ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Single clearing house for legal immigration into the EU

In recent statements to the Spanish press the Commission President has emphasised that it must be made clear (by means of a policy of openness, cooperation and active assistance in support of legal immigration) that the EU wants foreign immigrants because it needs them hence the requirement for a clear, positive policy to promote legal immigration.

Although it is obvious that there is a need for legal immigration and that illegal immigration (which has always been so prevalent) should be stopped, it is also obvious that legal immigration should be encouraged by means which enable the supply of immigrants who wish to come to work in the EU to be channelled appropriately.

Does the Commission not think, therefore, that it should propose setting up a European database for the purpose of channelling both the supply of vacancies and, where appropriate, the demand for the jobs available?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In its proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities of 11 July 2001(1), the Commission has proposed that the European Employment Services (EURES) network be used before filling a vacancy in a Member State with an economic migrant. The EURES network, established by Commission Decision 93/569/EEC(2), consists of a data base of job vacancies in the Member States and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) members of the European Economic Area (EEA) and of job-seekers managed by their public employment services.

The intention of the above mentioned proposal is to provide a practical and transparent tool to make the principle of preference for the domestic (EEA) labour market operational and to permit the recruitment of third country workers in cases of concrete shortage on the EEA labour market. Employers who do not succeed in filling a specific job vacancy within a given period would thus only be allowed to recruit from outside the EEA if they have published this vacancy via the employment services of several Member States by means of the European Employment Services Network (EURES) for at least four weeks and if they have not received an acceptable application from within the EEA labour market. The issuing of a residence permit to a chosen third country worker would, of course, be subject to additional specific conditions for a residence permit in accordance with the draft Directive.

An extension of the database to include job-seekers who do not already form a part of the EEA labour market is not envisaged.

(1) OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.

(2) Commission Decision 93/569/EEC of 22 October 1993 on the implementing of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community as regards, in particular, a network entitled Eures, OJ L 274, 6.11.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3135/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Prescription-only medicines and racing pigeons

As part of the review of legislation governing all medicinal products, the Commission has laid down a provision that medicines for farm livestock and horses must become prescription-only medicines.

What plans does the Commission have to exempt racing pigeons from this category?

Given that racing-pigeon owners currently deal with a number of minor ailments through the purchase of off-the-shelf medicines, not to mention the fact that pigeons are not part of the food chain, does the Commission feel that making all medicines POM would make pigeon racing more costly and reduce interest in this activity as a sport?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/82/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products(1) allows Member States to permit exemptions from marketing authorisation requirements in respect of veterinary medicinal products intended solely for certain categories of species. This includes homing pigeons. The Commission's recent proposal(2) to amend the Directive adds ferrets and pet rabbits to the respective category of species.

However, exempted products can not contain substances the use of which requires veterinary control. Member States permitting exemptions have to apply adequate measures to prevent unauthorised use of these products for other animals.

Article 67 of Directive 2001/82/EC lays down minimum requirements regarding the dispensing of veterinary medicinal products without prejudice to stricter Community or national rules. Member States may therefore require stricter conditions, to be applied under national law.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2271/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: The cost of bank transfers

There is considerable concern about the cost of bank transfers within the Eurozone, with banks in different countries frequently charging large commissions at both ends. Can the Commission confirm that this practice is illegal, and, if so, explain why the Commission has not taken legal proceedings to prevent it?

What effect will the new regulations that have just come into force have on this practice and what will be the effect of the additional regulations due to come into force in July next year?

Are there any agreements or regulations affecting the cost of bank transfers between the Eurozone and the non-Eurozone EU states, and, if so, are these being honoured?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The legal instrument dealing in 2002 with cross-border credit transfers is the Cross-Border Credit Transfer Directive(1); it concerns credit transfers within the European Union up to an amount transferred of EUR 50 000. The Directive entered into force on 14 August 1999.

The Directive foresees that cross-border credit transfers shall be executed for the full amount thereof (Article 7 of the Directive). This means that a cross-border credit transfer will by default be executed as an OUR transfer, where all the costs, including those of the beneficiary's bank, are charged by the sending institution to the originator thus avoiding double charging. The beneficiary would then have no further costs and receives the full amount transferred. Customers can, however, convene other ways of sharing the cost for a payment: BEN transfers, where the beneficiary pays all the charges, and SHARED transfers, where each party pays its own costs.

If any unlawful charges are levied by a bank, the customer is entitled to be credited the amount which has been wrongly deducted (Article 7.2 of the Directive). This is a right given to him. All Member States have correctly transposed the Directive on this point, but the Commission cannot take any legal proceedings if customers are not using their rights.

The Parliament and the Council adopted the Regulation on cross-border payments in euro on 19 December 2001(2). In accordance with this Regulation, cross-border credit transfers charges shall be aligned to those for corresponding payments at national level on the 1 July 2003. The fees for the originator's and the receiving bank will be the same as for a national credit transfers.

This Regulation's application is not limited to the eurozone but applies also in the three countries outside for the transactions initiated in euro. The Swedish authorities have, furthermore, decided to use the possibility to extend the provision of the Regulation to Swedish Krona. Thus only transactions initiated in Danish Krona and in Sterling remain, as regard the cost, unregulated.

(1) Directive 97/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3850/02

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: European charter for children in hospital

There are currently considerable differences in the treatment of children from one hospital to another. For instance, children are often admitted to adult wards, parents are often unable to stay at night, and the hospital environment may not be commensurate with the physical and educational needs of children.

The general hospital environment is known to be a very important factor in recovery with children. In 1986, accordingly, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for discussions on drafting a European charter for children in hospital(1).

To date, there has been no official Community proposal. Will the Commission seek, then, to submit a proposal on this question within a reasonable period?

(1) OJ C 148, 16.6.1986, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2003)

The treatment of children in hospital is a subject related to the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care which are matters for the Member States. The Commission therefore does not intend to make any proposals in relation to a charter for children in hospital.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2938/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2002)

Subject: Polish import restrictions on cut flowers from the European Union

The pre-accession negotiations have included talks with the applicant countries concerning the double profit for cut flowers. Although satisfactory agreements have been reached with a number of applicant countries, including Hungary, on a reciprocal zero tariff for cut flowers, Poland is still refusing to agree to any reduction in its tariffs, so that the Polish cut-flowers market is still protected against exporters from the European Union by means of tariffs of between 35 and 45 %. Exporters from the European Union are feeling the adverse effects of this situation every day.

1. Is the European Commission aware of the existence of tariff barriers hampering the export of cut flowers from the European Union to Poland?

2. Can the Commission state what approach is being employed vis-à-vis the Polish authorities with a view to persuading them to agree to a double profit system, as applied to the cut-flower trade with Hungary since 1 July 2002?

3. Can the Commission state when the problems are likely to be resolved, clearing the way for free trade in cut flowers between the European Union and Poland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The second round of double-profit negotiations was launched in December 2001. Agreements have so far been reached with nine of the ten Central and Eastern European Countries the negotiations with Poland have not yet been concluded. A liberalisation of live trees and plants except cut flowers (CN 0603) came into force on 1 January 2001, both as regards Community imports from Poland and Polish imports from the Community.

1. Poland applies a duty of 35 % on imports of most of the cut flowers originating in the Community. Poland also applies the special safeguard clause (SSG) under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on flowers.

2. The Community suggested already during the negotiations of 2000 a full liberalisation of live trees and plants including cut flowers. The same proposal has been put on the negotiation table for the current round of negotiations.

3. A new trade liberalisation package will be concluded if and when the two parties are ready to conclude, and that has not yet been the case.

However, at the latest, upon Poland's accession to the Union, trade in flowers will be free.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3276/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Isle of Wight

Could the Commission please say how much aid the Isle of Wight is eligible for under the NUTS 2 programme and, also, why the Commission and the British Government have decided that it should be ineligible for structural funds under Objective II?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The European Union supports programmes for economic development in predefined eligible areas under Objectives 1 and 2 of the Structural funds. It also operates an number of other programmes and initiatives where there are no predetermined eligible areas.

According to Article 3, §1 of Council Regulation 1260/1999, The regions covered by Objective 1 shall be regions corresponding to level II of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS II) whose per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities, and calculated on the basis of Community figures the last three years available on 26 March 1999, is less than 75 % of the Community average. For Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, the relevant NUTS 2 region in this context, the data revealed a GDP per head of 97,2 % of the Community average, and accordingly, the region was not included on the list of regions covered by Objective 1 of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006.

With regard to Objective 2 of the Structural Funds, the preparation of the list of eligible areas was undertaken in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, giving Member States the initiative to propose areas. The Commission's role was to check for consistency with the regulations in order to ensure that the areas selected were those facing the most serious problems. In the event, the UK authorities did not propose to include the Isle of Wight among its Objective 2 areas, and the region did not therefore feature on the final list published on 30 March 2002.

While the Isle of Wight is not eligible to receive structural support under Objective 1 or Objective 2 for the period 2000-2006, it is eligible for support from the Structural Funds in the context of other programmes and initiatives operating during the current period. These include the human resources programmes under Objective 3, the Interreg Community Initiative and the Innovative Actions programmes. In addition, the region is also eligible for support under the rural development programme for England which has a financial allocation of EUR 615,2 million from the Common Agricultural Policy for the period 2000-2006.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2929/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2002)

Subject: Ban on electronic games in Greece

The Greek Government passed law 3037/2002 banning the installation and operation of electronic games, whether for use in private or in public. One of the locations where the operation of electronic computer games is banned is Internet cafés (Article 3).

In certain quarters in Greece there are claims that, under Directive 1998/34/EC(1), the above-mentioned law ought to be considered a technical regulation and consequently the Greek Government ought to have notified the law to the European Commission.

In addition, it is alleged that the prohibitions imposed by the above-mentioned law conflict with Community Directive 2000/31/EC(2), which establishes an area without internal barriers for information society services. The same sectors of opinion stress that law 3037/2002 conflicts with Decision 3052/95/EC(3) on the free movement of goods because it prohibits the use of games software.

Does the above-mentioned law conflict with Community law, specifically Directives 1998/34/EC and 2000/31/EC and Decision 3052/95/EC?

Does this law contravene Articles 23 and 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the free movement of goods, Article 43 concerning the right of establishment and Articles 49 and 50 concerning freedom to provide services?

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

(2) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2002)

Since August 2002, the Commission has been examining complaints according to which certain provisions of Greek law 3037/2002 infringe Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods. The above mentioned legislation seems to introduce a complete ban as from 1 August 2002, on the installation and operation of all electric, electronic and electromechanical games, amusement-technical games and all games used by means of computers included, in all public or private places except for casinos and it could therefore be considered as a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports, prohibited by Article 28 of the EC Treaty.

Furthermore, the measure appears to be disproportionate as to the aims of law 3037/2002 and does not seem to be justified under the grounds provided by Article 30 of the EC Treaty or the mandatory requirements accepted by the European Court of Justice.

A letter of formal notice has been sent to the Greek authorities drawing their attention on the above mentioned observations.

The current approach does not prejudice possible further action by the Commission on the basis of other European law instruments
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2749/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 September 2002)

Subject: Development of the EU quarter in Brussels with a view to enlargement

At the EU summit in Seville in June of this year, the Belgian Prime Minister outlined his government's plans to construct a new building for European summits in Brussels. Javier Solana was then instructed to explain these plans further to the various governments. This approach may have been adopted partly because Belgium does not want to bear the full cost of funding such a project alone.

What progress has been made on this matter:

- Which Member States have already agreed to participate financially?

- If any Member States have refused to contribute, on what grounds have they done so?

- What steps does Belgium have to take in order to put the works out to tender under EU legislation once the Member States have given the go-ahead for the construction of this new facility?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The property development initiative taken by the Belgian government and presented at the European Council meeting in Seville is currently being examined from the technical point of view by a working party comprising representatives of the Belgian authorities and of the General Secretariat of the Council.

The purpose is primarily to explain to the Council the planning, scheduling and cost aspects involved in this initiative. The matter will not be referred to the Council until all these aspects have been clarified.

The Council is therefore for the moment unable to answer the questions put by the Honourable Member.

However, it can state at this stage that any property development project for which the Council is the contracting authority must observe the regulations of the host State, subject to the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, and the provisions of the Financial Regulation of 25 June 2002 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(1), in particular those on public procurement.

(1) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2220/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Establishment of a Liabilities Management Authority

What discussions have taken place with United Kingdom authorities on implications for state aid to British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) in connection with its Department of Trade And Industry's proposals to create a Liabilities Management Authority (LMA), as set out in Managing the Nuclear Legacy, [Cm 5552] published on 4 July 2002?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Concerning the discussions with the United Kingdom relating to state aid for British Nuclear Fuels the Honourable Member is referring to, a meeting with the Commission took place in November 2001. However, this discussion was not based on documentary support and did not lead to any conclusions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2374/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Local authorities in the UK promote environmental and social goals through the procurement of goods and services, for example by specifying the use of recycled paper and timber from renewable resources. Can the European Commission provide information on how GATS will limit local and national government's ability to include environmental and social criteria in their procurement activity?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2373/02 and E-2374/02given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

Article XIII-1 of the GATS stipulates that the provisions of the GATS concerning MFN, market access and national treatment (i.e. GATS Articles II, XVI and XVII) do not apply to laws, regulations or requirements governing the procurement by governmental agencies of services purchased for governmental purposes and not with a view to commercial resale or with a view to use in the supply of services for commercial resale.

GATS Article XIII-2 gives World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members a mandate to develop multilateral rules to be applied to government procurement of services under the GATS. Until such multilateral rules are agreed, GATS does not impose any obligation/constraint on thresholds, nor on the possibility to promote environmental and social considerations when awarding contracts.

In the context of GATS Article XIII-2 negotiations, the European Communities and their Member States have tabled a proposal on 15 July 2002 (S/WPGR/W/39) on a general framework for such rules. This framework and the implementation of clear procurement rules (in particular transparency rules) would contribute to good governance. This proposal suggests for instance that criteria used by public authorities in their procurement activity should be transparent. It also stresses the flexibility offered by GATS to WTO Members, who can decide which sectors to open up to international competition and which restrictions to market access and national treatment to maintain. We will of course keep in mind our domestic regime, regarding in particular thresholds and the taking into account of environmental and social requirements, when negotiating future GATS rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2235/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Contracts awarded by the Commission's legal service

Can the Commission provide me with a list of the subjects of all contracts for legal opinions awarded by its legal service to outside legal advisers since 1999?

Can the Commission provide me with a full list of the advisers to whom contracts have been awarded since 1999, stating the total value of the contracts awarded to each adviser?

Can the Commission state in each case whether these contracts were awarded by a proper tendering procedure or whether they were awarded directly without first being put out to tender?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

1. Since 1999 the Commission's Legal Service has awarded to outside experts contracts dealing with the following subjects:

- respect for human rights in the applicant countries;

- intellectual property and liability in the case of emails;

- scope and protection of confidentiality;

- legal issues and the millennium bug;

- legal structure and membership of the International Doping Agency;

- right of reply in Spanish media legislation;

- legal protection against defamation and damage compensation;

- attachment of debt in international private law;

- access to disciplinary acts;

- the Member States and the Commission as amicus curiae before the US Supreme Court;

- Belgian tenancy and property law.

2. A list of the experts who have worked for the Commission's Legal Service since 1999 and the total value of the contracts awarded to them are being sent separately to the Honourable Member as the information in question has to be handled confidentially in accordance with Article 287 of the EC Treaty.

3. The contracts have been awarded properly in accordance with Article 59 of the Financial Regulation.