ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2949/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Fleet reductions

Further to the publication of the Commission proposals in relation to the reform of the CFP, and in particular the proposal for Emergency Measures for Scrapping Fishing Vessels(1), Commission officials provided oral guarantees to the Scottish fishing industry that the substantial reductions which have taken place in Scotland in the last two years would be taken into account and incorporated in the proposed reductions under the aforementioned proposal.

Can the Commission confirm this in writing and provide the exact levels to be achieved in light of the recent decommissioning which has occurred and is presently being carried out in Scotland?

(1) COM(02) 0190, OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002, p. 333.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

Within the framework of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Commission's proposals are to reduce fishing effort and to end compulsory scrapping programmes. There will be improved provision for decommissioning through the scrapping fund should Member States wish to use it, along with an entry/exit system for replacement vessels, but no targets will be set for reduction of fishing capacity in any Member State.

Any decommissioning schemes implemented in Scotland since the beginning of 2001 will clearly contribute to achieving required fishing mortality targets, and will therefore facilitate compliance with future fishing effort limits affecting the Scottish fleet.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2915/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Palau

Will the Commission say what projects in Palau were funded from the EU budget during 2000?

Will it say how much aid in total was given to the country in all forms during 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0371/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Croatia: serious act of intolerance against the memory of Italians killed and thrown in ditches

A few days ago, on the eve of the anniversary Josip Pino Maras, the mayor of Porec (formerly Parenzo, but now in Croatia), ordered the demolition of a memorial erected only a few months ago to commemorate 94 Italians killed by Tito's partisans and thrown into ditches between 1943 and 1945. It should be noted that several of them were Italian anti-Communist partisans, killed for reasons of ideological hatred.

Does the Commission not intend to take steps to remind the Croatian authorities that respect for the victims of war-crimes is a principle shared by all civilised countries and that failure to observe it is bound to be taken into account in the context of enlargement?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The Commission is well aware of the difficult history of this region of the world and fully understands the weight which this difficult heritage continues to have and the particular sensitivities that this has left.

The Commission is absolutely convinced of the importance of full respect for human rights, including specific minority rights. It thinks that it is crucial for all the countries, and even more for countries with which the Union has developed far reaching co-operation, as it is the case for Croatia, to share common democratic values and principles. These issues are systematically addressed in our bilateral contacts with the Croatians politicians and administration. Developments in these areas are regularly monitored, since they constitute major elements for the overall assessment which the Commission gives on the country, as it is the case recently in the Commission's report within the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Process. Respect for human rights and full democratisation also figure as essential elements of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement we signed with Croatia. The main goal of the whole policy which the Commission elaborated for the countries of the region is to support the creation of fully fledged democracies in these countries.

As far as the specific event mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has been informed that the memorial has not been demolished. It understands that the mayor of Porec ordered to remove the plaque of the memorial in order to make some changes and put the plaque, as modified, back in place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2264/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Data on the status and number of gamekeepers

Can the European Commission indicate whether it possesses any data about the status and number of gamekeepers and accredited gamekeepers in the individual Member States and whether it has any sources from which to obtain such data?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2264/02 and E-2265/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

The Commission is not collecting any data about the status and number of gamekeepers and accredited gamekeepers, as these are elements of regional or national forest and countryside policies, which are under the competence of the Member States.

The question of the possible introduction of harmonisation measures for gamekeepers by the Commission is related to the mutual recognition of diplomas, which concerns essentially two directives.

Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988, on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration(1). This Directive has been complemented by Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 for diplomas of a shorter duration than three years(2). The same principles apply for both of the Directives. A person who is fully qualified to exercise a profession in one Member State should in principle be allowed to exercise the profession in another Member State.

The two directives refer to regulated professions; that is to say where there is a legal prerequisite in the national legislation to possess a diploma in order to have access to the profession. The profession of gamekeeper seems generally not to be a regulated profession in the Member States. Also, it should be noted that the Directives only apply to professional activities that are remunerated in some way.

The Commission is not aware of any problems concerning the recognition of the professional qualifications of gamekeeper having arisen. It therefore has for the time being no intention to harmonise the rules in this area. Every Member State is free to regulate professions in its own territory.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3267/02

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject: Chicken imports from third countries

The chicken-producing sector is of particular importance to the Catalan agro-foods industry, accounting for a large part of total agricultural output, and employing a wide-range of services including brooder houses, farms, slaughterhouses, waste facilities, processors and service and distribution companies.

Catalan chicken production annually accounts for 173 million birds and almost 300 000 tonnes, over one third of total Spanish production.

One of the EU's major objectives has always been and continues to be guaranteeing the safety of food production, in order to eliminate all health risks to consumers. The relevant Community regulations are for that reason extremely demanding in terms of animal feed, residues of medical products administered, and conditions governing the handling and use of food products.

Current EU imports of frozen processed chicken from third countries are not insignificant; available data indicate that over 200 000 tonnes were imported by the EU in 2001, mainly from Brazil and Thailand.

These imported products too must meet the health guarantees laid down by the EU for home-produced chicken.

What control mechanisms exist on the Member States' external frontiers to guarantee that chicken imports from third countries comply with Community health legislation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Community legislation lays down equivalent requirements for Community production of poultry meat and imports of such meat from third countries in order to ensure food safety. Accordingly, there are not two levels of protection, but only one. Border checks are the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission conducts inspections periodically in order to monitor compliance with Community legislation by the competent authorities of the Member States at the Community's border posts and by the competent authorities of third countries at all stages of the production and processing of chicken meat. Cases of contamination of chicken meat with residues of veterinary medicines prohibited by Community legislation (nitrofurans) have been notified to the Commission by the Member States through the Community rapid alert system. In order to guarantee the safety of imported chicken meat, the Commission has decided to have the Member States conduct systematic checks for residues of medicines, and especially nitrofurans, in all imports of poultry meat from Brazil and Thailand. Whenever these checks produce negative results, the Member States must destroy the dangerous batch. At the same time, the Commission is providing technical assistance to developing countries in order to help them to set up a system of control that is as effective as that developed by the Member States. In this way, the Commission is meeting its obligations to developing countries while maintaining the level of protection of European consumers.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3852/02

by Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Employment of non-national EU citizens in national museums

It is the practice in some Member States to refuse employment to non-national EU citizens in national museums. Is this in conflict with the Single Market undertaking of their governments, and what action will the Commission put in hand to rectify the problem?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the difficulties of Union nationals who have been refused employment in national museums of Member States other than their Member State of origin.

According to Community law, Member States are allowed to restrict to their own nationals those posts in which the exercise of public authority and the responsibility for safeguarding the general interest of the State is involved (Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty). The derogation from the general principle of EC Treaty of free movement of workers has been interpreted in a very restrictive way by the European Court of Justice and the Commission has actively promoted increased access to the public sector, and continues to do so(1).

Whether a refusal by a national museum to employ workers from other Member States be in conflict with the Single Market undertaking depends on the facts of each individual case. Restricting the posts to the nationals of the host Member State can be justified only when the aforementioned criteria apply.

(1) See also the recently adopted Communication from the Commission Free movement of workers: achieving the full benefits and potential, COM(2002) 694 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2359/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 August 2002)

Subject: The Commission's refusal to make a complaint to the WTO re South Korean shipbuilding subsidies unless the Council first agrees to its proposal for countervailing subsidies

The Commission has stated, in accordance with its twin-track strategy, that it will make a complaint against South Korea at the WTO only if the Council first adopts the Commission's proposed Temporary Defensive Mechanism which authorises countervailing subsidies to shipbuilders in at least some EU Member States. As a result, although the Commission first began making preparations for a WTO referral over a year ago, no complaint has yet been made.

Is the Council content for the Commission to use its powers in this way, and is there no mechanism through which the Council can require the Commission to make a WTO referral without preconditions of this kind?

Does the Council wish to see South Korea referred to the WTO for subsidising its shipbuilding industry or any other major industry and does it see the current impasse as a failure of the Community Method?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

The Council has repeatedly voiced its serious concern at the critical situation facing the shipbuilding industry, attributable mainly to overcapacity in the sector and to the unfair practices of South Korean shipyards, the output of which is sold at below real cost.

At its meeting in May 2001, the Council took note of the Commission's intention of proposing a temporary support mechanism for the Community shipbuilding industry and of launching a WTO dispute settlement procedure.

On 27 June 2002, the Council finally adopted, by qualified majority, a Regulation setting up a temporary defensive mechanism for the Community shipbuilding industry in order to counter the Republic of Korea's unfair commercial practices on the world shipbuilding markets; the Danish, Netherlands, Finnish, Swedish and United Kingdom delegations voted against the Regulation. The Regulation will apply as long as necessary until the conclusion of dispute-settlement proceedings initiated against Korea at the World Trade Organisation and will expire on 31 March 2004.

It was also agreed to set 30 September 2002 as a deadline to enable the Commission to have one last attempt at negotiating with Korea before opening the WTO procedure. The Commission was invited to report to the Council on this dossier at its meeting on 30 September 2002, on the basis in particular of the outcome of final negotiations between the parties scheduled for 24 and 25 September 2002.

At that meeting, the Council took note, on the basis of a presentation by the Commission, of the negative outcome of the negotiations between the Commission and the Korean authorities and of the next steps to be taken in this connection. The Council would inform the Honourable Member that the Commission Decision of 8 October 2002 under the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 concerning trade practices maintained by Korea affecting trade in commercial vessels was published.(1)

(1) OJ L 281,19.10.2002, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3128/02

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 October 2002)

Subject: Information for travellers using international trains

Information for travellers using international trains is currently given solely in the language of the country through which the train happens to be travelling at the time but not in the language of the country of final destination.

Have any agreements been concluded with a view to ensuring that travellers using international trains are provided with information in a variety of languages, including, as a matter of course, that of the country of final destination?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

To the knowledge of the Commission, there are no international agreements providing for the language regime applicable to information to be provided to passengers on international rail services in the Union. It is however already common practice for several international train services though not all that information is provided in several languages, notably the language of the countries where the trip starts and where it ends.

As announced in the White Paper on European Transport for 2010: time to decide(1), as well as the Communication on the second railway package(2), the Commission intends to table a proposal for a Regulation on Passengers' Rights and Obligations in International Rail Transport, which will also address the issue of what language regime to apply for information of passengers.

Furthermore, it must be noted that the Community of European Railways has recently adopted a Charter on Rail Passenger Services, which provides inter alia that the languages used for communication with customers on board trains and/or at stations shall be the languages in use on the route where the customer is travelling. For international services railway undertakings will endeavour to communicate with customers in at least one other commonly used language.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2) COM(2002) 18 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3679/02

by Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Busquin: EU should be true space power (article in the European Voice, 19 September, page 8 news)

Over the last 30 years the European Space Agency has been extremely successful in developing the Ariane launcher and the capabilities to build high-tech satellites giving Europe independent access to space.

In view of this and with reference to the above-mentioned article:

1. What in the Commission's opinion is missing to make the EU a true space power?

2. Does the Commission believe that the EU lacks military involvement in space, and should such involvement come through a military participation in a future EU space policy or through a space chapter in Europe's defence policy?

3. Is it correct that the Commission promotes military satellite applications in general or specifically with EU research funds?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

The Commission takes note of the important questions raised by the Honourable Member. Indeed, the Commission is finalising a Green paper on the future of Space in Europe, to be adopted at the beginning of 2003. It is expected that the Green Paper will generate a broad discussion amongst all stakeholders during the first half of 2003, on the options for the future activities in space applications and the supporting technologies. As a result, this process should identify policies and milestones to reinforce Europe's position as a true space power.

Following this consultation process, the Commission will prepare, in line with the resolution of the Parliament(1), a White Paper with concrete proposals for actions and milestones to be implemented which should provide answers to some of the questions raised by the Honourable Member. One of the aspects for consideration during the consultation is multiple use applications, where the same technologies can be deployed for either civil or security/defence applications.

The Commission does not presently finance any military satellite application with research funds.

(1) Report Alyssandrakis January 2002 Ref: P5 TARPOV (2002) 0015 Europe and Space resolution adopted 17.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1661/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Taxation of subscriptions to professional organisations and trade unions

Do all Member States allow membership subscriptions to professional organisations to be tax deductible?

Do any Member States allow membership subscriptions to trade unions to be tax deductible?

Does the Commission agree that all should be treated equally?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2002)

The Commission understands the question to refer to personal income tax an area not covered by Community legislation.

Although Member States are, of course, free to make their own rules for income tax, these have to be compatible with the four fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and must not discriminate on the ground of nationality.

Since income tax is not harmonised, Member States do not routinely inform the Commission of their tax rules and neither does the Commission monitor these. Hence, to date, the Commission has not collected information on the tax treatment of membership subscriptions to professional organisations or trade unions nor does it consider it necessary, at present, to co-ordinate this type of tax allowance at Community level.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3641/02

by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Film production Objective 2 aid

The Commission informed the Danish authorities in the spring of 2002 that Objective 2 funding cannot be used to subsidise film production directly. Can it confirm that similar conditions have been laid down for the Objective 2 aid being provided for a similar film project in Trollhättan in Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the Danish Authorities submitted a proposal for modification of the programming complement of the Danish Objective 2 programme (2000-2006) on 22nd April 2002, concerning support to the film sector.

As the scope of the proposal was only to give operating aids to film production, the Commission replied to the Danish authorities on 15 May 2002 that the proposed activity was not eligible according to Regulation 1783/99 on the European Regional Development Fund(1).

The Commission's letter also included comments on the potential eligibility of different aspects of film production as described in the note that was attached to the submission of the Danish authorities letter of 22 April. The Commission indicated that a number of actions relating to film production could be eligible, including the creation of Small and medium-sized enterprises in the film sector, the creation of networks, innovation and support to logistic services for the film industry.

In a letter of 10 June 2002, the Commission took the opportunity to update the Swedish authorities on its reply to the Danish authorities. It should be recalled in this context that responsibility for the correct implementation of the Regulations on the Structural Funds lies with the authorities in the Member State.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 1999 on the European Regional Development Fund OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.