ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0074/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Subject: Technical assistance to China for health and plant health requirements

Under the bilateral agreement of May 2000 on the accession of China to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU has agreed to provide China with assistance to enable it to comply with its undertakings in the context of that agreement, including those relating to meeting its public health obligations.

Can the Commission state in detail what cooperation and technical assistance projects it intends to introduce in the field of health and plant health? Is the Commission planning any specific programme with a view to removing the health obstacles standing in the way of imports of bivalve molluscs into the Community?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The Commission adopted a Framework programme for Community support to China's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) of 3 million in 1998. This amount has been increased by 600 000 in 2001, and the programmes duration has been extended until 31 December 2003. This programme is currently under implementation and aims to strengthen China's administrative capacity to comply with WTO requirements, including the recognition and implementation of agricultural and sanitary/phytosanitary standards.

In the China National Indicative Programme 2002/2004 which is part of the China Country Strategy Paper, high priority is given to continued support to China's WTO membership, and an amount of 15 million will be available for commitment in 2002. This new programme will help China to further develop its legal and regulatory framework, and to strengthen its administrative capacity to implement and enforce this framework. A Community expert mission is scheduled to visit China in April 2002 to further define the new programme proposal, which is expected to include a significant component related to sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1901/02

by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Progress in implementing Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities

On 28 December 2000 Directive 2000/59/EC(1) on port reception facilities came into force. The deadline for implementation of the directive is 28 December 2002. We have received reports from the Netherlands that EU Member States are adopting widely differing approaches to financing the costs of implementation. As I had expected, in my capacity as rapporteur for this subject, only a few Member States have opted for indirect financing. Widely differing approaches between ports can lead to waste tourism and may perpetuate financial incentives to dumping waste at sea. It seems that less and less waste is now being handed in at the port of Rotterdam. Only 6 % of the ships that call at the port unload waste.

Does the Commission share my view that there are wide variations in methods of implementing the directive and in the financing systems chosen, and that there is still hardly any sign of plans for a system of information exchange between ports?

Does the Commission agree that the great differences in financing methods and hence in costs to the shipping industry limit the effectiveness of the directive and even lead to waste tourism and continued dumping of waste at sea?

Is the Commission prepared, if the aforementioned differences in implementation justify it, not to wait for several years before carrying out an assessment, but to take action immediately by encouraging the Member States to coordinate financing systems more effectively and to launch an information exchange system in order to ensure that the directive has the desired effect?

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

The Commission is grateful to the Honourable Member for submitting information about the state of implementation of Directive 2000/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000, on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, and in particular its Article 8 on fee systems for ship-generated waste.

The Commission has not yet received official communication from Member States about the implementation of this Directive, the deadline for implementing measures being 28 December 2002. By this date, the Commission will carefully analyse the implementing legislation of all Member States. The mechanism adopted to ensure compliance with the principles listed in Article 8 on fee system will naturally form an important part of this analysis.

The Commission's undertaking to make an additional assessment of the fee system within three years, as provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 8, will not affect the obligation of Member States to comply with the criteria and principles of Article 8 as from 28 December 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1988/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: GESAC code of conduct

In my written question E-0182/02(1), I asked the Commission what view it took of the code of conduct submitted to it, which had been drawn up by the European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers (GESAC) regarding the collective management of their rights. I also requested a copy of the code.

In his reply of 18 March 2002, Commissioner Bolkestein indicated that the deliberations held a number of years ago within the GESAC concerning the code had been brought to its attention. However, according to the information available, the deliberations did not lead to agreement and the GESAC did not submit a code of conduct to the Commission. However, I myself have a copy of this very code, which was submitted to the Commission on 26 October 1995 for the attention of the Director-General of DG XV and registered by DG XV under No 015151-3.11.1995.

In view of this, can the Commission give its views regarding the code of conduct submitted by the GESAC?

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 194.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The honourable Member's question concerns a code of conduct prepared by the European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers (GESAC). The Commission was not notified about the code, which was drawn up in 1995, but it was sent for information purposes to some directorates-general. According to the information available to the Commission, the code was never put into practice and GESAC informed the Commission in 1996 that no further action would be taken concerning the document but that the deliberations which had given rise to it would in fact continue. In the circumstances, the Commission cannot consider a document which has no real scope or application. At most, the Commission may regard it as a supplementary factor when regularly reviewing collective management in Europe.

Be that as it may, the honourable Member's question concerns a very important aspect of the Internal Market: the collective management of rights and the operation of societies involved in their management. The Commission, and especially DG Internal Market, plays very close attention to changes in the sector and in particular to initiatives by management societies with regard to adapting their methods of operation to market requirements. The Commission is constantly monitoring the sector, particularly because the societies involved in collective management are responsible to a considerable extent for controlling copyright and related rights as currently harmonised by seven directives on intellectual property. The Commission thus maintains an ongoing and thorough dialogue on these matters with management societies and all interested parties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1394/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the Hens Directive

In July 1999 the European Union took a step forward in prohibiting the battery cage for egg-laying hens when it agreed Council Directive 1999/74/EC(1).

Under Article 13 of the Directive, Member States are required to implement the Directive before 1 January 2002 and inform the Commission thereof.

Given that the United Kingdom has not yet implemented Council Directive 1999/74/EC, has the Commission begun infringement proceedings against the UK to ensure that animal welfare is given a higher priority by the government?

(1) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

In its task of monitoring the application of Community law, the Commission systematically opens infringement proceedings against Member States which have failed to transpose directives within the prescribed deadline following its review of the implementation status of directives coming into force every two months.

In relation to the non-implementation of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, by the United Kingdom, the Commission opened infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC of the EC Treaty by a letter of formal notice dated 26 April 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1596/02

by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Safety criteria for nuclear reactors

What are the specific technical safety criteria for nuclear-electricity-generating reactors?

Please list those reactors within the existing EU Member States and the applicant countries which do and do not meet these standards.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Technical safety standards for nuclear reactors are the responsibility of the Member States. There is no Community legislation on this subject at the present time.

It is worthwhile recalling on this occasion, however, that the European Council meeting in Laeken in December 2001 undertook to maintain a high level of nuclear safety in the Union, stressed the need to monitor the security and safety of nuclear power stations and called for regular reports from Member States' atomic energy experts through their maintaining close contact with the Commission.

In this context and in order to achieve the objective of a high level of nuclear safety in an enlarged Union, the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Final report on the Green Paper Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply(1) indicates that: For the next stage, the Commission will examine a proposal opening the way to a truly Community approach to nuclear safety in the form of common standards and practices and European control mechanisms and peer review. This will guarantee that the same criteria and methods are applied throughout an enlarged Europe.

(1) COM(2002) 321 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2082/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Restrictions on the use of cadmium case C-314/99

On 18 June 2001, the Court of Justice passed judgment in case C-314/99 (the Kingdom of the Netherlands versus the Commission). The judgment annuls Section 3 of the Annex to

Commission Directive 1999/51/EC(1) of 26 May 1999 adapting to technical progress for the fifth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC(2) on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (tin, PCP and cadmium).

The case concerned the Swedish and Austrian exemptions from the use of cadmium and its compounds as colourants, stabilisers and for surface treatment (cadmium plating).

What will happen now to the Swedish and Austrian exemptions in this area? How does the Commission intend to deal with this matter subsequently?

(1) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999, p. 22.

(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The Act of Accession applicable to Austria and Sweden authorised these States to maintain existing restrictions on the use of cadmium and its compounds going beyond those laid down in the Annex to Council Directive 76/769/EEC, of 27 July 1976, as amended by Council Directive 91/338/EEC of 18 June 1991(1), until 31 December 1998.

That derogation was granted in order to allow for the completion of an on-going Community-wide risk assessment on that substance, which would in turn allow the Commission to propose appropriate risk reduction measures in the framework of Directive 76/769/EEC. As the risk assessment had not been completed at the end of 1998, that derogation has been extended for a further period of four years by Commission Directive 1999/51/EC.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands brought an action for annulment of Section 3 of the Annex to Commission Directive 1999/51/EC. Sweden was granted leave to intervene in support of the Commission. The Netherlands Government suggested that, were the contested provision to be annulled, the Court should limit the temporal effects of such annulment. The Court decided, however, although important grounds of legal certainty, , can justify the Court using its power to decide to maintain the effects of the acts which have been declared void, the existence of such grounds has non been made clear in the present case. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no need to apply that provision in this case.

Following the annulment by the Court of Justice of Section 3 of the Annex to that Directive, Austria and Sweden are obliged to amend their national provisions in order to bring them into line with Directive 76/769, as amended by Directive 91/338/EEC.

The Commission is currently reviewing the cadmium-related provisions of Directive 76/769/EEC in the light of relevant risk assessments.

(1) OJ L 186, 10.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Obesity in Europe

A recent article in the UK focused on the obesity problems sweeping through Europe's population and reported that Germany's obese population will reportedly grow from 57 % in 2001 to 71 % in 2002 and that weight problems will affect 69 % of adults in Spain and the Netherlands, 60 % of Swedes and 59 % of Italians. The article also reported that France's obese population will rise from 37 % to 50 % by 2006 while the UK's overweight population will increase from 48 % to 52 % in 2006.

Does the Commission have any statistical evidence on Member States' obesity levels amongst a) children under 16, and b) adults, that could confirm or deny the above reported figures?

Has the Commission initiated, or will the Commission initiate, any programmes aimed at combating this substantial and growing problem?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

The Commission has data on body weight and body height of the population of 15 years and over of the Member States. These data are obtained through the National Health Surveys in the Member States and through the European Community Household Panel (ECHP). Some data have also been obtained through Eurobarometer (EB), which is the Commission's opinion survey. Data on height and weight are then used to obtain the Body Mass Index (BMI) or Quetelet's index, which gives an indication of obesity.

The existing surveys have a threshold of age normally established at 15 years (in the EB) and 16 years (in the ECHP). No data for people under 15 years is available.

Results (which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat General) show that obesity (here defined as BMI > 27) is relatively common in EU (25,6 % of men and 21,3 % of women). However, further information is needed to confirm or deny the indications suggested by the reports mentioned by the Honourable Member, since the prevalence of obesity is depending on what classification of obesity is used in different studies. The forthcoming public health programme, due to come into force soon includes activities relating to improve collection of health data as well as action on health determinants. Prevention of obesity will figure amongst the activities to be undertaken. The future Danish Presidency of the Council has signalled its intention to arrange a broadly based conference on obesity this autumn to address this serious public health problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1702/02

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 June 2002)

Subject: Storage of spent nuclear fuel

In her reply my written question E-1734/97(1), Commissioner Britt Bjerregaard stated that if spent nuclear fuel is placed in permanent storage, it should be regarded as radioactive waste and that when it is transported, even within the EU, the receiving country has the right to refuse approval for its importation. During the preparations for the signature of the international joint convention on the safety of spent fuel management and the safety of radioactive waste management, the Commission is apparently entering a reservation in respect of Article 27 to the effect that on the basis of an interpretation of the Euratom Treaty within the EU the consent of the receiving country will not be required in the manner laid down in the joint convention. In addition, a Commission representative has stated at a meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that the Commission is drafting a new directive on the subject. What is the Commission's interpretation of the EC and Euratom Treaties in their current form: is there a common market in spent nuclear fuel or does the receiving country have the right to prohibit its importation and permanent storage?

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 92.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Chapter IX of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) creates a Nuclear Common Market: Article 93 of the Euratom Treaty obliges Member States i.a. to abolish between themselves all quantitative restrictions on imports and exports in respect of products defined in List A1 contained in Annex IV to the Euratom Treaty. Although spent fuel does not as such figure in this list, its components do. Therefore, spent fuel is included in the common market rules of the Euratom Treaty.

If spent fuel is imported exclusively for permanent storage and not for reprocessing, no further use of it is foreseen and it becomes radioactive waste as defined in Article 2 of Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992, on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community(1) (Shipments Directive). As radioactive waste, Article 6 of this Directive allows a refusal of its importation on a case by case basis under the specific conditions of its Article 3. For spent fuel, which is not considered as radioactive waste the general rules of the Common Nuclear Market as established in Chapter IX of the Euratom Treaty apply.

Concerning Directive 92/3/Euratom, the Commission is indeed preparing a revision of this Directive following the recommendations of a report drawn up by a group of experts in the context of the SLIM initiative (Simpler Legislation for Internal Market). It will be proposed that Article 12 of the Directive, which is not in conformity with the Joint Convention, will be modified accordingly.

(1) ABl. L 35 vom 12.2.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0884/02

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

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Relief road through Arbón (Asturias, Spain)

The Government of the Principality of Asturias is planning to build a relief road for the AS-25 road. This project, were it to go ahead, would have a serious environmental impact, in that it would split the village of Arbón, in the district of Villayón, in two, pose a threat to local agriculture and stockbreeding, and exacerbate the problem of depopulation already affecting the area.

A far more reasonable approach would be to upgrade the existing road, especially since the relief road would reduce travel time by no more than 10 minutes. Furthermore, local residents are concerned that the implementation of the project could damage the social and cultural heritage and landscape of an area of great environmental value.

Will the Commission ask the competent authorities for information on this project?

Does it not take the view that Directive 85/337/EEC(1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ought to apply in this case?

What measures does it intend to take to ensure compliance with Community law?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Article 2 of 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) provides that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location, must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before consent is given.

This provision applies to projects of the classes listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive. Annex II, point 10 (e) includes the construction of roads. For projects such as the construction of a relief road for the AS-25 road in Arbón (Asturias), covered by Annex II, Article 4(2) of the Directive provides that the Member State concerned shall determine: (a) through a case-by-case examination or (b) using thresholds or criteria set by the Member State, whether the project should be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States may decide to apply both the procedures referred to in (a) and (b).

It should be noted that Directive 85/337/EEC was amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2). However, under Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC if a request for authorisation was submitted before 14 March 1999 the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to amendment continue to apply.

The Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities to request information on the possible application of Directive 85/337/EEC in the case reported by the Honourable Member in her written question.

At any event, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is observed in this instance.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.