ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Blocking of escape routes in tall buildings and lack of information for potential victims

1. Is the Commission aware that when fire breaks out in buildings which are visited by large numbers of people, particularly in the entertainment industry, many people often die because the escape routes indicated in accordance with fire regulations are closed, both to keep out intruders and to enable the escape routes to be used as storage space?

2. What view does the Commission take of the fact that cases still occur in which, in tall buildings which are used as offices or hotels, doors affording access to the indicated escape routes via stairways are kept locked using keys which are not to hand, so that only the lifts can be used?

3. When people complain about the situation referred to at 2, they are often reassured with the information that escape routes are kept closed in agreement with the local fire brigade and that doors will open automatically if they are needed. Is this information correct?

4. Do doors open automatically, as referred to at 3, even if the energy supply, and hence communication with the storeys in question, fails?

5. How can users and potential victims themselves check whether the locks will really open if necessary or whether they are running the risk of being burnt alive because escape routes are inadequate?

6. Are there any differences in the extent to which the various EU Member States enforce fire safety and the provision of properly accessible escape routes? What is the nature of these differences?

7. What improvements with regard to escape routes need to be implemented in the EU Member States, and what is the Commission doing to promote them?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The matter of the accessibility of escape routes in buildings which are visited by large numbers of people, to which the Honourable Member referred, applies to a very large number (probably running into tens or hundreds of thousands) and variety of establishments across the Community.

There is no related Community legislation. Verification of compliance with national or local provisions is entirely the responsibility of the Member States and of the authorities and bodies competent to act at different levels in this field. Consequently, the Commission does not have the information requested, nor does it have access to this kind of information in general.

On the specific matter of fire safety in hotels, the Council adopted a recommendation in 1985 laying down a number of guidelines. The Commission recently sent a report on the application of this recommendation to the Parliament and Council(1). The report summarises all the information that the Commission has on the matter and presents plans for measures to improve fire safety in hotels. The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the report in question.

(1) Report from the Commission on application of the Council Recommendation of 22 December 1986 on fire safety in existing hotels (86/666/EEC) COM final (2001) 348.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2904/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council. Visits of Taiwanese Government officials to EU Member States.



Official Journal 134 E , 06/06/2002 P. 0143 - 0143



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2904/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council (22 October 2001) Subject: Visits of Taiwanese Government officials to EU Member States Further to the Council's reply of 27 September to my question of 29 March(1) during which six months Taiwan enjoyed a flourishing democracy while the People's Republic of China suffered under six months of totalitarian government- would it specify what it means when it says that it does not encourage official visits? Does this mean that such visits are not allowed? (1) Written Question E-0945/01 OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 29. Reply (14 February 2002) The Council itself has not invited any members of the Taiwanese government to Europe. However, there is no Council common position or any other legislative act that prevents visas from being issued to members of the Taiwanese government who are on an official visit to the Member States. The Council does not encourage such visits to the Member States of the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3157/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Transparency in the application of inspection procedures vis à vis the preservation of North Sea cod and haddock stocks

With regard to Written Answer E-1896/01(1), could the Commission indicate whether it believes in the need for transparency and public scrutiny of the workings of the Common Fisheries Policy and, if so,

explain why it has no intention of publishing the findings of the observers employed by the relevant Member States who are required to sample the percentage of each species of fish caught by vessels fishing for sandeels in the North Sea so that fishermen's representatives, marine biologists, legislators, journalists or other independent observers may make a more informed assessment as to the efficacy of the Community's conservation policies in this area?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 133.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

The Commission shares with the Honourable Member the need for transparency and public scrutiny of the workings of the Common Fisheries Policy.

Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 259/2001(1) requests Member States to send to the Commission by 1 June 2001 a comprehensive report on the activities and findings of the observers assigned to Community vessels flying their flag and of their sampling of landings.

Regarding the findings of the observers employed by the relevant Member States, who are required to sample notably by-catch of cod in the quantities caught by vessels fishing for sandeels in the North Sea, the Commission has reminded the Member States concerned of their obligations to submit a report compiling the results obtained during 2001.

The Commission will take the necessary steps in case the Member States do not comply with their obligation to report in time.

Upon the reception of these reports the relevant information will be disseminated as appropriate.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No. 259/2001 of 7 February 2001 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of cod in the North Sea (ICES subarea IV) and associated conditions for the control of activities of fishing vessels; OJ L 39, 9.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3296/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Inadequate checks on sewage sludge

In November 2000, the Commission addressed a formal complaint to Sweden and four other Member States for inadequate checks on sewage sludge.

In its complaint, the Commission noted that the five countries had not complied with the requirements to check the quality of sewage sludge used in agriculture. The five Member States were given 60 days to answer the complaint.

Can the Commission report on the progress of this matter? Have the Member States now undertaken to enter data on handling and checks in a register forwarded to the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

As the Honourable Member states, letters of formal notice were dispatched to several Member States during 2000 for infringements of the Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC(1). The Member States in question are Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Portugal and Sweden(2). The infringements concerned failure to provide adequate information on sewage sludge disposal and to ensure an adequate system of records. These cases were initiated by the Commission on its own initiative and without any individual complaints having been received regarding these issues.

Following replies from the Member States in question, infringements were considered to remain in some cases and in others further information was required in order for the Commission to finalize its assessment. The Commission decided to send reasoned opinions to Belgium, Italy and Austria, during this year(3).

The Commission has decided to close the cases concerning Ireland, Portugal and Sweden following the compliance by those Member States with the relevant requirements of the Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC. Regarding the other Member States, either investigations are being pursued or actions will be taken in which case the decision will be made public by the Commission by the issuing of a press release.

(1) Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture OJ L 181, 4.7.1986.

(2) Press release of the Commission of 14.11.2000 (IP/00/1292).

(3) Press releases of the Commission of 6.4.2001 (IP/01/521) and 24.7.2001 (IP/01/1064).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3529/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Capital expenditure on Private Finance Initiatives and Public Private Partnerships

1. Will the Commission specify the annual capital expenditure undertaken in schemes such as the Private Finance Initiative or the Public Private Partnerships for the last five years, and for as far into the future as each Member State projects?

2. Will it further express such capital spending as a percentage of GDP and projected GDP?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

The Commission does not systematically collect separate information on the annual capital expenditure undertaken in past, present or future partnership-type schemes in each Member State, and in the bi-annual notifications of debt and deficit the Member States are not obliged to identify these transactions.

The Commission does not calculate nor publish such specific ratios.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/01

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

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Next World Trade Organisation Round

What measures does the Commission intend to take, within the framework of the forthcoming round of WTO negotiations, so as to minimise the illegitimate competitive advantages gained by those states which are not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2001)

The Kyoto Protocol (KP) is a multilateral environment agreement (MEA): the Union has pressed consistently for the forthcoming WTO negotiations to cover MEAs as well as other environment-related issues, in order to ensure that the WTO and MEAs support and do not undermine each other, including in the ways referred to by the Honourable Member.

As reaffirmed in Gothenburg, the Union supports the entry into force of the KP by 2002, coinciding with the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Thus, the Commission has adopted a proposal for a Council Decision on the ratification of the KP on behalf of the Community.

There is broad agreement that the annual costs for the Union to meet its Kyoto target will range from less than 0,1 % to 0,3 % of the gross domestic product (GDP). The additional use of carbon sinks (planting trees, forest management, .) agreed in Bonn, together with the American pull-out, will very likely reduce these estimations.

Certain energy-intensive sectors might be the most adversely affected, because they face international competition and also because their marginal abatement costs are rather high. However, the actual costs for sectors depend very much on how Member States will allocate their Kyoto reduction commitments among sectors: either an across-the-board 8 % cut is applied to each sector or a least cost scenario within the Union (contribution of sectors is greater the lower their marginal abatement costs). Nonetheless, further work is necessary to identify measures which might be suited to help vulnerable industries to adjust to a carbon-constrained world.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2811/01

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Artists' recorded performance remuneration

Can the Commission confirm that as part of the agreement reached between the EU and the accession countries in the lead-up to enlargement, there is an aquis which will permit artists to recover the appropriate remuneration whenever a recording they have performed on is broadcast or played in public?

If not, which countries have not agreed and why?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

All accession countries are obliged to comply with the legal framework on intellectual property in Community law (the acquis communautaire). Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property(1) recognises the right of performers and of phonogram producers to obtain an equitable remuneration each time a phonogram,

which has been published for commercial purposes, is broadcast or played in public (Article 8, paragraph 2). Pursuant to the above-mentioned obligation, all accession countries have to introduce a remuneration right for performers according to Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Directive 92/100/EEC.

(1) OJ L 346, 27.11.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3069/01

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Subject: Policy on container hub ports

What is the Commission's policy concerning the development of a container hub port for Europe?

In particular, and having regard to Mr Hudghton's question of today's date:

- does the Commission agree that a deep-water harbour is needed for use as a container hub port at which containers may be transhipped between megaships and feeder vessels, and

- that Scapa Flow in Orkney is the most appropriate location for such a container hub port?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-3068/01 and P-3069/01given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

At present, a number of container hub ports are being operated in Europe. In order to allow big container vessels, as well as feeder vessels, to operate satisfactorily and effectively, hub ports have to fulfil a number of conditions, deep water drought being a key element.

The Commission does not believe that a central body should decide which port or ports should be hub ports. The diversity of ports, current and future ones, and requirements of the market will enable future developments of the already existing hub port system in Europe which, with changing transport and trade patterns, is undergoing permanent changes.

The Commission is conscious of the environmental issues caused by a number of port developments. It believes, however, that the necessary legal instruments are in place to address these issues. In case of Natura 2000 protected areas, there is a clear procedure under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive(1) to ensure that development affecting these sites are properly evaluated and only proceed having met certain nature protection requirements.

The Commission is aware of plans to develop Scapa Flow in Orkney as a hub port for Europe. It believes that market forces will determine the choice of ports as well as the best system of hub ports and their links to feeder ports.

State aid grants to dredging activities are not foreseen within the scope of maritime transport State aid policy. Even though aid may be granted in a certain number of restricted circumstances in the form of reduced rates of contributions for the social protection and of income tax for Community seafarers working on board dredgers, such aid would normally not be related to the amount of dredging carried out. It would rather be related to a genuine support for the employment of Community seafarers, as provided for in the context of the Commission's more general maritime transport State aid policy. However, should public authorities wish to grant State aid in support of dredging activities as such, prior notification to the Commission would be required.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3013/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Tolerance criteria for Listeria

It is not possible to produce smoked salmon with zero tolerance for Listeria, as Listeria is present in the raw fish.

Does the Commission consider the fact that Italy has zero tolerance for Listeria, whilst other Member States have a tolerance of about 100, to be consistent with Community law?

Reply given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

In reply to the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission can provide the following particulars:

- Microbiological criteria for Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) have not yet been laid down for smoked salmon in application of Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(1).

- In 1999, the Commission requested the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health to prepare an opinion on Lm(2). The opinion delivered by this Committee on 23 September 1999 contains conclusions and recommendations which are relevant in this context. Notably, [a]n objective must be to keep the concentration of L. monocytogenes in food below 100 cfu/g and to reduce the fraction of foods with a concentration above 100 L. monocytogenes per gram significantly. This objective should be expressed as a Food Safety Objective.

- The Committee's opinion on the public health aspects of Lm is thus to be distinguished from that of undifferentiated zero tolerance and suggests on the contrary that standards should be differentiated. On the basis of the Committee's scientific opinion, the Commission has prepared a draft decision in the context of various Council directives relating to food hygiene. This decision should be presented to the Member States within a few months.

- In the absence of Community-level harmonisation in the area in question and within the limits of the EC Treaty, the Member States are entitled, on prudential grounds, to lay down microbiological standards with a view to protecting human health and the health of risk groups. These standards must be proportionate, non-discriminatory and scientifically well-founded.

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, last amended by Council Directive 97/79/EC of 18 December 1997 amending Directives 71/118/EEC, 72/462/EEC, 85/73/EEC, 91/67/EEC, 91/492/EEC, 91/493/EEC, 92/45/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (OJ L 24, 30.1.1998).

(2) See the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health on Listeria monocytogenes of 23 September 1999: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scv/out25_en.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3078/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: European position on the development of an anti-missile shield by the United States

As the answers to Questions E-0049/01(1) and E-1739/01(2) make clear, the fifteen EU Member States have still not arrived at a common position on the US proposal to build an anti-missile shield (National Missile Defense).

Nevertheless, on a number of occasions the issue of the anti-missile shield has been placed on the agenda for discussions between Javier Solana, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and his US counterparts. In those discussions, Solana has passed on the views of a number of Member States concerning the importance of achieving world stability by means of an agreed security framework.

At the conference on the revision of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, held in 2000 in New York, the European Union emphasised the importance of the ABM Treaty signed by the US and the Soviet Union in 1972 as one of the keys to strategic stability.

Does the Commission intend, pursuant to Article 22 of the EU Treaty, to submit proposals to the Council with a view to drawing up a common European position on the building by the United States of an anti-missile shield (National Missile Defense)? If not, why is the Commission not prepared to do so, in view of (a) the fact that the anti-missile shield may represent a breach of the ABM Treaty signed in 1972, and (b) the importance of this issue for the common foreign and security policy?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 102.

(2) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 97.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2001)

European position on the development of an anti-missile shield by the United States.

Four points should be made:

- The ABM Treaty(1) signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972 is, as the Council points out in its reply to question E-1739/01, a bilateral treaty (to which Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan became parties in 1997).

- The EU has already conveyed to the United States on a number of occasions its concern that the Treaty might be denounced and in particular that the United States might unilaterally back out without another instrument conducive to world stability being adopted in its place.

- The EU has stressed to the United States the need for wide-ranging and transparent consultations with the allied and other countries concerned on an issue intrinsic to the international strategic balance.

- The Council has adopted a number of official positions on the non-proliferation of nuclear missiles in a multilateral framework (Council conclusions of 14 May 2001, the Göteborg European Council's declaration of 16 June 2001, the common position of 23 July 2001).

The Commission therefore feels that the EU has taken appropriate action and believes that it should pursue this course of action, taking account of developments in the matter, reiterating its views at every opportunity and making sure that its concerns are taken on board.

(1) Banning the deployment of anti-ballistic-missile systems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3257/01

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Self-determination

Will the Council please confirm its support for the principles of self-determination of peoples, particularly with regard to the British territory of Gibraltar.

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the United Kingdom and Spain to find an agreed solution for Gibraltar in accordance with international law and the interests of the Parties involved.

The Council would also remind the Honourable Member that the United Kingdom and the Spanish Permanent Representatives to the European Union informed the Council in a letter dated 3 September 2001 of the meeting in London on 26 July 2001 of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the two countries. At that meeting the Ministers agreed to restart talks on Gibraltar in the context of the Brussels Declaration included in the joint communiqué of 27 November 1984.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/01

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

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Seizure of the Galician fishing vessel Lameiro Uno by a Moroccan patrol ship

On 26 November 2001 the Marín-based Galician fishing vessel Lameiro Uno with its 13-strong crew (nine Galicians and four Mauritanians) was seized by a Moroccan patrol ship. The seizure took place whilst the vessel was returning to its anchorage in Mauritanian waters, as is attested by satellite evidence held by the Spanish Government which disproves the Moroccan Government's accusation that the vessel was fishing illegally. Has the Council any information regarding this seizure and the circumstances in which it occurred? What action is the Council intending to take vis-à-vis the Moroccan Government in order to remedy the situation in which the crew members and their vessel currently find themselves?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

The matter of the seizure of the Galician fishing vessel referred to by the Honourable Member has not been formally submitted to the Council.

In the absence of a fisheries agreement between the Community and Morocco, all Parties are required to respect the rules of international law. It is thus for the flag state to make the appropriate representations to the Moroccan Government.