ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Investigations into unlawful State aid within the Union

Once again, the Commission has announced that it is instituting a formal investigation into the way in which Belgium apparently discriminates in favour of businesses by providing State aid. In one of the most recent cases, it instituted inquiries into how the Belgian treasury taxes American companies.

How many investigations has the Commission instituted concerning unlawful State aid to businesses operating in Belgium?

How many of these have been completed? In how many of these cases has the Belgian State been found guilty of unlawfully granting State aid? What measures has the Commission taken after arriving at such findings?

How many investigations are still in progress?

Can the Commission supply similar figures for the other 14 EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

In response to the increasing number of information requests, the Commission launched two new State aid transparency tools in 2001.

The first is a State aid Register which provides access to detailed information of all Commission State aid decisions. It provides for each Member State the type of aid, an indication whether the case is an individual aid or a scheme, the objective of the aid and its form, the sectors covered by the aid, the duration of the scheme and the type of Commission decision (positive, negative or conditional decision etc). It also contains links to press releases and the texts of State aid decisions that are currently published in the Official Journal.

The second instrument is the State aid Scoreboard which is updated twice a year. It is divided into four parts: Part One looks at the extent to which Member States are reducing their State aid relative to the gross domestic product (GDP). Part Two focuses on Member States' relative success in redirecting aid from specific sectors to horizontal objectives. Part Three contains data on State aid control procedures of both the Commission and the Member States while Part Four examines the role of State aid in the context of the internal market.

Both tools may be accessed online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1362/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: FATF meeting held in New Zealand on 19/20 November 2001

Why did the Commission not attend the eighth meeting of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering Typologies, which was held on 19/20 November 2001 in Wellington, New Zealand, although it is a member of the FATF?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

The Commission attaches great importance to its membership of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and endeavours to take an active part in all FATF meetings. At the same time resource constraints and pressure of work very occasionally prevent the Commission from participating at certain meetings.

Such was the case for the meeting in New Zealand in November 2001.

The annual FATF typologies exercise brings together mainly experts from the law enforcement and regulatory authorities of the member countries. It serves as a forum for the exchange of experience and expertise between the authorities concerned with the day-to-day practice of anti-money laundering efforts.

The Commission does not have specific money laundering cases on which to report. It nevertheless remains very interested in the topics covered and the trends reported by FATF members. As an FATF member it has access to and has studied all the detailed documentation produced prior to the meeting.

The final typologies report itself is now a public document and is available on the FATF website at http://www.fatf-gafi.org.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1784/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Cervical cancer screening in the EU

The new Health Action Plan no longer makes any mention of SANCO (Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection) and no longer lists cancer screening among the objectives. Old objectives have simply been scrapped.

How is cancer screening to be incorporated into this new and more horizontal approach? How will the Commission ensure that existing programmes can be continued in the future?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 August 2002)

Although the new public health action plan does not explicitly mention as a separate objective cervical cancer screening, or, in other words, secondary prevention of cervical cancer mortality by screening, it is clear that cancer including cervical cancer is one of the major diseases, which is addressed by the heading of section 3. of the action plan's annex: To promote Health and Prevent Disease through Action on Health Determinants across all Community Policies and Activities(1) in conjunction with objectives 1.2 and 1.7 of section 1. of the action plan's annex.

Nevertheless, cervical cancer screening is only one example of early detection of disease. Thus the aim under the new public health action plan will be to exploit best practice developed under the existing public health programmes for several diseases, e.g. breast cancer, to improve and extend screening at European level for diseases wherever possible.

(1) PE-CONS 3627/02.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2006/02

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

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Niger

With respect to Niger, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1927/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Ban on amalgam and mercury for human use

Fresh research shows that the use of amalgam for tooth fillings and mercury for other human applications, e.g. vaccines, entails substantial health risks. Mercury damages the nervous system and can cause arthralgia, myalgia and severe allergic reactions.

Recent scientific material seems to indicate that mercury in influenza vaccines may promote the development of Alzheimer's disease in the elderly. Furthermore, the use of mercury represents a serious environmental waste problem.

In the light of the above, will the Commission say what measures have already been taken in the EU to protect the public and the environment from the harmful effects of mercury for human use?

What measures does the Commission intend to take? Is the Commission prepared to ban the use of amalgam and mercury for human use on health and environmental grounds? Can the Commission confirm that waste mercury from dental clinics is destroyed in sealed containers marked highly toxic. If not, how is waste mercury from dental treatment dealt with?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2002)

On 20 June 2002 the Parliament's Petitions Committee closed a petition in the light of the results of a study on dental amalgam and other restorative materials ordered by the Commission and published in 1998. According to this study, all dental restorative materials may cause some adverse reactions, and most contain components that are toxic. However, according to the same study, the benefits of restoring teeth with dental amalgam that contains mercury significantly out-weigh the documented risks and the risk-benefit ratio corresponds to currently acknowledged and accepted state of the art.

Given concerns expressed, Commission and Member States representatives decided to proceed to a review of the study's conclusions in the light of new data available at a national level. In their meeting of 11 and 12 July 2002, they confirmed that the study's conclusions are still valid and accurate.

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member on the importance of a safe handling and disposal of mercury-containing waste. Indeed, amalgam waste from dental care is classified as hazardous waste and hence Member States have to ensure that it is disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Framework Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(1) and in particular of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste(2). Waste management of dental amalgam is addressed by Parcom Recommendation 93/2, which states equipment should be installed to separate water and amalgam to enable collection of amalgam as from 1 January 1997. Preliminary results of an ongoing study of the Commission on risks to health and the environment show that this recommendation has been largely implemented in the Member States. Nevertheless, there is no Community legislation that specifically requires sealing the mercury-waste from dental clinics prior to destruction.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0439/02

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: State aid for industries establishing themselves in the Czech Republic

According to press reports, the government of the Czech Republic is offering the prospect of major advantages in return for investment. It is alleged that negotiations are currently in progress with some 50 companies wishing to establish themselves in the Czech Republic near the German border.

Total investments of some EUR 300 million are said to be at stake.

The Czech government is reportedly offering the following advantages:

- for every job created costs up to a level of EUR 6 000 will be borne for 18 months;

- 35 % of outlay will be paid for every person retrained;

- the companies will be exempt from corporation tax for 10 years;

- developed industrial plots will be sold at token prices well below their true value;

- import duties on high-grade technology will be waived.

Is the Commission aware of this?

Are these subsidies consistent with the association agreement and, later, the obligations of EU membership?

What does the Commission envisage doing?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

The Commission is aware of the issues related to investment incentives which are raised by the Honourable Member and is taking appropriate monitoring actions.

The Commission monitors the regulation of investment incentives within the framework of the accession negotiations, as part of ensuring the Czech Republic's alignment with Community state aid rules, as well as the enforcement of these rules by the Czech Office for Protection of Economic Competition.

Commission monitoring aims to establish whether state aid which has actually been given, in the form of investment incentives, has first been properly notified to the Competition Office, and whether the Office has duly applied the rules of the acquis. This monitoring is currently ongoing.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that press reports such as those examples cited by the Honourable Member, are taken up with the Office and verified.

Any issues of compatibility with the acquis, which might arise in this context may be discussed in detail with the Czech authorities, using the consultation mechanisms foreseen by the Europe Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1622/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Subject: WTO Round

Does the Commission agree with a comment made by senior WTO negotiators in Geneva that in the light of US steel tariffs and new farm subsidies, the chance of meeting the 2004 target for completing the round hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being met?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

The Commission considers that the conclusion of the Doha Development Negotiations by the end of 2004 continues to be feasible. The main ingredient for respecting the deadline is political will.

The impact of the United States (US) steel tariffs and the US Farm Bill is ambivalent in this respect. On the one hand, any sign of protectionism from a major World Trade Organisation (WTO) member at a time where all WTO members have pledged to further trade liberalisation in Doha risks sowing doubt among partners about that member's willingness to engage in real negotiations on some areas. Equally, the adoption of new farm subsidies will contribute to complicate the negotiations in the WTO on agriculture, since it reverses the international trend of reducing trade distorting support to agriculture and risks destabilising world markets.

On the other hand, however, it should be remembered that the DDA (Doha Development Agenda) is much broader than the steel and agriculture issues. Overall, the stakes of US in these negotiations are too comprehensive for them to choose not to engage seriously in the negotiations and they therefore also have a strong interest in them finishing on time. Also, the issues related to the US steel safeguards have shown to all WTO members that the scope for WTO members taking protectionist, unilateral measures needs to be curbed further and that the DDA presents the best opportunity to do this.

A number of important WTO members, either in the framework of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ministerial on 17/18 June 2002 or in the framework of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) trade ministers meeting on 29 May 2002 have reaffirmed their political will to create the necessary conditions for a successful 5th Ministerial in Cancun on 10-14 September 2003, to conduct negotiations according to the agreed schedules and to conclude them by 1 January 2005.

For its part, the EU will continue to be proactive in the negotiations in order to allow for a conclusion of the DDA within the agreed deadline.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2106/02

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Temporary admission of a number of Palestinians to EU Member States

When 12 suspected Palestinian terrorists were admitted to certain Member States of the European Union, neither the European Parliament despite urgent inquiries nor the general public in Europe were informed properly about the matter. Moreover, recent reports in the press suggest that the presence of a number of suspected terrorists constitutes a growing risk to the citizens of the Union.

Was the Council aware of the identity of the suspected Palestinian terrorists before it took its decision?

Did the Council know how serious the offences were of which they were suspected in Israel, and what did the Council do to check whether the suspicions against them were well-founded?

What status was granted to the 12 Palestinians admitted to the European Union and how is the Council ensuring that they do not endanger public safety and order?

How are the Council and the receiving states ensuring that the suspected Palestinian terrorists do not evade the requisite supervision and travel to other Member States, and that they do not constitute a long-term security risk to the citizens of the European Union?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

The Honourable Member is certainly aware of the difficult circumstances under which a solution for the besieged Nativity Church in Bethlehem had to be found in May of this year. For purely humanitarian reasons, the European Union helped to bring about that temporary solution, acting in accordance with the terms of an understanding reached between the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel. Thirteen Palestinians were therefore able to be transferred abroad rapidly.

In order to contribute to that effort, several Member States declared themselves willing to receive some of them on a temporary basis and exclusively on humanitarian grounds. While being fully aware of the urgency of the matter, Member States discussed the modalities and implications of receiving these individuals thoroughly. A common EU approach to certain aspects was adopted on 21 May 2002 in the form of a Common Position(1), which spells out a number of practical aspects. This also implies that every Member State must take appropriate measures within its legal system to protect the personal security of Palestinians received by it and to avoid them compromising the public order or internal security of the

Member States. It has to be noted that the individual decision to grant the right to enter and stay in their territory to any of those persons falls within the competence of each receiving Member State. Such a decision does not imply a right for the persons concerned to move freely within the territories of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 138, 28.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Common fisheries policy reform 12-mile exclusive zone

Has the Commission considered instigating permanent exclusive use of the 0-12-mile zone for national fishing vessels?

Indigenous inshore shellfisheries urgently need protection to safeguard them from over-fishing. Can the Commission explain briefly what measures it is taking in this regard and indicate the timescale to which they are working?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The Commission's intention is to maintain in the future exactly the same conditions relating to access to the 0-12 mile zones which exist today and have existed for many years. As such, therefore, there is no specific reference to exclusive use of this zone for national fishing vessels.

However, existing conditions leave some parts of the 12-mile zone of some Member States to be fished only by vessels of those Member States. Where it has been agreed that vessels of other Member States have access, the species which might be exploited are specified.

If inshore shellfisheries need protection, there are opportunities for doing so currently under Article 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms(1) where possibilities for autonomous action by Member States are laid down. The Commission intends that Regulation (EC) No 850/98 will be replaced with a new Regulation on the same topic but within the new Regulation, the Commission intends to maintain the conditions giving autonomy to Member States to enact additional technical measures for local stocks.

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2982/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 2 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) calls on the Commission to put forward proposals for directives with a view to drawing up a Community legislative framework to regulate and guarantee safety conditions for vessels which are excluded from Directives 93/103/EC and 97/70/EC.

Does the Commission intend to put forward any proposals in this connection?

How does the Commission believe progress can be made on the safety of shallow-draught fishing boats?

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

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

The Commission plans to evaluate the practical implementation of 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)(1) in the Member States. It will draw up a report based on the findings of this evaluation and of the national reports submitted by the relevant authorities in the Member States, as provided for in Article 13 (4) of this Directive. This report will be submitted to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work.

Any proposal to broaden the scope of Directive 93/103/EC could be examined when the Commission drafts the above report on practical implementation.

With regard to Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over(2), its scope is, as stated in the title, limited to vessels of 24 metres or more.

As part of the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP), the Commission is proposing to continue cofinancing for investment in safety on board vessels of any size, provided this investment does not lead to an increase in the level of fishing.

In order to help improve health and safety conditions for workers on vessels which are shorter in length, the Union has adopted a comprehensive legislative framework proposed by the Commission.

This includes Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(3), Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the manual handling of loads where there is a risk of back injury(4), Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the use of work equipment(5), as amended by Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5 December 1995(6), Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the use of personal protective equipment(8), and Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels(7).

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2) OJ L 34, 9.2.1998.

(3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(4) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

(5) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(6) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995.

(7) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.

(8) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1811/02

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Illegal logging

In the light of recent attention given to the problem of illegal logging in the run up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the regional forest law enforcement initiatives in Asia and Africa and given that the European Commission is preparing an Action Plan to Combat Illegal Logging and related Illegal Trade, to be presented to the European Parliament and Council by the end of the year, could the Commission confirm where the funding to implement activities with partner countries will come from?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Funding for actions to assist wood-producing countries to combat illegal logging and its associated trade can potentally come from two main sources:

- the Community development budget assigned to that country, for financial and technical or economic co-operation. Priority areas for use of these funds are set out in Country Strategy Papers and National Indicative Programmes, in agreement with the partner country;

- the budget line for tropical forest and the environment. Funds from this budget line are disbursed through an open call for proposals. Some funds are also available to finance the activities of international organisations outside the call for proposals.