ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/693

(2004/C 78 E/0740)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3908/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Malta

It is understood that during accession negotiations, the EU granted Malta a derogation for spring hunting of common quail coturnix coturnix and turtle dove streptopelia turtur on the islands. The Commission has previously stated that this derogation is subject to ‘strict conditions’.

Could the Commission please explain why Malta was granted a derogation in the first place?

Could the Commission also clarify what these ‘strict conditions’ are and what concession, if any, is Malta obliged to give for such a derogation? Furthermore, how does the Commission propose to monitor Malta's respect of its commitments in this area?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

With regard to hunting of common quail coturnix coturnix and turtle dove streptopelia turtur, Malta has not been given a derogation beyond the provisions of Article 9 of the Birds Directive (1). Article 9 of this Council Directive allows, where there is no other satisfactory solution, for exceptions under certain very stringent conditions.

This means that, if Malta wishes to allow spring hunting for these species, it would need to ensure that all the requirements of Article 9 are met and that hunting is carried out under ‘strictly supervised conditions’ and limited to ‘small numbers’ only. Furthermore, the recourse to Article 9 is subject to regular monitoring by the Commission and Malta is committed, in such a case, to report each year on its possible use.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/2

(2004/C 78 E/0002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2369/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Directive 1999/74/EC on the protection of laying hens

What is the estimated cost to business of compliance with Directive 1999/74/EC (1) laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens?

How many keepers are there in the EU who hold less than 350 hens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2002)

The Commission has currently no available figures to estimate this cost. When making its proposal for the Directive in question laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, it took account of the economic estimations presented in its Communication of 11 March 1998 on the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing (2). However, the provisions of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999, as finally adopted by the Council, include new technical elements which were not fully considered in the economic analysis of the Commission. For this reason article 10 of Directive 1999/74/EC includes the requirement for a report, to be presented by the Commission not later than 1 January 2005. An obligation for a further evaluation of the socio-economic implications of the various systems is also foreseen in the Directive. The cost to producers of implementation will play a key role in the socio-economic chapter of the report.

There are presently no recent statistics available to the Commission concerning the number of producers having less than 350 hens. However, in 1997 (3) there were 542 500 farms with less than 100 hens and 2 200 farms with between 100 and 499 hens, out of a total number of 549 250 laying hen farms accounted for in the whole EU.

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

(2) OJ C 123, 22.4.1998.

(3) Eurostat: Results of the farm structure survey 1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/291

(2004/C 88 E/0298)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2677/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Subject: Fire safety

What role does the Commission have in promoting best practice between Member States and their fire authorities with a view to reducing death and injury from fire?

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce new building design regulations intended to provide all EU citizens with minimum standards for protection from fire-related injury by requiring the installation of such devices as smoke detectors and sprinkler systems?

Does the Commission recognise national or regional fire brigades in each Member State as the lead bodies to deal with issues of community fire safety, and are they treated as such for the purpose of consultation about health and safety issues relating to fire?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Community has no general competence in fire safety. However, the Community does contribute to fire safety through several directives and initiatives taken under different Community policies, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.

As a direct consequence, the structure and the competences of national, regional or local fire brigades vary from one Member State to the other, and the Commission has no competence to establish common rules on which all Member States could agree.

In the area of civil protection, the Commission has taken several initiatives to allow fire brigades to identify their most urgent needs. As far as the promotion of best practices between Member States is concerned, within the Community action programme for civil protection, Sweden has recently been mandated as the lead country for a fire prevention project that aims to identify best practice between Member States.

The Commission does not have plans to make mandatory the installation of smoke detectors and sprinkler systems. In many of the Member States such provisions exist already. However, fire alarm/detection, fixed fire-fighting and fire and smoke controlproducts are covered by Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1). Under this Directive there are common instruments for labelling the safety in case of fire characteristics of construction products. These are the ‘Euroclasses’ for reaction to and resistance to fire, which will allow the performances of products to be easily recognised in all Member States.

Only Member States have the prerogative to designate which bodies should deal with Community fire safety issues. However, at Community level, relevant initiatives are usually discussed with all the interested parties represented at European level.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/8

(2004/C 78 E/0007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3644/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Incarceration of Shaiboub

Is the Commission aware of the case of Coptic Christian Shaiboub William Arsal who has been incarcerated since September 1998 in connection with the murders of two Christians in his village of El Kosheh? Is the Commission aware that the appeal lodged against this verdict has been pending for over two and a half years and that Shaiboub remains in prison to this date? And is it the Commission's opinion that this situation is in accordance with Article 2 of the Egypt-EU Association Agreement?

Can the Commission comment on any action it has taken on the case of Shaiboub William Arsal? Will the Commission use its influence to ensure that Shaiboub's appeal is heard swiftly and that all relevant evidence is made available to be thoroughly examined to ensure a just verdict?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/294

(2004/C 88 E/0301)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3361/02

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Insurance

Large museums in all the Member States regularly organise exchanges of their collections so that the public in their respective countries can enjoy the great European artistic tradition. Unfortunately, such exchanges are seriously hampered by insurance problems. When, for example, the Teylers Museum in Haarlem and the British Museum wanted to hold a joint exhibition of the Michelangelo drawings in their respective collections, the British Museum did not have to spend anything on insurance premiums, whereas the Teylers Museum had to pay several million euro as a result of the Netherlands Finance Ministry's limited indemnity arrangements. European museums would be able to share Europe's cultural heritage with the public in their respective countries much more easily if a comprehensive indemnity arrangement was in place in every Member State.

1. Does the Commission agree that exchanges of cultural treasures make a contribution to European integration?

2. Is the Commission aware that insurance arrangements vary from one Member State to another, and that some have none at all?

3. Does the Commission agree that the present situation is undesirable, not least from the point of view of free movement of goods and ideas in Europe?

4. If so, is the Commission prepared to take steps to place this issue on the European agenda?

5. If so, is the Commission willing to put in place interim provisions as a temporary solution?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that exchanging works of art can contribute to European integration.

The Commission knows that the insurance schemes available in the Member States vary considerably – this being a direct result of the differences between national policies.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the present situation is not ideal from the point of view of the free movement of goods and ideas in Europe.

As part of the efforts to implement the single market, the Commission is therefore willing to launch a discussion on the measures required to promote the coordination and exchange of good practice as regards insurance schemes which cover works of art.

As far as the purely cultural aspect of the problem is concerned, the Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that, owing to the small size of the budget for the ‘Culture 2000’ programme (the sole Community instrument for promoting cooperation in the cultural sphere), there is no prospect of any financial support being provided by the Community for this purpose.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/1

(2004/C 65 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Abolition of access fees at airports

A large part of the aviation industry considers that paying airports further fees in addition to rent and other airport charges, as agents and self-handling users must do to obtain a concession to provide ground handling services, is unfair and excessive.

Lufthansa has succeeded in having the access fee abolished by judgment of a German court. Air France is reportedly moving in the same direction.

Can the Commission comment on the German court judgment?

Does it intend to take a legislative initiative in this respect?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

The Honourable Member seems to refer to the Order of the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) of Frankfurt am Main which was issued in 2001 in the legal proceedings between Hannover-Langenhagen Airport and Lufthansa.

The issue between the two parties in this case is whether Hannover airport is entitled to require Lufthansa to pay an access fee in respect of its check-in services on a self-handling basis for its passengers, and as a supplier of such services for passengers of other airlines.

The Order does not contain a decision on the issue but it stays the proceedings and puts a number of questions before the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the EC Treaty. These questions refer to the interpretation of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports (1), and essentially ask the Court of Justice to clarify whether and to what extent the access fee can be levied from self handlers and third party handlers which were already present at an airport before the entry into force of the Directive.

The case was registered by the Court of Justice on 24 September 2001 and the Commission submitted its observations on the case to the Court on 14 January 2002.

Regarding this particular issue no legislative initiative is envisaged, but the Commission will undertake a comprehensive review of the Directive in 2003 which may lead to proposals for modifications of parts of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 272, 25.10.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0341/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Infringement of Directive 89/48/EEC

What does the Commission intend to do to persuade Greece to implement Directive 89/48/EEC(1) in view of the fact that Presidential Decree 52/93, which was adopted in respect of graduates in law and their access to the profession as lawyers, infringes the Directive and allows the Athens Bar Association wittingly to break the law?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Presidential decree 52/93 has implemented in Greek law Directive 89/48/EEC(1) for the profession of lawyer. The Commission has examined this decree and concluded that it conforms to the provisions of the Directive. Directive 89/48/EEC only applies to fully qualified professionals. Diplomas as defined in Article 1 (a) of the Directive must be awarded on the completion of full professional education and training. In most Member States, a lawyer's training comprises not only a degree, but also an examination and period of in-house training. In these circumstances, graduates in law cannot be regarded as fully qualified lawyers and consequently cannot benefit from professional recognition under the Directive.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years duration OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0142/03

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

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Guinea international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

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

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

(7 March 2003)

1. Article 2 of the Protocol now in force to the Fisheries Agreement between the EEC and the Republic of Guinea(1) fixes the financial contribution at EUR 2 960 000 per year.

Part of that sum, EUR 1 360 000, is earmarked for financing targeted measures for the development of the Guinean fisheries sector, provided for in Article 4 of the Protocol.

In addition to that amount, the Community has undertaken to make a financial contribution of EUR 370 000 at the end of each year to the cost of management and control activities, providing a number of mutually agreed conditions are fulfilled.

2. The financial contribution of EUR 2 960 000 is the amount paid in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet.

3. The fees paid by shipowners, set out in the Annex to the Protocol, are as follows:

>TABLE>

Tuna vessels and surface longliners:

- The annual fee is EUR 25 per tonne caught within the Republic of Guinea's fishing zone.

- Licences are issued following payment to the Public Treasury of an annual advance of EUR 2 250 for each tuna seiner, EUR 375 for each pole-and-line tuna vessel, EUR 875 for each surface longliner of more than 150 grt and EUR 625 for each surface longliner of 150 grt or less, equivalent to the fees for:

- 90 tonnes of tuna caught per year in the case of seiners;

- 15 tonnes caught per year in the case of pole-and-line tuna vessels;

- 35 tonnes caught per year in the case of surface longliners of more than 150 grt;

- 25 tonnes caught per year in the case of surface longliners of 150 grt or less.

(1) OJ L 250, 5.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0444/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Employer liability insurance

In most EU Member States the national government covers employer liability insurance through national insurance schemes. In the UK it is in the hands of the private insurance companies.

Does the Commission have plans to ensure that a level playing field for employer liability insurance exists across the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

The Commission does not have sufficient details of the matter to be able to investigate the problem raised and is not therefore in a position to answer the question at the moment. It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Directive on railway tunnels

The recent rail accident at Tenda (Alpes Maritimes), irrespective of the assessment to be made by the French judicial authorities currently dealing with it, raises the issue of safety in railway tunnels. Since the directive on road tunnels was recently presented to Parliament, can the Commission say whether a similar initiative is envisaged for railway tunnels? Can it also say what the timescale and contents might be?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

In the context of the implementation of Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system(1), the Commission is planning to adopt a technical specification for interoperability (TSI) in the area of railway tunnel safety.

To this end, and as provided for under Article 6(1) of the abovementioned Directive, a mandate was given in October 2002 to the European Association for Railway Interoperability (AEIF). Under this mandate, the AEIF is required to come up with a draft technical interoperability specification within thirty months.

As provided for in Article 6 of the Directive, this draft will be the subject of a cost-benefit analysis and of consultations between both sides of industry. It will then be submitted for an opinion to the Committee set up pursuant to Article 21 of that Directive. There are plans for the adoption of such a TSI during the course of 2005.

(1) OJ L 110, 20.4.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0552/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Labour law in Slovakia breach of EU legislation

The Slovak Government intends to amend the country's labour law. It plans to:

- reduce workers' rights in connection with notice and dismissal;

- reduce the (special) rights enjoyed by disabled people;

- abolish the right to minimum wages;

- abolish severance pay;

- abolish the principle of the five-day-week; and

- restrict workers' and trade union rights.

1. Can the Commission say whether these planned amendments contravene European Union legislation?

2. Does this imply a breach of the Accession Treaty with the European Union?

3. What steps will the Commission take if Slovakia fails to comply with corresponding EU legislation or with the Accession Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

1. The Commission is extremely conscious of the need to ensure that all aspects of the Community labour law acquis is transposed and effectively enforced in the Candidate Countries.

As regards the amendments in question, the Commission has not received any official draft amendments setting out the current position from the Government of Slovakia. Therefore, it is currently not possible to examine whether or not such amendments would be in line with the labour law acquis.

As regards individual dismissal, minimum wages and collective rights, there are no comprehensive labour law directives at European level in these areas.

2. There is no indication of breaches of the Accession Treaty at this stage.

3. There is no need to consider measures to be taken in the case of possible future breaches at this stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0783/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject: Single Market

In its answer to my question E-3516/01(1) of 8 January 2002 on the fragmentation of the single internal market, the Commission states that Greece runs the highest deficit in the transposition of directives in domestic legislation. It also notes that late transposition fragments the internal market and undercuts its ability to create growth and jobs and that the legal uncertainty created by late transposition carries significant costs to citizens and businesses.

What are the positions of Greece and the other Member States today? What is the cost of the present state of affairs for the economy of Europe? Has Greece transposed the Community directives on the award of public supply contracts? What measures does the Commission intend to take to fully establish the single internal market at European level, if it has not already been established?

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 241.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

According to the latest figures released at the Spring European Council (21 March 2003), Greece currently has a transposition deficit of 3,8 %, which is the third highest deficit of all Member States and corresponds to 58 directives not implemented on time. The Greek deficit has increased substantially since last year's Barcelona European Council (2,6 %). The average transposition deficit across all Member States has also increased from 1,8 % in Barcelona to 2,6 % today. However, all public procurement directives have now been transposed by Greece and by the other Member States.

The Commission is currently looking into the question of quantifying the negative effects of late implementation of Internal Market legislation, but has already stated that this is a very difficult exercise (cf. reply to written question E-3516/01).

Last December 2002 the Commission made a number of proposals to improve the monitoring of the application of Community law(1). The forthcoming Internal Market Strategy 2003-2006 will outline further important proposals to tackle many of the remaining problems. In view of the Parliament's positive report on the 2002 Review of the Internal Market Strategy (rapporteur: Mr Malcolm Harbour), the Commission believes that the Parliament should be able to give its full support to the December Communication and the Strategy.

(1) COM(2002) 725 final.