ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0098/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Regional GDP growth

Will the Commission provide the growth rate of nominal GDP (GDP at current basic prices or nearest equivalent) for each region of each Member State in the EU over the ten years until 1999?

Will it add more recent such figures if available?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0098/02 and E-0099/02given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The information requested by the Honourable Member can be found in the tables which will be sent to him direct and to Parliament's Secretariat.

His attention is drawn to the following points:

- the calculations have been made on the basis of gross domestic product (GDP) in national currencies ( for EUR 15) in order to avoid changes in growth rates due to variations in exchange rates and regional populations;

- the data have been provided since 1995, as data have been available since then in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community(1). Moreover, data over a longer period would be affected by changes in the regional nomenclature used (NUTS 2);

- all the basic information used for these calculations is available on the site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=Eurostat, to which the Honourable Member may refer; this database also contains information at a more detailed level (for example, at NUTS 3 level of the regional nomenclature).

The data for 2000 will be available in January 2003.

(1) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: European emergency telephone number 112

The European emergency telephone number 112 was introduced in 1993.

Can the Commission state how many Member States have since replaced their old emergency telephone numbers with 112?

Will it force Member States that have not yet introduced 112 as the European emergency number to do so? If so, by what date? If not, why not?

In which languages will Europeans calling this emergency number be answered?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Two Member States (Denmark and the Netherlands) have replaced their old emergency call numbers with 112.

Article 1(2) of Council Decision 91/396/EEC(1) of 29 July 1991 on the introduction of a single European emergency call number provides that the single European emergency call number shall be introduced in parallel with any other existing national emergency call numbers, where this seems appropriate. The number 112 had to be introduced by 31 December 1996 at the latest.

It is for each Member State to decide which emergency call numbers may be used in its territory. The Commission is therefore not in a position to force Member States to introduce 112 as the only emergency call number.

EU law does not lay down any obligations as regards the languages operators use to answer 112 calls. In practice, operators answer in their countries' official language(s) and, in nearly all Member States, in English too. Some Member States also allow the use of French, German or other languages.

(1) OJ L 217, 6.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0035/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Construction of a landfill facility in Novellara (Reggio Emilia)

In March 2001 an agreement on the relocation to Novellara of a category 2, type B landfill facility (excluding hazardous waste) was signed by the Reggio Emilia provincial council, the Novellara local council and the Unieco, Sabar and Agac companies.

This decision has been opposed by local residents and various environmental groups, including Legambiente, which has taken the matter to the regional administrative court, asking for the agreement to be set aside.

Can the Commission establish whether the relocation and construction of the above facility in Novellara complies with all the relevant European environmental and public health laws?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

In the specific situations pointed out by the Honourable Member, the Directive on environmental impact assessment, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) whether before or after being amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2) constitutes the possibly relevant Community law.

However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of grounds of complaint on the application of Community law, no breach of it can be identified at present. Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess the issues in relation to the above mentioned directive, the Commission would also be able to investigate this matter.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0521/02

by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 February 2002)

Subject: Brominated flame retardants

Will the Commission ensure that the current risk assessments of TBBPA, the most commonly used brominated flame retardant, and HBCD also cover how general users of PCs etc. are exposed to and are affected by those chemicals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Brominated flame retardants are applied to consumer products to prevent fire from taking hold quickly. They are found in very many plastic items, such as the casing of electronic and electrical goods, in foam filled furniture, and on textiles.

The flame retardants hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) are priority substances pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(1). Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) is on the second list of priority substances with Sweden designated as the Member State rapporteur (Commission Regulation (EC) No 2268/95 of 27 September 1995(2)). A risk assessment report has been submitted and is currently being discussed by Member State authorities, industry and other stakeholders. TBBPA is on the fourth priority list with the United Kingdom designated as rapporteur (Commission Regulation (EC) 2364/2000 of 25 October 2000(3)). The United Kingdom competent authority has not yet submitted a risk assessment report for this chemical.

A major use of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) is as a flame retardant in textiles. The major uses of tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and derivatives are in the electronics industry (mostly in printed circuit boards) and in styrene polymers. Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) accounts for about half of the consumption of all flame retardants.

The risk assessments of priority substances are carried out according to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93(4). This includes an exposure assessment and a risk characterisation. The assessment of the exposure of consumers identifies inter alia the usage of the substance in consumer products. The exposure assessment focuses on those uses for which the highest exposure to consumers is expected to occur on a regular basis.

The risk to consumers from exposure to HBCD and TBBPA in major consumer products therefore forms part of a risk assessment pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(2) OJ L 231, 28.9.1995.

(3) OJ L 273, 26.10.2000.

(4) OJ L 161, 29.6.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0438/02

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Embryo stem cell research

The AP news agency quoted Philippe Busquin, the Member of the Commission responsible for research, on 31 January in a reaction to the German Bundestag's vote on the use of human embryo stem cells in research as saying that:

German researchers are now in a position to participate fully in EU-financed research projects investigating the use of embryo stem cells in curing diseases such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or heart defects.

The bill headed No destructive embryo research prohibit imports of human embryo stem cells in principle permit only under strict conditions, which the Bundestag adopted by a majority, stipulates that:

a law shall be adopted to combat the destruction of further embryos for the purposes of extracting human embryo stem cells. The importation of human embryo stem cells is to be restricted to existing stem cell lines established by a specified cut-off date. The setting of such a date ensures that, for the purposes of importing human embryo stem cells into Germany, the killing of further embryos to extract stem cells is prevented.

Commissioner Busquin's words represent a fine-tuning of the Commission's position. In its modified proposal on the 6th Framework Programme for research of 22 November 2001 and its statement to the Research Council on 5 December 2001, the Commission merely stated the view that the production of embryos for research purposes, including nuclear transfer, was excluded. On the issue of embryo stem cell research, it was not specified whether any embryo stem cell line can be used, or only those produced by a cut-off date. What cut-off date does the Commission consider appropriate? How does it propose to verify that the cut-off date arrangements are adhered to in practice?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2002)

The Associated Press quote of the Member of the Commission responsible for Research welcoming the vote of the German Bundestag is correct. His words do not alter the Commission's position with respect to the ethical conditions for the Sixth Framework Programme of Research and Technological Development, as mentioned in the Commission Statement to the Minutes of the Research Council of 10 December 2001.

The fixing of a particular cut-off date, as well as other conditions envisaged by the German Bundestag, are national decisions that researchers in Germany will have to respect when they participate in Community-funded research projects. The proposed Specific Programmes for the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) will require local ethical committees to give their approval to projects raising ethical questions prior to their start.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0646/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Effect of endometriosis on employment

Is the Commission able to produce statistics regarding the effect endometriosis has on employment?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The Commission has no statistics on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the first operational programme for education and initial vocational training of the second CSF

On 31 December 2001 funding and work on the projects and actions of the first operational programme for education and initial vocational training of the second CSF came to an end.

1. Was the original budget for the programme changed during implementation and what was the final budget?

2. What percentage was implemented?

3. In so far as the implementation of the programme was marred by breakdowns or a reduced take-up rate, which subprogrammes were responsible?

4. Is it planned to continue and finance the projects and actions which should have been completed but were not?

5. What percentage of the above projects is included in the new second operational programme for education and initial vocational training of the second CSF?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2002)

The budget of the above-mentioned operational programme was scaled down during the mid-term review of the Greek Community Support Framework, which took place in 1998. The total European Social Fund (ESF) appropriations for the programme were reduced by 190 million (from 1 190 million to 1 000 million), while at the same time the ESF contribution was increased from 75 % to 80 %. In addition, the total European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) appropriations for the programme were increased by 49 million (from 221 million to 270 million), while the ERDF contribution was reduced from 75 % to 55 %. Following the above changes, the total budget of the programme (Community and national funding) was scaled down by 134 million (from 1 882 million to 1 748 million), while the pure Community contribution (ESF and ERDF) was reduced by 141 million (from 1 411 million to 1 270 million).

Although the Greek authorities have not yet submitted their final payment claim which is expected at the latest by the end of June 2002 they estimate that the programme has absorbed practically all the resources available to it.

It is foreseen by the Greek authorities that some categories of projects, which remained uncompleted in the previous programming period (e.g. school libraries and laboratories for comprehensive lyceums), will be finished in the current period 2000-2006. The Greek authorities estimate that the credits reserved in the corresponding programme of the current programming period for the completion of these categories of projects amount to about 8 % to 9 % of its total budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0081/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Drugs in prisons

According to a recent report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, more than 50 % of prison inmates in the EU take drugs. The report reveals wide differences between the Member States. For example, Portugal and Spain have the highest levels of consumption, Austria the lowest.

Given that the fight against drugs is a top EU priority, will the Commission say what measures it has taken to date to combat this particular aspect of the problem and with what results? Does its action plan on drugs (2000-2004) include practical measures to combat drug trafficking in prisons?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2002)

The annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) states that problem drug users and/or intravenous drug users may represent up to 50 % of the prison population in some areas. As the Honourable Member points out, the percentages for drug use among prison inmates vary considerably from one Member State to another.

Prison policy is a matter for the Member States. In its Drugs Strategy for 2000-2004, the Union stresses the importance of developing preventive measures applicable to the prison environment, alternatives to imprisonment and special facilities for addicted prisoners.

Furthermore, on the basis of a Commission proposal, the Feira European Council on 19 and 20 June 2000 approved the Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004)(1), in which Member States are encouraged to intensify their efforts to provide drug prevention and treatment services and, where appropriate, measures to reduce health related damage for inmates while in prison and on their release.

On the basis of contributions from the Member States, the Commission will carry out an evaluation of the entire action plan on drugs at mid-term (end-2002) and at the end of the period concerned (end-2004). It will give careful attention to the prison policy aspect and will, where appropriate, consider any initiatives that might be taken in this field.

(1) COM(2001) 301, 8.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1085/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Funding of Community support framework programmes in Greece

According to information published in the Greek press, the Greek Government has asked the Commission to accelerate funding (potentially in excess of the original stipulations on this point in Regulation (EC) 1260/1999(1) on the Structural Funds) of the CSF operational programmes, which it believes can advance more quickly in the future, in compensation for the non-funding of other programmes which are not sufficiently ready.

1. Is this information true?

2. How does the Commission intend to respond to the Greek Government's request?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0232/02

by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: VAT issues

The international removals industry, mainly comprised of SMUs, is facing a major problem concerning the payment of VAT on international removals in an appropriate and legal way. It is not always clear for the removers to which national tax authorities VAT payments should be made, and the costs involved in the use of a tax consultant are disproportionate to the amount of VAT due. In addition, tax consultants usually refuse to work with removal firms because of the shared liability.

Is the Commission considering a system by which these amounts of VAT could be paid to a European central body which would redistribute the sums due to the various Member States at a later stage?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission is currently not considering proposing the introduction of such a system as that outlined by the Honourable Member.

The main problem facing the international removals industry relates to the VAT rules determining the place of supply of the service, which they provide. The place of taxation of intracommunity transport services carried out for non-taxable persons is where the transport starts. This problem is also highlighted in many responses from Industry to the Internal Market Strategy for Services(1).

The Commission does acknowledge that the Internal Market would function better with a VAT system based on the country of origin. However, such a system does not seem to be a politically feasible option in the short term, considering the lack of progress in Council on a Commission program of 1996 with proposals for a gradual transition to a VAT system based on country of origin. The Commission, however, retains the idea of such a definite system of taxation as a long term Community goal.

In its new strategy to improve the operation of the VAT system in the short term(2), which was widely welcomed by the Member States when presented in the Council, the Commission identified the need for a modification of the rules determining the place of supply of services as one of the issues to be addressed. The Commission will make an effort to come up with a proposal concerning the place of supply of services as soon as possible, in 2003 at the earliest, taking into account the problems addressed by the international removals industry.

(1) COM(2000) 888 final.

(2) COM(2000) 348 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0676/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Subject: Cancellation of tendering procedure for the Thessaloniki underground

Three years after the Greek Parliament approved under law 2717/99 the contract for the construction of the Thessaloniki underground, the Government is now seeking to cancel the project and to issue invitations to tender for the construction of a tramline.

Is the Commission aware of the Government's intentions?

What has caused the delays to date in the construction of the Thessaloniki underground?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

The Commission is unaware of the intentions which the honourable Member claims the Greek Government has. As a result, the Commission can neither confirm nor refute the information put forward by the honourable Member to the effect that the Greek Government plans to cancel the project in question and to opt for the construction of a tramline.

With regard to the honourable Member's second question, the Commission emphasises that the actual implementation of public works concession projects in the Member States is the responsibility of the concessionnaire and of the State. As the Commission has told Parliament on several occasions, it would appear that the financing plan for the project has not yet been finalised and that it is still being negotiated by the Member State, the concessionnaire, the European Investment Bank and commercial banks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0830/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Subject: European register of companies practising alternative dispute settlement

Following the trial period of the European Extrajudicial Network (EEJ Network), Europe's consumers now have more suitable alternatives for the alternative settlement of disputes.

For this reason, many consumers' associations in the EU Member States are considering whether or not it would be a good time to set up a European register of companies belonging to the alternative dispute-settlement system (or consumer arbitration), so that both consumers and companies would have effective ways of generating mutual trust, which is essential if a modern, competitive internal market is to function properly.

Does the Commission not think that, following the trial period of the EEJ Network, encouragement should be given to the setting up of a European register of companies practising consumer arbitration as a scheme for the alternative settlement of disputes? Such companies could be granted an official badge which would inspire confidence on the part of consumers from any Member State.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

The pilot phase of the European Extra-Judicial Network (EEJ-Net) was launched on 16 October 2001. This pilot phase will last for one year. The EEJ-Net involves a total of 17 countries (all Member States, plus Norway and Iceland). It was considered desirable to begin with a test period for the full network to be completed, for the consumer dispute resolution bodies to assimilate and familiarise themselves with the network, and for an ongoing review to be undertaken to improve its operation. The Commission intends to report on the success of the pilot phase in the autumn 2002.

The Commission has also set up a group of government experts, which meets regularly to monitor development of the pilot phase and to discuss issues relating to the network. Although there is no specific intention at this point to create a register of companies participating in the dispute resolution system, the Commission agrees that this idea could be explored further. Preliminary discussions on this issue have already taken place within the government experts group, and this matter will be examined more fully in the autumn report.