ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: 'Head' side of euro coins

The head side of euro coins, as is well-known, is different for each country that has introduced the euro. That means that there are 96 different euro coins in circulation in the EU. Some people feel that this is too much of a good thing. Furthermore, there will be a significant increase in the number of different coins in 2004 following the enlargement of the European Community. There is now mention of the introduction of a common head side for all countries.

Is the Commission considering introducing a single head side for second generation euro coins for all countries?

If so, when?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

At the informal Ecofin Council in Verona in spring 1996, the governments decided that the euro coins should have a common European side as well as a national side. This combines the advantage of a unified approach (common side, same technical specifications, ), while allowing for the expression of national diversity and tradition.

The Commission is not aware of a widespread discussion on the future of the national sides of the euro coins. The citizens of Europe became familiar with the euro coins very quickly and the different national sides did not appear to be a source of confusion, but rather a source of interest. The new European currency is a great success and at the current stage there is no need to discuss possible future changes, as this could indeed contribute to confusion among the public.

At the present stage, it is hard to predict the pace at which national sides will be added, as this will not result from the accession process as such (2004), but rather from the subsequent entry of these countries into the euro area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3547/02 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Exclusion of interregional associations from EURES.



Official Journal 155 E , 03/07/2003 P. 0167 - 0167



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3547/02 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission (11 December 2002) Subject: Exclusion of interregional associations from EURES In its Communication of 13 February 2002 to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on its Action Plan for skills and mobility(1) the Commission emphasises the European dimension to the labour market and the importance of professional mobility and flexibility. On the other hand, it is reportedly now considering excluding the 40 Interregional Trade Union Councils (ITUCs) from EURES, the European Employment Services network. Are these reports true? (1) COM(2002) 72 final. Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (31 January 2003) No. The Commission believes that an active participation of the social partners is crucial for the success of EURES the network of the Commission, the employment services of the Member States and any further national partners which they may have. According to the new Commission Decision on EURES that the Commission has adopted in December(1), the social partners will be represented at European level both in the High Level Strategy Group and the Working Party. The main principles for the future organisation of the EURES cross-border partnerships will be established in the EURES Charter. The Commission proposal foresees that a crossborder partnership comprises the Public Employment Services together with trades union and employer organisations of all the regions involved. (1) C(2002)5236 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3842/02

by Paolo Pastorelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: The province of Novara

Following the creation of the province of Verbano-Cusio-Ossola (VCO) the province of Novara is now the only one in Piedmont which does not receive assistance from the Structural Funds granted by the European Union in accordance with Regulation (EEC) 2081/93(1), but its exclusion does not automatically mean that the new province of Novara does not come within the scope of the parameters laid down for Objective 2 of the Funds, which constitute the main instrument of economic and social cohesion and an expression of intra-Community solidarity.

The subsidies which the European Union allocates to the industrial sectors in the regions covered by Objective 2 are precisely designed to slow down, arrest and reverse processes of industrial decline in regions which have undergone considerable development of the secondary sector. In view of all this, does the Commission intend to check the data and parameters in its possession in order to ascertain the possibility of including the province of Novara among the Objective 2 regions?

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Honourable Member is reminded that the list of areas eligible under Objective 2 is determined by the Commission on the basis of each Member State's proposals.

Novara Province was not eligible under Objective 2 during the programming period ending on 31 December 1999, nor does it appear on the list of eligible Italian areas for the period 2000-2006 decided on by the Commission on 27 July 2000. Under Article 4(11) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1) this list is valid up to 31 December 2006 but during 2003 can be modified by the Commission in response to a proposal from Italy occasioned by grave crisis in a region.

However no increase in the coverage of each NUTS II region in population terms is permitted.

Thus any addition of territory in Novara Province to the list of eligible areas would have to be offset by removal from eligibility of another part of Piedmont Region of equivalent population size.

New areas proposed for Objective 2 eligibility must also meet the criteria set in Article 4(1) to (10) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Loans

1. Will the Commission give the amount of loans disbursed in each of the last five years in the EU candidate countries including Turkey, and also in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova?

2. Will it further detail the equivalent figures for disbursements to each non-EU country on the littoral of the Mediterranean sea?

3. Will it further express the cumulative total for the five years as a percentage of each country's GDP and as an amount per head of each country?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

A set of tables which provide the information requested has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Please note, however, that the Commission does not have figures on European Investment Bank (EIB) loan disbursements at the level of detail requested. Tables 2 and 3 sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat provide instead the figures for loans signed by the EIB in the respective years. As additional information, a column indicating the total amounts disbursed up to 31 December 2001 is added.

Further information on Community lending activity can be found in the following reports published regularly by the Commission:

- Report from the Commission to the budgetary authority on guarantees covered by the general budget situation at 31 December 2001(1);

- Report from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on the borrowing and lending activities of the Community in 2000(2).

(1) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/com/rpt/2002/com2002_0237fr01.pdf.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/com/rpt/2001/com2001_0435fr01.pdf.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2989/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 10 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) calls for the introduction of certification and practical tests as appropriate for deck officers, engineers and skippers on small fishing vessels that currently do not require Certificates of Competency in those Member States where this is not currently required.

Paragraph 11 calls for the enactment of European Community and Member State standards to introduce mandatory basic safety training for all crewmembers on EU fishing vessels and to ensure the revalidation of safety training at regular intervals in those Member States where this is not currently required.

Paragraph 15 calls on the Commission to devise strategies to ensure the overall standard of fisheries training qualifications is enhanced in the interest of vessel and occupational health and safety and to fast-track the harmonising of qualifications between the fishing industry and merchant marine.

Has the Commission taken any steps in this connection?

Does it not believe that improving training and standardising certification for fishing crews would help cut the number of fisheries accidents?

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

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that improving the training of personnel on board fishing vessels helps to reduce the number of accidents at work.

With regard to protection of the health and safety of workers at work, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels(1) and Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)(2), which sets out minimum requirements for the training of workers and of any person likely to command a vessel, the captain or designated workers.

In particular, Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 93/103/EC stipulates the areas which must be covered by training in health and safety on board fishing vessels; this training must be updated as required by changes in the activities on board. Moreover, Annex III of Directive 93/103/EC sets out minimum requirements for training in the use of life-saving and survival equipment.

In addition, Article 5 of Directive 92/29/EEC sets out the necessary measures which each Member State must take to inform and train workers regarding medical treatment on board vessels. In particular, Annex V of this Directive contains general guidelines to be followed for the medical training of the captain and designated workers. This training must be updated periodically, at least every five years (cf. Article 5(3)).

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Subject: Budget balance forecasting record

1. Will the Commission give the forecast (or forecasts) made by each Member State for their budget balance (as a percentage of GDP) in the ensuing financial year for each year of the last ten years?

2. Will the Commission also show the subsequent outturn, and compute for each Member State an average difference between forecast and outturn?

Will the Commission provide a short commentary on the lessons if any from this exercise?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2865/02, E-2866/02, E-2867/02 and E-2868/02given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

The Commission does not systematically collect the various forecasts made during the year by Member States for growth and budget balances. It is therefore also difficult to assess their forecast accuracy.

Very much attention is paid to the growth and budgetary projections included in the Stability and Convergence Programmes which the Member States submit to the Commission in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and co-ordination of economic policies(1). These projections are assessed in the light of the Commission's own view on the economic situation and outlook, but also of those provided by other international and private entities.

A comprehensive study of the track record of the Commission forecasts is, however, available as an Economic Paper of the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, published in October 1999: http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/publications/economic_papers/economicpapers137_en.htm

(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3658/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Black tide in Galicia: casual dumping

The Prestige disaster has once again alarmed European public opinion, which is astounded to see how our coastlines are periodically hit by black tides. In the wake of each disaster, governments make public statements promising to tighten up the legislation until the next disaster happens.

Nevertheless, black tides represent less than 20 % of the oil and derivatives tipped into the sea on a daily basis. More than 80 % stems from everyday practices such as emptying and cleaning tanks at sea. It is a proven fact that, every time such a disaster happens, a number of vessels take advantage of the opportunity to clean their tanks.

Some people claim that this is a daily rather than an occasional occurrence, but that it is only noticed when there is a real black tide because of the high media presence in the area.

Will the Commission submit any formal proposal or take any specific action aimed at preventing such incidents from recurring, within the framework of both the EU and the International Maritime Organisation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The Commission is keenly aware of the problem caused by the illegal practice of emptying and cleaning tanks at sea, and its impact on the marine environment. It believes criminal sanctions need to be introduced for anyone who, deliberately or through serious negligence, causes marine pollution.

Initiatives in this area were put forward in the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council of 3 December 2002(1). In addition, the Copenhagen European Council of December 2002 affirmed, in its conclusions, its intention to examine the need for new initiatives, including on the criminal liability of polluters.

In this context, the Commission has started work on a draft regulation designed inter alia to impose criminal sanctions on anyone (i.e. not just the shipowner, but also the owner of the cargo, the classification society or any other person concerned) who causes pollution through serious negligence.

This proposal will tackle (deliberate) dumping by ships (the emptying and cleaning of tanks at sea) and will be supplemented by provisions on the collection of evidence and the prosecution of those responsible.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/02

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: System for reimbursement of dental clinics in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom Government's policy is to pay state-run dental clinics a defined fee for each item of treatment provided, in addition to which all capital, staffing and operating costs are also paid. The same treatment fees provided by independent dentists contracted to provide dental care are paid without reimbursement of any capital, staffing or operating costs save that of part payment of business rates. Will the Commission comment on whether this policy constitutes unfair competition and is consistent with EU fair competition policy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Health policy is the responsibility of the Member States, which are entitled to set up, run and fund public health establishments with a public service remit.

The funding of these services complies with competition rules if it does not go beyond what is required to enable them to fulfil their remit. However, overcompensation for public health services resulting in cross-subsidisation of competitive activities could infringe competition rules.

It follows from these principles that the policy pursued by the UK Government of paying state-run dental clinics a defined fee for each item of treatment provided, in addition to all capital, staffing and operating costs, while independent dentists contracted to provide the same dental care are paid only equivalent fees but receive no compensation for their capital, staffing and operating costs, is not necessarily a barrier to free competition.

State-run dental clinics may be subject to obligations stemming from their public service remit (ceilings on invoices, opening hours, geographical location or specialist services provided) which do not apply to independent dental clinics and which have cost-related implications. If the funding provided by the UK authorities is limited to compensating state-run dental clinics for the costs stemming from their public service remit, it is not caught by the rules on state aid.

The information available to the Commission is not such as to enable it to say whether the system described by the Honourable Member is in breach of Community competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3599/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Recuperation of the fish and shellfish resources of Galicia in the wake of the Prestige disaster

What extraordinary measures will the Commission propose to aid the recuperation of the fish and shellfish resources of the coastal areas of Galicia affected by the Prestige disaster?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

On 20 December 2002 the Council adopted a Regulation instituting a specific measure aimed at promoting the recovery of fish stocks and aquaculture sites affected by the oil slick caused by the tanker Prestige(1).

The Regulation lays down exceptional supporting measures for the persons and enterprises engaged in fisheries, the shellfish industry and aquaculture in the Spanish coastal areas affected by the oil pollution from the Prestige.

The support measures comprise:

- compensation to persons and owners of enterprises for the temporary cessation of their activities,

- aid for replacing fishing gear,

- aid for cleaning, repairing and reconstructing shellfish and aquaculture sites,

- compensation for replacing shellfish stocks.

The Regulation also provides for a number of derogations from the criteria which expenditure must satisfy in order to receive part-financing from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) under Regulation (EC) No 2792/199(2), in order to facilitate and speed up the provision of aid to these suffering as a result of the pollution.

Furthermore, the Regulation authorises the release of additional appropriations (EUR 30 million) under the aid provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 aiming to promote the conversion of fishing vessels and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco(3).

The Commission would also ask the Honourable Member to refer to its answers to written questions E-3362/02(4) and 3593/02(5), and to the answer given to Written Question E-3632/02(6) from Mr Sánchez García, which will provide him with an overview of the initiatives it has taken and of various measures which may be applicable in response to the shipwreck of the oil tanker Prestige.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2372/2002 of 20 December 2002 instituting specific measures to compensate the Spanish fisheries, shellfish industry and aquaculture, affected by the oil spills from the Prestige, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 of 17 December 2001 aiming to promote the conversion of fishing vessels and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(4) See page 85.

(5) See page 110.

(6) See page 120.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0656/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Subject: Presumptive VAT in respect of small and medium-sized businesses in Greece

Article 6 of Law 2753/99 stipulates that every three years, beginning in 1999, small and medium-sized businesses must compare their gross revenue with total unaccounted earnings and, where the former is less than the latter, VAT is payable on the difference.

Representatives of small and medium-sized businesses in Greece consider that this provision is unjust because not only is VAT levied retroactively, it is also levied on presumptive sales.

In the Commission's view, is this a case of presumptive VAT and is such a procedure consistent with Community legislation?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission has recently received information from the Greek authorities which allows it to reply to the Honourable Member's questions concerning the consistency of Greek law 2753/1999 with Community VAT legislation.

It would appear that the Greek law, in particular Article 6(2), is designed to ensure that certain types of companies who detect an imbalance between their turnover and purchases may correct this by paying an additional tax without being subject to a fine. Companies are not obliged to opt for this type of self-regulation in which case they will be subject to ordinary checks, which can result in a tax surcharge of up to 300 % in the event of a major breach of the tax code.

The Commission considers these measures are in the nature of techniques for monitoring and evaluation of the taxable amount and does not consider that the amount could be affected by which of the two options a company takes. Therefore, Greek law 2753/1999 does not appear to be inconsistent in any way with Community VAT legislation.