ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0895/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: Staffing at customs authorities in the European Union

Customs is of particular interest to the European Union: a large proportion of customs receipts benefits the European Union budget. In some Member States, however, customs officers complain time and time again about customs authorities' staff shortages.

Are there EU standards for the number of control bodies necessary for controlling a particular section of a border?

How many customs officers are currently employed in Austria, and how many would be necessary for the best possible supervision of the EU's external borders in Austria?

What is the customs staffing situation in other EU Member States? Which member States have too few customs staff, and how many staff are needed in relation to the number of customs officers actually employed in the individual Member States?

How high would the Commission put the European Union's customs revenue losses resulting from customs authorities' staff shortages?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Under Article 280 of the EC Treaty Member States are required to take steps to protect the financial interests of the Community. It is up to them to set up the customs services that they deem necessary to collect own resources efficiently. There are therefore no rules at Community level specifying the number of customs officials or control bodies necessary for surveillance of the borders.

According to information from the Austrian customs authorities, in 2001 Austria had 4 200 customs officials responsible for controls on goods and collection of customs duties.

In the customs administrations of other Member States manpower stands at about 91 000, to which should be added the staff belonging to other bodies or institutions also working in the customs field. The number of staff varies according to local circumstances and tasks carried out under Part 3, Title I of the EC Treaty, and Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. What the Member States need to do, with the help of the Commission through the Customs 2002 Programme, is to provide staff with adequate computerised infrastructure, better training and modern control techniques, in particular risk analysis.

The Commission, as the authorising body for revenue, carries out controls, including on-the-spot inspections. It reports to the budgetary authority at regular intervals on the functioning of the inspection arrangements for traditional own resources under Article 18(3) of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources(1).

The Commission is not in a position to evaluate any possible injury to the EU as a result of customs staffing levels.

(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1369/02

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Proposal for a regulation concerning the vinification and processing of organically produced grapes

In the absence of Community legislation properly regulating the processing of grapes produced by holdings practising or in the process of converting to organic farming, there are a variety of rules issued by the authorities in the Member States, which are often confusing for consumers.

Since the market needs to have the broadest possible guarantees regarding organic wine regulated by precise rules governing processing, can the Commission propose an appropriate Community regulation with a view to standardising the systems for processing organically produced grapes and protecting European consumers so that they can drink a healthy and typical wine of quality, produced without damaging the environment, and ensure that the monitoring authorities in the Member States do not have to ascertain compliance with rules they themselves have laid down?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The rules on organic grape production (and other organic crop production) are set by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs(1).

Council Regulation (EC) 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(2) sets general rules on authorised oenological practices and processes in the production of all types of wine. These are particularly rigorous, precise and detailed and apply equally to vinification of organically grown grapes.

The Commission is aware of the expansion of wine production from such grapes and has examined the possibility of specific rules for their vinification that would also conform with the general rules.

The professional organisations that represent the wine sector have questioned the need for a further set of rules additional to the table wine rules and the stricter rules set by the Member States for quality wines produced in specific regions (QWPSR) and do not want regulatory definition of a specific production process for wine from organic grapes. Their position is shared by a majority of the Member States. In fact for the essential operations there is no substantial difference in practices and processes, particularly where quality wines are concerned.

The Commission considers that the current presentation requirements for these wines are sufficiently precise and uniform to ensure fair competition. It may reconsider the situation in future in the light of production and market trends.

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.

(2) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Accusation that low-cost airlines are cutting costs by circumventing safety regulations

1. Is the Commission aware of the report by the independent complaints commission Chirp, referred to in the British newspaper The Times, to the effect that pilots employed by unnamed low-cost airlines are under pressure to stay within their tight schedules by reacting aggressively to instructions by air-traffic controllers, approaching airports at excessively high speeds, taking turns at tighter angles than those prescribed and flying over forbidden zones, including residential areas?

2. Can the Commission confirm inter alia on the basis of Eurocontrol's experience that dangerous behaviour of this kind has indeed occurred and that it is practised by low-cost airline operators in particular?

3. What are the safety implications of the fact that the low-cost airlines keep their aircraft in the air for eleven hours per day as opposed to the eight hours a day practised by the national airlines?

4. What possibilities exist at present of banning airline operators guilty of the behaviour referred to in points 1 to 3 from flying over European Union territory?

5. How does the Commission propose to provide better protection for travellers and people living near airports against the dangers inherent in making safety subordinate to an exaggerated desire to cut costs?

Source: De Volkskrant of 19 June 2002.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

1. The Commission does not routinely receive copies of reports made under the United Kingdom Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP). Pilots of aircraft flying under air traffic control are obliged to fly in accordance with certain rules which apply in such circumstances. Action will be taken by air traffic control organisations when pilots breach these rules; especially when the breach leads to a reduction in safety values.

2. Any instances of poor discipline by pilots flying under air traffic control are dealt with directly by the relevant air traffic control organisation in consultation with the airline company which employs the pilot and the national regulatory authority, or authorities, which certificates the airline and licences the pilot. For the time being, the Commission has not received any evidence that low-cost carriers are any differently behaved than others.

3. There are no safety implications in aircraft being utilised for more hours in any given period, as long as all safety measures are fully observed.

4. When a company flouts safety regulations their national aviation safety regulator will have to investigate and may decide to suspend or withdraw their certificate to operate.

5. The Commission has successfully proposed the establishment of the European Aviation Safety Agency. The principal objective of the Agency is to establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0113/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(28 January 2002)

Subject: Grants of asylum in the EU

During 2000 and 2001 developments in the number of people granted asylum varied between the individual EU countries.

Can the Commisison state what the various developments were in the number of asylum seekers and grants of asylum in each of the 15 Member States during 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

As certain data for 2001 is yet to be submitted to the Commission by some Member States only provisional conclusions can be drawn at this stage.

However, following the May 2001 Council Conclusions regarding common analysis and the improved exchange of statistics on asylum and migration, the Commission intends to publish an annual report on the asylum, illegal entry and immigration statistics of 2001, including a statistical analysis of trends and indicators. The report is expected to be published at the end of 2002. It should provide more definite answers to the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

With regards to the number of asylum applications, the available figures would tend to suggest that Member States have not been faced with a steady flow of applications over the last two years. So far no Member State has reported totals comparable to 2000; they experienced either a sizeable increase or decrease.

As when assessing the total number of applications, missing 2001 data still causes difficulties when considering developments with regards to the granting of asylum. Judging from the data submitted, 11,8 % were granted Geneva Convention status, while the total number of positive decisions (Geneva Convention status and subsidiary forms of protection) would be 19,8 % of the decisions taken. However, here again developments differed in Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2251/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Whiplash injury

In its answer to my written question E-1452/02(1), on whiplash injury, the Commission states that two projects on this subject were included in the fourth and fifth framework programmes. However, the Commission neglects to give a concrete answer to my question, which I therefore submit again.

The fifth five-year framework programme has now been completed. When can we expect results, practical measures and new rules designed to prevent whiplash injury?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

In its two previous answers to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-0310/02(1) and E-1452/02(2), the Commission informed the Honourable Member that an important research programme focusing on the issue of whiplash injuries was currently in progress.

Within the framework of the competitive and sustainable growth programme concerning the period 1998-2002, the Commission initiated the research programme Whiplash II, following on from the Brite-Euram III project (which was Whiplash I).

As part of Whiplash I, a RID-2 (Rear Impact Dummy) test dummy was developed by the TNO (Dutch Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) in Delft, based on the dummy currently used in frontal impact testing. This dummy is intended to be used in low and mid-severity rear-end collision testing and further investigation is still necessary to confirm whether it could be validated for frontal impact too.

Some results of Whiplash I and of some National research studies are likely to be used in the context of the EURO-NCAP (European New Car Assessment Programme) programme. This programme aims to provide consumers with an independent assessment of the safety performances of cars sold in Europe.

The Whiplash II research programme, which started in March 2001, will continue until March 2004. It covers different aspects such as:

- accident analyses in order to develop knowledge on the causes of injury and accident conditions in which whiplash injuries occur;

- human responses and injuries in laboratory conditions in order to develop criteria to be measured on dummies;

- development of an appropriate test method to be applied to vehicles (rear impact test).

When the results are available, they will be debated within international fora as the EEVC (European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee), the GRSP (Passive safety Working Party) of UN/ECE (United Nations/Economic Committee for Europe) and IHRA (International Harmonisation of Research Activities). In addition to this programme, the United States' National Highway Traffic Safety Agency is currently studying improvements to its legislation in this area.

Since these important research programmes are still in progress, it is difficult to forecast the outcome and the resultant introduction of new regulations. Nevertheless, the Commission will consider technical regulations as soon as the results are available.

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 111.

(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0922/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Subject: Temporary protection scheme for the shipbuilding industry

In the conclusions of the 4-5 December 2001 Council meeting of Energy and Industry Ministers it is stated that the Council held an extensive discussion on the proposal for a regulation under which a temporary protection scheme for the Community shipbuilding industry is to be set up. However, since it failed to secure a qualified majority on the Commission proposal, the Council agreed to return to the matter at a subsequent meeting.

Would the Commission therefore provide the following information:

- Is any revision of the Commission's original proposal being drawn up?

- If so, will the time limit for the provision of aid be extended until the end of 2003? And when will the revised version be considered by the Council?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

The Industry Council of 5 December 2001 did not take a decision on the Commission's proposal for a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding(1) (TDM), which was intended to support the Community's possible action against Korea in the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The TDM was limited in time and scope. The segments eligible for aid under the Proposal were those identified by the Commission's investigation under Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the WTO(2) hereafter Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR) into Korean shipbuilding practices, as suffering considerable injury and serious prejudice, caused by unfair Korean practices. The aid under the TDM would, accordingly, have been limited to container ships and product and chemical tankers.

The Commission was requested in November 2001 by the Community shipbuilding industry to update the injury part of the investigations under the TBR. Once these investigations will have been finalised, the results will be presented to the Council (the TBR Committee). As to the current state of play, the Commission can confirm that a revision of the Proposal would only be drawn up if this were warranted by the findings of the updated TBR report.

(1) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.

(2) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2464/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Trade figures

Further to the Commission's answer to questions E-0992/02 to E-0994/02 and E-1106/02(1), will the Commission state whether it has asked the European Central Bank for permission so that Eurostat may publish the figures for trade in goods and services? If not, will it do so promptly?

Does it agree that the collection and publication of figures is a public good, and should not be unnecessarily complicated for users by the precise public institution collecting those figures?

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 244.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2464/02 and E-2465/02given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Further to its answer to written questions E-0992/02 to E-0994/02 and E-1106/02 by the Honourable Member, the Commission has frequent contacts with the European Central Bank (ECB) on data dissemination and the ECB does not intend to publish the Balance of Payments (BOP) data of the Member States with the extra Euro-zone used to compile the Euro-zone aggregate. Moreover, data on BOP transactions between members of the Euro-zone one are not a primary concern to the ECB. Following the request of the Honourable Member, the Commission has contacted the European Central Bank on the public dissemination of individual Member States data. The ECB confirmed its former position.

Also the Commission does not intend to publish these data, although for different reasons. The Commission agrees with the principle that statistics collected are a public good and should be disseminated. However, the Commission considers not every data collected nationally for the purpose of creating an European aggregate to be of public interest. This is the case for the data used as input for the Euro-zone aggregates of the balance of payments. As Member States produce and publish their own balance of payments data using a methodology (principle of origin) different from the one used for creating the European aggregate (principle of consignment), the public user might be confused by two sets of data whose differences are difficult to interpret.

Nevertheless, in order to satisfy the present demand, the Commission has agreed with some Member States to provide these data. The Honourable Member will find them enclosed. It should be stressed again that these data are used by Eurostat to compile the Community's Balance of Payments. They are different from the national data Member States disseminate to the public. However, they are fully compatible with the aggregate Community's Balance of Payments published by Eurostat.

Finally, the 2001 data with a detailed geographical breakdown are not yet available, and will be available by the end of October 2002. The provisional 2001 data for the Union with partners World, Extra-EU 15, Intra-EU 15, United States, Japan and Canada were published in July 2002 (statistics in focus 34/2002) and in New Cronos, and is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1352/02

by Didier Rod (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Incorporation of the European Development Fund (EDF) in the EU budget

According to our information, the Spanish Government is now the only EU government to object to the incorporation of the EDF in the Community budget.

After 11 September, much attention has been paid and many promises have been made with regard to an increase in development financing worldwide. At the same time, the Commission is undertaking an extensive reform effort with a view to improving the performance of its external aid programmes. However, the EDF, a cornerstone of EU relations with the South, continues to fall outside the remit of the EU and remains in the hands of the Member States.

Why has the decisive move towards the incorporation of the EDF in the Community budget still not been made? Does not the Council believe that, for the sake of a unified and coordinated approach, as well as in the interest of higher efficiency, the EDF should be incorporated in the EU budget?

Has the Council planned any such move for the Johannesburg Summit to be held in late August as a statement of European Union commitment to enhanced development aid and, if not, when can such an initiative be expected?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council's position on the budgetisation of the EDF was reaffirmed by the Council on 19 and 20 December 1994 and remains unchanged.

At that time, having examined the Commission report on the options and detailed arrangements for budgetising the EDF, the Council took the view that the present provisions for financing the EDF should not be altered. This position amounted only to a confirmation of Declaration No 12 annexed to the Treaty on European Union concerning the EDF and the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 March 1994(1) rejecting the Parliament's appeal for the annulment of the rules of procedure of the 7th EDF.

In this context, attention should be drawn to the Court's conclusion to the effect that EDF expenditure was not Community expenditure which had to be entered in the Community budget.

The Council is not considering reopening this question at the present time.

It should nevertheless be pointed out that when the resources were fixed for the 9th EDF, the Commission made a statement according to which it intends to transmit to the Council before 2003, after an analysis of the present system, a communication assessing the advantages and drawbacks of the budgetisation of the EDF.

The Council will not fail to examine that communication at that time.

(1) Case C-316/91, ECR I-625.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2219/02

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Ageism

The British Department for Education and Skills (DFES) currently debars UK citizens over the age of 55 from applying for student loans. Does the Commission take the view that this practice constitutes ageism and, therefore, is in breach of EU provisions to outlaw age discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

The provision in the EC Treaty which refers to discrimination based on age is Article 13:

Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

To implement this provision, the Council adopted Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1). The Directive establishes, for the relevant field, a comprehensive system of protection against discrimination, including on grounds of age. It also provides for cases in which differences of treatment based on age are objectively and reasonably justified (Article 6) and as such are not incompatible with Community law. The Member States have until 2 December 2003 to transpose this Directive into national law. However, they may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination.

Once this period has elapsed, the Directive will prohibit discrimination based on age in relation to access to all types and all levels of vocational guidance, vocational training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including practical work experience. However, the Directive in question does not cover differences of treatment based on age in the field of education.

Nevertheless, persons who consider themselves to be victims of discrimination on grounds of age may invoke the provisions of any national legislation in force in the national courts.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.