firms which do not obtain these exemptions are simply no longer able to secure any contracts in Germany.

Since 21 December 2001, has the Commission examined whether the requirement introduced by Germany to deduct 15 % tax at source is (in practice) resulting in indirect discrimination against foreign companies? If so, what are its findings?

Do the rules which are in force in Germany contravene European legislation, and ought measures therefore to be taken?

If so, what will the Commission do about this?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

The Commission is waiting for the co-ordinated implementation rules, agreed and about to be adopted by the Länder, before deciding whether or not to intervene on legal grounds, in particular under Article 49 of the EC Treaty (free provision of services). In particular, the formalities with which foreign enterprises have to comply must not be disproportionate. If the Honourable Member knows of specific incidents of alleged incompatibility with Community rules, the Commission would like to be informed of the details.

According to information received from the German authorities, about 600 000 certificates allowing exemption from the 15 % tax deduction have been delivered to German enterprises. The same source states that around 10 000 foreign enterprises have applied for this certificate, the granting of which has been refused in only a few cases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1391/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: Security and human rights

Following the tragic events of 11 September, serious concerns have arisen over the way in which national security has become the overarching concern of many governments to the detriment of human rights, with secondary, parallel systems for the dispensation of justice being created in many cases.

Recently Amnesty International, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies and other non-governmental organisations published an open statement addressed to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, asking states to ensure that any measures taken to tackle terrorism complied with their human rights obligations. The above-mentioned non-governmental organisations expressed their support for Mary Robinson's appeal for the creation of a mechanism to monitor the human rights impact of anti-terrorism measures taken by states, and requested the High Commissioner to produce a report on the effects of such measures on human rights, which will lead to recommendations for their effective observance.

What is the Commission's position in relation to the views of the non-governmental organisations and Mrs Robinson, and does it intend to take steps to support and implement them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2002)

The Commission fully supports the stance taken by the Union with regard to the need for the fight against terrorism to be conducted with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Presidency on behalf of the Union again underlined this point during the Union's explanation

of vote on the resolution on Human rights and Terrorism introduced by Algeria at the 58th session of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The Union abstained on this resolution, principally because it included the assertion that terrorist acts constituted a violation of human rights (the Union having consistently maintained that human rights violations can only be perpetrated by States).

With respect to the creation of a mechanism to monitor the human rights impact of anti-terrorism measures taken by States, the Union participated actively in the negotiations at the 58th CHR on the text of a resolution introduced by Mexico on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism which requested the High Commissioner to provide advice, recommendations and analysis on the protection of human rights in the context of the fight against terrorism. The Union's support for this move was demonstrated by its indication of co-sponsorship on the resolution. However, strong opposition from other States led to the withdrawal of the text. Further efforts to secure progress on the issue are expected at the next session of the CHR.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1527/02

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

(3 June 2002)

Subject: French ban on paying interest into current accounts

The French Banking Commission has banned Caixa Bank, the French branch of the Spanish bank La Caixa, from providing current account holders with 2 % interest, something which the French banking system does not offer.

At the request of the French government, the Banking Commission, part of the Bank of France, took the decision to examine Caixa Bank payments. Its conclusion was to ban the Spanish bank from opening any new accounts of this type. Moreover, Caixa Bank has been given two months to close accounts opened prior to the ruling.

With regard to the decision adopted by the French Banking Commission, at the behest of the French government, to ban Caixa Bank from paying interest into its current accounts, which has been justified by the bank's representatives on the basis of the dictates of the euro and the necessity to standardise European monetary regulations: does the Commission consider this decision to be in accordance with the relevant Community provisions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

The Commission is aware of the decision by the French Banking Commission to which the Honourable Member refers. An application for suspension and annulment of that decision has been received by the Council of State, which has, among other things, to examine its Community law aspects with a view to referring it, where appropriate, to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

For its part, the Commission is in the process of examining the points of law arising from the French legislation on which the decision of the Banking Commission is based. It will certainly take the necessary measures once all the factual and legal circumstances determining those measures have been clarified and assessed under the appropriate procedures laid down in the Treaty. It will be sure to keep the Honourable Member informed of developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2624/02

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Transposition of the new Postal Services Directive 2002/39/EC

This Spring, the new European Parliament and Council directive 2002/39/EC(1), amending Directive 97/67/EC(2) with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, was adopted. The Member States must transpose this new Directive into national law by 31 December 2003.

Does the Commission possess any information about the stage which transposition has reached? May we assume that the Member States will transpose the directive within the time limit?

Is the Commission aware which of the Member States intend to reserve outgoing cross-border postal services?

Are these Member States required to prove separately to the Commission that the continued reservation of outgoing cross-border post is necessary?

(1) OJ L 176, 5.7.2002, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

The Commission is monitoring the transposition of Directive 2002/39/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, in Member States. At the moment, it has no evidence to suggest that any of the Member States will not be ready by the implementation deadline, although it appears that national parliamentary procedures may be a source of possible delays.

With regard to the reservation of outgoing cross-border mail, at present the Commission has indications that one Member State (Luxembourg) intends to continue to reserve this mail segment.

The Commission will verify compliance of the national transposition measures with the new Directive, particularly any reservation of outgoing cross-border mail, in the light of the criteria established in the Directive.

Such results will only be known in 2003. The Commission will keep the Parliament informed about its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2183/02

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: New alcoholic drinks and young people

Results from recent research reveal alcohol addiction in young people, caused by the consumption of fruit-flavoured drinks which contain vodka, gin or rum.

The packaging and the advertising approach encourage young people to consume these concoctions, which do not carry any warning whatsoever about their alcohol content.

In view of the above:

- Is the Commission aware of this issue?

- Does it intend to take measures to ensure that the exact alcoholic content of these drinks is clearly displayed on the labels?

- Does it intend to take preventive steps to raise the awareness of young people with regard to alcohol consumption, as it very wisely did in relation to smoking?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Commission is aware that this is a serious problem, and has supported several projects on this issue. The second ESPAD study (European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs) concerns seven Member States, and the ECAS (European Comparative Alcohol Studies) relate to all Member States except Luxembourg, and highlight the importance of this problem.

In application of Directive 2000/13/CE 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(1), it is obligatory to include the alcoholic strength by volume in the labelling of beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol. This provision applies to the beverages mentioned by the Honourable Member and to advertisement of these drinks.

Based on the Council's conclusions of 5 June 2001 on a Community strategy to reduce the damage caused by alcohol and on the Council Recommendation of 5 June 2001 on alcohol consumption among young people, particularly children and adolescents, the Commission has already taken initiatives in this field, for example by setting up a consultation group on alcohol problems with a view to developing a strategy in this area.

Action will be taken under the new public health programme (2003-2008) to define a prevention strategy and to carry out studies in order to help identify the problem.

Changing behaviour on alcohol consumption also requires the active involvement of national and regional authorities, industry, retailers, parents, families and individuals with a view to developing a healthy approach to young people's health education. If greater success can be achieved in enforcing measures in place, significant progress could be made.

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.