ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0181/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 January 2003)

Subject: Women's rights in Iran

Despite major violations of women's rights discrimination, stonings, torture, etc. , on 12 December 2002 the European Union began negotiations with Iran on the conclusion of a trade and cooperation agreement. Given the importance Europe attaches to promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, the EU plans to incorporate a human rights clause in this trade and cooperation agreement.

A European troika paid a visit to Iran on 16/17 December 2002 in connection with the launching of the human rights dialogue between the EU and Iran. According to a press release from the Danish Presidency, the dialogue took place in an open and constructive atmosphere. Is there a connection between the troika visit and the Iranian government's decision to issue an invitation to a UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women?

The European Parliament has always called for pressure to be exerted to ensure that women's rights are respected whenever agreements are concluded between the EU and third countries. A human rights clause is to be included in the agreement with Iran. To what extent will this clause also lay down stringent conditions in the area of women's rights? How will the EU be able to monitor and enforce compliance with this clause? Will the possibility of suspending the agreement if Iran should fail to respect women's rights, or human rights in general, also be built in?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

Like the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council is also committed to promoting human rights, including the rights of women, in Iran. In its conclusions of 17 June 2002, when reaching political agreement on the opening of negotiations on a Trade and Cooperation Agreement with Iran, the Council said that it expected that the deepening of trade and economic relations be matched by significant positive developments in Iran in a number of areas, notably human rights. The other areas were non-proliferation, counter-terrorism and the Middle East Peace Process. The Council furthermore announced, that it would follow progress in these areas.

As in all agreements with third countries, the EU will insert a human rights clause in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with Iran. The negotiating directives approved by the Council confirmed the established policy consisting in placing the human rights clause among the so-called essential elements of the agreement, with the consequence that a breach of the clause could mean immediate denunciation of the entire agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1122/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by the municipality of Massa

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Massa, urgently need to use European funds to regenerate areas in industrial decline and to reduce imbalances in social and economic development, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the ERDF?

2. whether the municipality of Massa has secured funding for these projects?

whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1119/03, E-1120/03,E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03 and E-1124/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

The municipalities of Massa, Carrara, Livorno, Pisa, Pistoia and Florence are all partly eligible for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Tuscany SPD (single programming document) for 2000-2006.

The Tuscany SPD has been approved by Commission decision(1) and provides for ERDF financing of EUR 322,5 million for total public expenditure of EUR 804,9 million.

Since the Tuscany SPD is a programme with decentralised management, the authority responsible for carrying out operations is the Tuscany region which has laid down project selection criteria in the programming supplement and is responsible for appraising applications. The Honourable Member could therefore appropriately ask that authority for detailed information on the projects presented and financed for the municipalities of Massa, Carrara, Livorno, Pisa, Pistoia and Florence.

(1) C(2001) 2725, 27.9.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0418/03

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: EU bottle size legislation

Is the Commission considering the deregulation of packaging legislation, and what measures will the Commission take regarding the present mandatory spirit bottle size, given the concerns of the European spirits industry should such deregulation apply to the mandatory spirit bottle range?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

Following the exercise Simplification of Legislation on the Internal Market IV (SLIM) in relation to Community legislation on pre-packaging, the Commission has carried out an extended Business Impact Assessment. Part of this exercise is an Internet consultation, based on a publicly available working paper, by which the Commission seeks the input of stakeholders, so as to come to a final position.

This consultation has just been finished, and the Commission is now in the process of analysing the results. As already indicated in the contacts with stakeholders, the Commission will keep them informed of their findings and the possibility will be offered to further discuss any matters before the Commission formulates a final position.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0540/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Definition of waste in the preparation of the Mining Waste Directive

Promising ore deposits have been discovered in Northern Scandinavia. The exploitation of these deposits would be very important not only for these areas but for the EU as a whole. Their importance is all the greater in view of the level of development of the region in other respects, a region where it is difficult to develop new economic activities and improve employment because of the low population density, the cold climate and the long distances.

The recent interpretation of mining waste by the Court of Justice of the European Community, however, jeopardises the economic operating conditions of the prospective new mines. The core of the problem is that waste is not classified according to the danger it represents to the environment. For example, mechanically and chemically untreated surface materials and leftover stone are not in any way dangerous substances, and they should emphatically not be classified as waste when they are moved to a temporary storage place for the duration of the mining operations.

A further problem is posed by the enormous payments required to guarantee the after-care of the mines. The small and medium-sized enterprises working in this area do not have enough funds at their disposal to pay these guarantees.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that the Mining Waste Directive currently in preparation distinguishes sufficiently clearly between leftover stone and surface material resulting from mining activities on the one hand and waste materials harmful to the environment on the other? It should take particular account of the economic conditions for the operation of the prospective mines. In what way are the preparations for the directive considering the viewpoint of small and medium-sized enterprises?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

In preparing a proposal for a Directive on the management of waste from extractive industries, the Commission's intention is to allow for requirements proportionate to the risks involved by the various types of waste generated. In doing so, the Commission draws on the definition of waste set out in the Waste Framework Directive, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(1) (as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(2)). The recent ruling of the European Court of Justice the Honourable Member is referring to will serve as a guide for any future interpretation of this notion.

Regarding the financial guarantees for the after-care of the waste facilities, the Commission has not yet taken any decision but is considering a sufficiently broad range of instruments, whereby the amount of guarantee will be adapted to the progress of rehabilitation work. It is expected that these arrangements will properly address the viewpoints of small and medium-sized enterprises.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/03

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Self-handling in Community ports and ILO Convention 137

On 25 June 1973, in view of changes identified in the port sector thanks to the introduction of new techniques and increased mechanisation, the ILO's General Conference adopted Convention 137 on dock work, supplemented by Recommendation R145 and ratified by various Member States; the objective is to guarantee that the rights of workers whose annual income essentially depends on dock work are safeguarded.

The Convention lays down that permanent or regular work must be guaranteed, and that dockers must be given guarantees of income stability; it further lays down that the use of supplementary workers must be prevented when the work to be carried out would be insufficient to guarantee an acceptable standard of living for the dockers properly speaking thus giving them the right to priority.

The forthcoming directive on access to the market in port services will allow handling to be carried out by the vessels' own crews. This means that this handling might not be carried out by the port concerned's own registered dockers which would cause employment problems; such an approach therefore contradicts what is laid down in the aforesaid ILO Convention.

How does the Commission intend to make these two texts compatible, particularly in respect of those Member States which ratified Convention 137 in good time?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

There is no contradiction between the common position adopted by the Council for the adoption of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on market access to port services(1) and International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 137 on dock work.

Article 19 of the Council's common position indicates that it in no way affects the application of social legislation in the Member States. As previously, the latter still have the authority to adopt ILO Convention 137, if they wish. They are not required to renounce the Convention if they have adopted it.

(1) OJ C 154 E, 29.5.2001, amended by OJ C 181 E, 30.7.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0924/03

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Funding the Natura 2000 network

The Natura 2000 network is a basic instrument of national and European nature conservation policies. Although the list of Natura 2000 sites is not complete, it already counts for 18 % of the territory of the Union. 22 % of Portuguese territory is covered and adequate financial arrangements are required to guarantee the protection of the sites included in the Natura 2000 network. Furthermore, in order to meet the objectives established by the Gothenburg Strategy and the Johannesburg Implementation Plan, a Natura 2000 network needs to be extended to cover the marine environment.

1. When will the new rules for funding Natura 2000 be submitted? What is the total amount earmarked for it?

2. How does the Commission intend to extend the Natura 2000 network to the marine environment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) includes, in Article 8, a provision for Community co-financing of the management of Natura 2000, within the framework of the existing financial instruments. A preliminary assessment of the financial needs and of the possible options for Community co-financing was prepared in 2002 by a working group composed of experts from several Member States, including Portugal. The final report of the working group is available on the Internet, and indicates three possible ways to proceed.

The Commission is presently analysing the above-mentioned report of the working group and will present a Communication to the Council and the Parliament in September 2003 on possibilities to finance the Natura 2000-network.

Concerning the marine environment, the Commission is aware that the implementation of the relevant provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC for the protection of marine species as well as the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment is making slow progress.

The delays are mostly linked to a lack of scientific knowledge and the high costs of carrying out research and surveys in offshore marine areas. To accelerate this implementation, the Commission created a Maríne expert group, with the participation of experts from most Member States, including Portugal. The aim of the expert group is to establish a European common approach to deal with the problems of full implementation of Natura 2000 in the marine environment, and its first meeting took place in Brussels in March 2003.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0127/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Inquiry regarding the Prestige

On 21 November 2002 the European Parliament meeting in plenary adopted a resolution on the disaster caused by the tanker Prestige, which included the following paragraph:

[The European Parliament] calls on the Commission to conduct an inquiry to determine who was responsible for and the circumstances surrounding the disaster and the respective identities and roles of all of the individuals involved, focusing on: the type of vessel and the causes

of the accident, the origin and destination of the shipment, the degrees of responsibility borne by the shipping company, the captain of the vessel, the state in which the vessel was registered and the owner of the cargo, the individuals involved in the shipment of the fuel oil, the crew's working conditions, the quality of the inspections carried out and the ports used, and to inform Parliament of the outcome as soon as possible, and to check the application of the standards governing the internal market, including the nature of the goods transported, and whether the fuel oil being transported was consistent with the relevant European standards.

There is still great anxiety, concern and indignation about the issue, especially in Portugal, Spain and France.

Can the Commission therefore say what stage has been in the inquiry? Are there any duly substantiated preliminary findings? When will the conclusions be published?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Commission has noted the Resolution adopted by Parliament on 21 November 2002. Although it does not have formal powers to conduct an inquiry into the sinking of the Prestige, it is making every effort to follow the work conducted by the various authorities responsible for this task, and to gather all the information requested.

Under international law of the sea, this type of inquiry is the responsibility of the flag State concerned, which informs the International Maritime Organisation of its findings. The coastal States concerned normally also carry out their own inquiries into such accidents.

In this framework, the Commission is already in contact with authorities in the Bahamas, France and Spain which have started inquiries into this disaster. It is also participating as an observer and at the request of the American Bureau of Shipping (the classification society of the Prestige) in the ad hoc audit of this company by the International Association of Classification Societies.

The Commission will therefore report on the initial findings of these inquiries to the Committee for Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism in March 2003 with a view to the public hearing to be organised by Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Consequences for farmers of digital mapping of the UK

As a result of the digital mapping of the United Kingdom, some British farmers fear that all European payments will be consolidated and then paid out as a hectorage payment.

Should this come about, they fear that the payment would be made to the owner/landlord of the land and not to the occupier as is the case with milk quotas, and would result in landlords claiming a large proportion of the payment.

Are their fears justified?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Article 36 of the Commission's proposal establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (CAP)(1) grants any farmer access to the Single Payment Scheme, who has an entitlement based on a direct payment received in the reference period 2000-2002.

As stated in Article 40 of the same proposed Regulation, the reference amount shall be the three years average of the total amount which a farmer was granted. This amount is based on the number of hectares and the number of animals under the relevant support schemes, for each calendar year of the reference period.

Subsequently, Article 47 of the proposal lays down that any entitlement granted to a farmer at the time of the setting up of the Single Payment, which is accompanied by an eligible hectare, shall give right to the payment of the amount fixed by the entitlement in the future. Eligible hectare shall mean any agricultural area of the holding taken up by arable land and permanent pasture except areas under permanent crops, forests or used for non agricultural activities on 31 December 2002.

Within this scheme, as a general principle, it is therefore the farmer, who holds entitlements derived from his direct payments during the reference period and who can accompany his future claim for the Single Payment with an equivalent number of eligible hectares, who will receive the payment.

However, without prejudice to this general principle, in order to allow flexibility to respond to specific situations, Member States have the option to define a certain balance between individual payment entitlements and regional or national averages by applying the single payment scheme at a regional level. In this case, a farmer whose holding is located in the region concerned shall receive an entitlement per hectare which is calculated by dividing that part of the national ceiling corresponding to the region by the number of reference hectares established at regional level.

(1) COM(2003) 23 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1093/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds for the civil protection of persons and goods, whether by preventing, or at least dealing with, potential natural disasters or even so-called technological and industrial disasters, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03,E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03,E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, over the last two years, the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Florence, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni have submitted no projects for the Community action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999(1) and that, accordingly, they have received no financial aid in that context.

The action programme is intended to support and supplement Member States' efforts at national, regional and local levels to protect persons, property and the environment in the event of natural and technological disasters. With an annual budget of EUR 1,5 million (budget heading B4-308), the programme is able to finance action relating to prevention, preparedness, response, immediate aftercare and analysis of the socio-economic implications of disasters. Only action involving all the Member States or a large number of them is eligible. Eligible action has to be in line with the priorities determined each year by the Commission with the assistance of a management committee.

The Commission can also inform the Honourable Member that a whole series of examples of projects carried out through the Community action programme in the field of civil protection can be found at the following Internet address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.