ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2301/02

by Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Free movement and residence permit

Under Directive 68/360/EEC(1) of 15 October 1968, European citizens living in a Member State of which they are not a national receive an identity or identification document known as a Residence Permit for a National of a Member State of the EEC.

More than thirty years have elapsed since 1968 and many European citizens born since then in a Member State of which they are not a national still possess a residence permit. Is it not paradoxical and somewhat absurd that people can be considered temporary residents in a country in which they were born and in which they have lived on an ongoing basis for 20-30 years?

As it is highly unlikely that a true European identity card which is what European citizens are demanding can be introduced at present, why does the Commission not, in the meantime, amend Directive 68/360/EEC and change the residence permit into a domicile permit?

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

On 23 May 2001 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive concerning the right of Union citizens and their family members to travel and reside within the territory of the Member States(1). Once it has been adopted by Parliament and the Council, the new Directive will replace Council Directive of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families(2), referred to by the Honourable Member, and all the other legal instruments in force governing the free movement of a range of groups of people: self-employed workers, service providers and recipients, retired people, people who are not economically active, and students.

With a view to simplifying the formalities relating to residence, the proposal provides for the abolition of the residence permit for Union citizens for an initial period of residence of four years. It also provides that after four years of uninterrupted residence in the host Member State, Union citizens acquire permanent right of residence, which implies that they must be accorded equal treatment with national citizens and cannot be expelled from the country concerned. At this stage, Union citizens can obtain a permanent residence card enshrining this right.

(1) OJ C 270, 29.9.2001.

(2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3609/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Safeguarding European languages

The London Protocol on Patents, which still being ratified, prompted justified reactions on the part of the President of the French Senate, who said at Brive on 8 November last we cannot accept the provisions which would lead to English dominating this strategic sphere.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether it took part in drafting the Protocol;

2. whether it is concerned about safeguarding the cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe;

3. whether it does not consider that Europe is enriched by developing the vitality of its cultures rather than by dull monolingual standardisation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

The Commission would draw attention to its answer of 3 December 2002 to Written Question No E-3132/02 from Mr Pohjamo(1) in emphasising that the European Patent Organisation (EPO) is not a Community body, but is completely autonomous and independent of the Community. The Commission's involvement in the work of the EPO is therefore that of an observer. More specifically, as an observer and as part of the Community delegation, the Commission followed the work conducted by the EPO which, on 17 October 2000 at the second intergovernmental conference on the reform of the EPO, led to the conclusion of a voluntary agreement by the EPO on reducing translation costs (agreement on the application of Article 65 of the Convention on the grant of European patents, EPC). It should be made clear that the result of these negotiations has not led to an English only system being applied to European patents.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about safeguarding cultural and linguistic diversity in the Community, particularly in the cultural industries sector.

However, as the Commission stated in its proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent(2), the objective of an affordable Community patent militates in favour of a patent that is valid throughout the Community in the language in which it was granted under the EPC. In this context, the Commission noted that the arrangements concerning translations of the patent are a particularly important aspect in terms of the cost of the current European patent, which is three to five times higher than that of patents in the EU's main partner countries(3). It is interesting to note that the translations of current European patents are very rarely consulted. According to information available to the Commission, less than 2 % of the translations at the French National Institute for Industrial Property are consulted. Given these circumstances, the Commission feels that in this highly specialised sector it is essential to ensure that costs are affordable in order to promote innovation and ensure the competitiveness of European industry.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 170.

(2) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.

(3) COM(2000) 412 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3517/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2002)

Subject: Common Fisheries Policy

The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) claims that:

- EU fisheries funding in 2000-2006 is set to reach almost twice the amount for 1994-1999 despite concerns about depletion of fish stocks;

- during the period 2000-2006, EUR 1,06 billion are to be spent on reducing fishing efforts, while EUR 1,18 billion are to be spent on subsidies which will not prevent depletion of fish stocks, such as modernising or building new boats.

Are these claims correct?

Will the Commission detail how much money was given to each Member State in CFP subsidies in 2001, and what is its estimate of the proportion of this money which in each case was devoted to purposes intended to promote the conservation of fish stocks or fishing in an entirely sustainable manner?

What proportion of the CFP budget does the Commission intend should be devoted in 2003 to measures to conserve fish stocks or to promote fishing in an entirely sustainable manner?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

During the 1994-1999 period about EUR 1,3 billion, or an average of EUR 217 million per year, of Community aid was programmed for fleet measures, i.e. measures for reducing the capacity and measures for the renewal of the fleet. The amount programmed for the 2000-2006 period amounts to EUR 1,5 billion of Community aid, or an average of EUR 215 million per year. The average level of aid per year has thus remained the same.

Out of the EUR 1,5 billion programmed for the 2000-2006 period for fleet measures, 45 % are reserved for measures aiming at reducing the capacity, whereas 55 % have been reserved for fleet renewal measures.

It should, however, be noted that the aid given to fleet reduction measures leads to a net reduction of fleet capacity since the vessels withdrawn cannot be replaced. Similarly, the aid given to fleet renewal cannot lead to an increase in fishing capacity, since the new capacity must be matched by withdrawals from the fleet of at least the same capacity and without using public aid.

Until now the amounts paid to Member States are very limited, some EUR 87 million for reducing the capacity and some EUR 51 million for the renewal of the fleet. The details are shown below:

>TABLE>

In the Commission's reform proposals, aid for the renewal of the fleet will be limited to modernisation projects without capacity implications. As from 2003, the part of the aid programmed for fleet renewal, which has not yet been decided by the Member States, can and should, to a certain extent, be used for increasing the amounts already available for reducing the excess capacity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2376/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Both the UK Government and European Commission have indicated that GATS will not affect the delivery of health and education services, given they are deemed to be services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and not supplied on a commercial basis or in competition with one or more service suppliers. Given that, in the UK, the private sector is already involved in the delivery of health and education services on a commercial basis, could the European Commission clarify whether these services are indeed exempt from GATS?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

According to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), only services which are not supplied on a commercial basis and are not in competition do not fall under its coverage: the evaluation of the application of these two criteria must be done on a case by case basis. However, the positions that the European Communities and its Member States have taken in GATS on education and on health and related services do not impair the prerogatives of the Member States with regard to the establishment of an appropriate organisation for the delivery of services in these sectors. In particular, GATS safeguard the right of its Members to regulate in order to ensure the achievement of national policy objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2998/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 36 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) calls for greater coordination between maritime communications centres and services, with the strengthening and modernising of their existing technical and human resources and between European radio-medical centres in order to facilitate the permanent exchange of information in real time regarding medical treatment, as provided for by Directive 92/29/EEC, so as to improve techniques for radio diagnosis and telemedicine as well as sea rescue. This should be carried out through specific pilot plans.

What steps has the Commission taken in this respect?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels(1) provides, in Article 6, that in order to ensure better emergency treatment for workers on board vessels each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that one or more centres are designated to provide workers with free medical advice by radio and that some of the doctors providing their services for the radio consultation centres have been trained in the special conditions prevailing on board ship.

The maritime telemedicine services are now undergoing a strong development phase due to new means of communication and an increasing demand for easy access to care, regardless of position. However, challenges remain, such as legal issues, technology integration, culture on-board, and organisation and coordination on land.

The Commission is ready to analyse possible ways of improving coordination between the radio consultation centres and the emergency services of each Member State, taking into account the new types of equipment supplied by telemedicine and the conditions imposed by the use of different Community languages.

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Harmful gas emissions from the Reggio Emilia incinerator between 1 January 2002 and 10 February 2002

Between 1 January and 10 February 2002 the waste incinerator situated in via dei Gonzaga in Reggio Emilia in the Italian region of Emilia Romagna, managed by the firm AGAC under the control of the local authority, repeatedly emitted harmful substances such as carbon monoxide, hydrochloric acid and total organic carbon. The population and the authorities were not informed about the harmful emissions and the excessive emission levels at the appropriate time. The facts only emerged one month later, when a person living near the incinerator complained of feeling unwell.

Can the Commission say whether the silence on the part of those who run the plant, and who did not even inform the Reggio Emilia provincial authorities during the 40 days when the harmful substances were being emitted, infringes Community public health and environmental standards?

Does the incinerator in question comply with European legislation on the environment and public health?

Supplementary answergiven by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

The Italian authorities have not yet replied to the request for information sent by the Commission in order to verify whether, as regards harmful gas emissions from the Reggio Emilia incinerator in the period between 1 January 2002 and 10 February 2002, the relevant requirements had been complied with and whether the incinerator now complies with relevant Community emission standards. The issue will be discussed in the coming weeks in a meeting between the Commission and the Ministry of the Environment.

In any event, the Commission, which opened an own initiative case on the issue, will ensure the observance of Community law within the limits conferred on it by the EC Treaty. Should the Commission be informed that Community law is being breached in the specific case, it would not hesitate, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of relevant Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3489/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE)and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: The Commission's attempts to reduce labour rigidities and the Agency Workers Directive

Does the Commission believe that the Agency Workers Directive will have a beneficial or damaging effect on labour rigidities in the European Union? In particular, does the Commission believe that the Directive will enhance or reduce flexibility for employees and, in particular, for those women who wish to work, but who need employment flexibility in order to balance conflicting calls on their time?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Many studies raise concerns over the working conditions of temporary agency workers. Temporary agency work appears to be associated with especially precarious working conditions.

The proposed Directive formulates a general framework for the working conditions of temporary agency workers across Europe. Its main objective is to improve the security of agency workers while at the same time giving greater flexibility to enterprises. The Directive will improve the security of agency workers and make sure that they do not face any disadvantages. By providing a general framework for the working conditions of agency workers, it should increase the attractiveness of the sector and the number of workers who choose this kind of work in particular for the flexibility involved. At the same time, this should give more choice to user firms and allow them to better meet their needs for flexibility. The Directive therefore puts in place a framework for the further expansion of the sector, and will contribute to fully realising its employment potential and to improving the functioning of the labour market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2016/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Determining the location of European agencies' seats

The choice of location for certain European agency seats, such as that of the European Food Agency or the European Satellite Agency, has long been the subject of debate.

Discussion has focussed in particular on the relative benefits of either decentralising the seats or concentrating them in Brussels.

1. Does a comprehensive list exist of all the agencies or similar bodies for which a seat will be decided upon in the next few months or years?

2. Does a precise timetable exist for decisions on the location of seats?

3. Are there documents on this matter?

Answer given by Mr. Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2002)

The Treaties specify neither the criteria for deciding the location of an agency's headquarters nor the procedures to be adopted to this end. Article 289 of the EC Treaty merely states that the seat of the institutions is to be determined by common accord of the Governments of the Member States.

Various practices have consequently been followed in the past for determining the seat of the agencies that currently exist. Mostly, Article 289 of the EC Treaty has been applied by analogy, and the government representatives accordingly adopted a decision by common accord. More rarely, the location of some agencies has been decided by the Council, in the regulations establishing them.

The Commission has no established any list or calendar for the designation of the headquarters of agencies or similar structures. At the Laeken European Council (14-15 December 2001), Member State governments discussed the issue of location of several, future European agencies and bodies on the basis of a list provided for by the Council Presidency, but did not arrive at a common accord.

It does not exist a precise timetable for this kind of decisions. In principle, when an agency is created by a legislative act, a decision should be taken on its location, at least provisionally, in order to make the agency operational.

The Commission is not aware of any specific document on this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2283/02

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Tourist traffic at the border with Gibraltar

This question concerns a European citizen who enjoyed freedom of movement within the European Union during his holiday but encountered obstacles at the border with Gibraltar.

Waiting times there are comparable with what they were before the introduction of freedom of movement. Border formalities are obstructed mainly on the Spanish side.

What steps has the Commission taken or will it take to remove obstacles to tourist traffic on the Spanish-British border of Gibraltar?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The crossing point between Gibraltar and Spain is not an internal border, implying the absence of controls, but an external Schengen border; thus, controls on persons are permissible. Furthermore, since Gibraltar is excluded from the Community common customs territory by virtue of Article 29 of the Act of the Accession of the United Kingdom, checks on goods carried by travellers coming from Gibraltar are also necessary.

After having received numerous complaints, the Commission sent, on 30 October 2000, a letter of formal notice to the Spanish Government drawing its attention to the fact that the checks at the crossing point between Spain and Gibraltar might be disproportionate and, therefore, incompatible with Community law.

In its reply of 20 December 2000, the Spanish Government states that the checks carried out are necessary and proportionate. According to the Spanish authorities, persons are required merely to show their passport or identity card and cross practically without needing to stop. The control of goods carried by travellers is implemented by means of random checks performed on not more than one in ten persons or vehicles, with these searches taking not more than one minute in each case. On average, eight vehicles and twenty pedestrians are allegedly cross the boundary line each minute in each direction. Nevertheless, the Spanish Government accepts that, regrettably, queues form in the route for cars at certain times of day.

After careful examination of the reply of the Spanish Government and on the basis of the information supplied by travellers and of further information the Commission has been able to gather, it is concluded that no infringement of Community law is actually being committed.

On 19 March 2002, the Commission announced its intention to close its investigation regarding the Gibraltar-Spanish frontier restrictions having found no evidence to legally support claims that the checks carried out by the Spanish authorities on travellers and on goods carried by travellers are disproportionate and therefore incompatible with Community law.

On 21 March 2002, the Spanish authorities opened a second lane for vehicles, which should have eased the situation on the spot. Since then, Commission has not received any further complaints.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2719/02

by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: Delay in establishing the European Leader+ observatory

According to the Commission's notice to the Member States of 14 April 2000 laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+)(1), Title 3, paras 23, and 40, the Commission is to establish a European Observatory of rural areas. In most Member States the Leader+ projects have already been set up.

Why is it then that, 9 months after the end of the tendering deadline for appointments to the European Leader+ observatory, and two and a half years after the beginning of the programme, no official decision has yet been taken and thus no networking is taking place at European level?

Could the Commission please inform us what stage the procedure has reached and of the results of the steps taken in that procedure so far?

What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that the Observatory is established as soon as possible?

(1) OJ C 139, 18.5.2000, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2002)

By way of follow-up to the statement (in the notice to Member States of 14 April 2000) that a Commission-led Observatory of rural areas would be responsible for organising the network at Community level the Commission published a call for tenders (2001/S 226-155371) dated 23 November 2001(1), under which the contract was split into four lots and a maximum budget indicated for each.

Tenders, some for more than one lot, were then received from four bidders.

After the committee set up to examine the bids had applied the rules on exclusion from consideration and assignment the Commission concluded that this open procedure had contrary to expectations not generated enough competition for contracts to be awarded taking full account of the principles of sound financial management, and accordingly decided not to award contracts for any of the four lots. Given the need for a European Observatory of rural areas throughout the Leader+ period it is at present looking into alternative ways of setting one up.

(1) OJ S 226, 23.11.2001.