ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0535/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Working time and SiMAP judgment

Can the Commission confirm that the European Court of Justice's judgment of 3 October 2000 in the SiMAP case will apply to the working time of doctors in training once the Working Time Directive's provisions concerning these workers enter into force later this year?

What does the Commission consider to be the likely effects of the judgment on the ability of health service providers to deliver patient care?

How does the Commission intend to review the impact of the Working Time Directive on health service providers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

From 1 August 2004, the Working Time Directive (Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time(1)) will apply to doctors in training, together with the relevant interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to its provisions.

The Commission has initiated an analysis of the consequences of the judgement of the Court in the Simap case(2) in all Member States. A meeting with national experts has already taken place and an invitation to tender for a study has been launched. The study should provide a detailed overview of the Member States' legislation and practices concerning the working time of doctors, assess the consequences of the application of the Simap case in all Member States and evaluate its potential repercussions in other sectors.

The Commission intends to address this issue in the communication on working time which will be adopted during this year.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2) Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000 in Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana, ECR 2000, I-07963.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0508/03

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2003)

Subject: Protection of animals during transport in Spain

In 2000 and most recently in April last year the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) went to Spain to inspect a number of meat markets and slaughterhouses. The inspections revealed general animal welfare problems and imperfections as regards the transport of animals.

Can the Commission confirm whether it has yet taken any measures to remedy the situation? Is Spain still failing to comply with Directive 91/628/EEC(1)?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

Following the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) mission in April 2002, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food provided written guarantees to the effect that it was addressing the lack of legal basis to sanction transport-related infringements and was taking certain other measures to improve the situation,

notably concerning the authorisation of transporters, the checking of vehicles and the fitness of animals for transport. No commitments were however received to indicate that the deficiencies detected at slaughterhouses were being addressed.

The Commission remains very concerned about the level of implementation and enforcement of Community Law in this domain in Spain and will not fail to take such other measures as are necessary including further resort to infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0143/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Equatorial Guinea international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Equatorial Guinea international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Equatorial Guinea?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

A protocol covering the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2004 was initialled by both parties on 2 February 2001 but has not yet been applied.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0254/03

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Market access to port services

If the proposal for a directive on market access to port services is adopted in its current form, problems will arise with upholding of the current rules on vessel safety and the working conditions of port workers as a result of free access to self-handling.

That being so, how does the Commission propose to ensure that these rules are upheld? In particular, how does the Commission consider that the continued existence of the Danish port workers' agreements on pay and working conditions including the working environment can be guaranteed for those affected by self-handling when the directive enters into force?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Commission's proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on Market Access to Port Services(1) imposed an obligation on Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure the application of their social legislation. This basis has been reinforced by the Common Position(2). More specifically, the Common Position's text on self-handling explicitly states that it in no way affects the application of national rules concerning employment and social matters, provided that they are compatible with Community law and international obligations of the Community and the Member State concerned. Further, as regards a service provider employing personnel of his own choice, the service provider must fulfil the criteria laid down by the Member State in question again, of course, provided that they are compatible with Community law.

Finally, article 19 of the Common Position states that the Directive shall in no way affect the application of the social legislation of Member States, including relevant rules on employment of personnel by service providers taking over an authorisation as a result of a selection procedure. Social standards must not be below those laid down by applicable Community legislation. In addition, these must comply with Community law, including the rules and the principles of the EC Treaty.

With regard to Danish port workers, the Danish social legislation and/or collective agreements apply, therefore, in the way set out above.

(1) OJ C 154 E, 29.5.2001.

(2) OJ C 299 E, 3.12.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0449/03

by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE) to the Council

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Withdrawal of foreign forces from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

Certain reports and witness accounts from NGOs working in the country indicate that the situation in the Democratic republic of the Congo (DRC) is worrying. There are signs that the foreign troops which have been operating in the DRC recently have not completed their withdrawal, and that some of them are still there. If this is true, it would mean a worsening of the already delicate security situation in the country, as well as posing obstacles to or even preventing the normalisation of the political situation in the DRC by means of a global political agreement. Furthermore, accusations have been made that the mandate of the United Nations mission in the DRC (UNMC) is inadequate, if it is to play an effective role in restoring normality, stability and security. All this would make the disastrous humanitarian situation apparently reigning in the country even more complicated.

Does the Council have any evidence that foreign troops have not carried out a total, definitive withdrawal from the DRC?

Does the Council believe that a global, definitive political agreement can be achieved in the DRC? What should be the content of such an agreement?

Does the Council believe that the mandate of the UN mission in the DRC should be strengthened, and its staff increased so as to allow it to play an effective role in restoring normality in the DRC?

What is the involvement of the Member States in the UN mission, and how does the Council assess this participation?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council does not dispose of any evidence to substantiate or invalidate claims about total and definitive withdrawal of foreign troops from the DRC.

On 27 January, the Council concluded that there is no alternative to the global and inclusive Agreement on transition in the DRC, signed in Pretoria on 17 December 2002, if peace and stability are to be re-established in the Congo. It strongly urged all parties to complete in good faith the negotiations on the points still outstanding and to set up with all speed the institutions required for transition.

The Council's Common Position, of 11 March 2002, provides for EU support for action taken by the UN and the OAU (now AU) in respect of the implementation of the Lusaka cease-fire agreement and the relevant Security Council resolutions. The Common Position also provides for EU cooperation with the UN and the OAU and for EU continued support to the MONUC and the Joint Military Committee (JMC). The Council has not discussed the specific question of a strengthening of the mandate of the UN mission in the DRC. The Council in March 2002 welcomed the proposal by the UNSG to increase the staff of the MONUC.

Information concerning the involvement of Member States in the UN mission is available on the UNSC homepage, most recently in the thirteenth report of the Secretary General on the United Nations Organisation Mission in the DRC (S/2003/211). The Council has not assessed this participation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1145/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Generoso Andria (PPE-DE),John Bowis (PPE-DE), Chris Davies (ELDR), Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE)and Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: The trade in cat and dog fur

The Commission has been made aware that animal welfare organisations have provided evidence of extraordinary cruelty in certain Asian countries regarding the killing of cats and dogs for their fur, which is then exported to other countries including the European Union. This involves on occasion the hanging and skinning alive of these animals and other appalling acts of cruelty. The fur is often substituted illicitly for other types of fur or even sold as artificial fur.

Fur produced from any animal within the European Union must be obtained in a manner which is consistent with the requirements of Council Directives 93/119/EEC(1) and 98/58/EC(2). These Directives insist on a respect for the welfare of animals which is clearly absent from the treatment of cats and dogs in countries such as China.

In response to Written Question E-1203/02(3) by Mr Whitehead, Commissioner Byrne states that:

Since a complete ban on the production, use, trade and import of those furs as imposed by certain Member States would apply regardless of the conditions under which the animals are kept and killed, it is evident that such measures are not motivated by solely animal welfare concerns. The motivation is primarily an ethical question, whether to use products derived from animals which are mainly regarded as companion animals.

The Commission has already explained in its answer to Written Question E-3981/00(4) that a ban on importation of cat and dog fur that was not accompanied by a ban on internal EU trade in such items would probably fall foul of W.T.O. rules. Therefore, to be W.T.O. compliant, any ban on importation of these products would have to be accompanied by a total trade ban within the EU itself. Given that a complete ban of this kind is the only way to prevent such appalling cruelty, on what basis does the Commission say it is evident that a desire for such a ban is not motivated by solely animal welfare concerns? Moreover, does the Commission not accept that a desire to prevent cruelty to animals, quite separate from

any desire not to use products derived from companion animals, can be seen as an attempt to prevent a breach of public morality which could justify a restriction of trade in the form of a Commission Directive?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

(3) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 104.

(4) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 232.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0373/03 and E-1145/03given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

The Commission does not ignore the issue of imports of cat and dog furs. The Commission is currently examining the questions raised taking into consideration the respective requirements of World Trade Organisation (WTO) law, legal bases under Community law and the interplay with existing legislation to prevent consumer deception.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0233/03

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Waste as topsoil

What is the Commission's current position on the disposal of waste as topsoil on landfill sites, due to BSE fears? When will the Commission come to a decision on this issue? When will Member States be informed? Does this policy apply just to the UK or to the EU as a whole?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Member States must ensure under Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975(1) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 on waste(2) that waste is disposed of or recovered without endangering human health or the environment.

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste(3) lays down special requirements for the landfilling of waste, including provisions for the construction and covering of landfills.

In addition, as of 1 May 2003, Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption(4) will ban the landfilling of transmissible spongiforme encephalopaties (TSE) positive or suspect materials. Other materials that are likely to harbour the TSE agents, such as specified risk materials must have been treated to high standards of pressure cooking to inactivate the TSE agents before landfilling.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(4) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0173/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Mincemeat and lemon curd

1. Recent newspaper reports have suggested that the European Commission is attempting to ban the terms lemon curd and mincemeat appearing on labels; can the Commission confirm whether this is true?

2. If true, why does the Commission feel the need to change the labelling of these products? And what names would the Commission like to substitute?

3. If not true, can the Commission give an assurance that these products will remain unaffected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Within the national legislation of the United Kingdom, lemon curd and mincemeat are defined as follows:

- Lemon curd is a product made, mainly, from an emulsion of edible fats or other oils (or both), sugar, whole egg or egg yolk (or both), and any combination of lemon puree, lemon pulp or lemon;

- Mincemeat is a product made mainly from a sweetening agent, vine fruits, citrus peel, sugar or any other carbohydrate, suet or equivalent fat and vinegar or acetic acid with or without other ingredients.

The use of the terms lemon curd and mincemeat is not prohibited by Community legislation. The Commission has no plans to introduce legislation to ban the use of these terms for the products in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0013/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Investment Services Directive

What is the Commission's intention with regard to the extent to which the Investment Services Directive, as revised, should prohibit the making of rules which would permit the sale of investment products or services where they have not been preceded by measures to ensure that they are suitable to individual potential customers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

The Commission's intention is to strengthen the Community's legislative framework to protect investors by enhancing obligations of investment firms when providing services to clients.

To this end, Article 18 of the proposal(1) requires Member States to ensure that investment firms obtain the necessary information from the client regarding its knowledge and experience in the investment field, its investment objectives and financial situation so as to enable the investment firm to determine the investment services and financial instruments suitable for that client. The Commission's approach is based on the current Article 11 of the existing Investment Services Directive(2). This approach is in line with the harmonised conduct of business rule-book agreed by CESR.

The Commission believes it is indispensable for an investment firm acting on behalf of a client, in order to properly fulfil its agency obligations to its clients, to obtain that information and to assess the suitability, for that client, of services or transactions in financial instruments which are being considered. Having said that, the Commission fully accepts that the intensity of this assessment and the manner in which it is undertaken needs to be carefully worked out to take into account, inter alia, the nature of the service (what would be appropriate for an automated execution-only service might not be for a discretionary portfolio management service) and of the financial product.

Article 18 clearly provides for a differentiation in the level of suitability and know your customer requirements, taking into account the nature of the investment service. This will ensure that the form and extent of this assessment are implemented in a way which is appropriate for the provision of low cost and flexible brokerage formats to clients, while still taking account of the extent to which transactions in different financial products represent different degrees of market risk for the investors.

(1) COM(2002) 625 final.

(2) Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field OJ L 141, 11.6.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0404/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Transport infrastructure charging

Can the Commission indicate when the communication on infrastructure charging within the transport sector will be submitted to Parliament?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

A draft Communication is currently being finalised within the Commission. This draft Communication comprises three parts: a common methodology for infrastructure charging, a new approach for financing of the Trans-European Networks (TENs) including public-private partnerships and a proposal for a Directive on interoperability of electronic road charging. The Communication is planned to be presented to the Parliament this Spring.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0285/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Rising sea levels in South Pacific

What evidence exists of rising sea levels in the South Pacific?

Is the Commission offering any assistance to the island of Tuvalu and surrounding islets to deal with the effects of climate change?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The best and most reliable scientific assessment of climate change is the Third Assessment Report (TAR) prepared by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001. This report contains the combined scientific knowledge of the world. Its authority and reliability has been recognised by almost all the countries of the world, including the United States.

The Third Assessment Report indicates that an average sea level rise of 0,1 to 0,2 million has been observed in the 20th century and that there are signals that global warming has significantly contributed to this rise.

However, current models are still not able to forecast sea level rise giving just a single figure rather than a range of possible results. So according to the IPCC TAR for the periods from 1990-2025 and from 1990-2050, the projected rises are expected to be from 0,03 to 0,14 million and from 0,05 to 0,32 million respectively.

The consequences of these possible scenarios are indeed a cause for concern, as also recognised by the Council conclusions of 17 October 2002. Large-scale impacts of climate change on oceans are expected to include a rise in the global sea level with the possible consequence of increased levels of flooding, accelerated erosion, loss of wetlands and mangroves, and seawater intrusion into freshwater sources. Small island states, including Tuvalu, are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change, which could also result in loss of land and property, dislocation of people, increased risk from storm surges and would require high resource costs to respond to and to adapt to these changes.

The greater part of the Community development assistance is provided through the framework of Country Strategy Papers (CSP). The CSPs outline a strategy for development assistance in each country with priority areas for assistance identified by the beneficiary country.

The Country Strategy Paper for Tuvalu was signed on 14 August 2002, and it will cover the period between 2002 and 2007. Development aid will consist of EUR 4 million over the identified period of time mainly focused on social sector development. In the past, however, some projects related to energy efficiency, coastal protection and the use of renewable energy sources were financed through Community programmes under the Lomé Convention.

Furthermore, the Commission follows constantly the evolution of the environmental situation in Tuvalu through regular contacts with the Government, inter alia in occasion of Joint Annual Reviews, and missions in the field carried out by the staff of the Commission's Delegation in Fiji.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0146/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Seychelles international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Seychelles international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector on the Seychelles?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

1. Article 2 of the current Protocol to the fisheries agreement between the Community and the Republic of Seychelles(1) fixes the level of financial compensation at EUR 3 460 000 per year. Of this, EUR 1 160 000 is used for the measures in support of the Seychelles fisheries sector specified in Article 3 of the Protocol.

2. The financial compensation of EUR 3 460, 000 per year represents the amount that is paid in exchange for the fishing opportunities made available to the Community fleet.

3. The amounts paid by the vessel owners are fixed in the Annex to the Protocol. The licence fees are EUR 25 per tonne of tuna caught within Seychelles waters. The licences are delivered after advance payments of EUR 10 000 for tuna seiners, EUR 2 000 for surface longliners of more than 150 gross registered tonnage (GRT)

and EUR 1 500 for surface longliners of 150 GRT or less. The amounts of the advances are deducted from the total amount due on the basis of the catches during the preceding year, but if the amount due is less than the advance the balance is not recoverable.

(1) OJ L 134, 22.5.2002.