ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1520/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Inclusion of Cyprus on euro notes

The authoritative newspaper European Voice (edition of 2-8 May 2002) devoted a special report to a very laudable initiative taken by a British colleague, Mr Chris Davies MEP, who pointed out to Commissioner Pedro Solbes Mira the need to include Cyprus in the map of Europe depicted on the notes of the new single European currency.

According to the report, Mr Davies pointed out that Cyprus is not depicted on the banknotes, despite being expected to become a Member State of the Union in 2004, and requested that the map of Europe should be altered to include the Republic of Cyprus. Interestingly enough, none of the applicant countries appear on the euro coins, whereas the countries which have not yet adopted the euro, i.e. the UK, Denmark and Sweden, do.

Can the Council say whether and when the representation of Europe on euro coins and notes will be altered to give as accurate a picture as possible of our continent?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

According to the Treaty, the ECB is competent on matters related to the design of euro banknotes.

Concerning euro coins, it has been agreed that these coins will have a common and a national face. The common face has been selected, on the basis of a European competition, by Heads of State or Government of participating Member States at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997.

It is therefore respectively for the ECB and the Heads of State or Government of participating Member States to consider the future design of euro notes and a common face for coins after enlargement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2815/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: European Food Safety Authority

At the Laeken European Council meeting in December 2001, it was decided that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) would start its work in Brussels. Brussels would be the EFSA's temporary seat as it had proved impossible to reach a political compromise on its permanent seat. Barcelona was one of the candidates for the seat.

According to an article in the weekly newspaper European Voice (16-22 May 2002), Spain has dropped its application for Barcelona to be the EFSA seat.

Has the Commission been informed of this?

If so, what reasons did the Spanish authorities give for dropping their application?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The Commission can confirm that, in line with the decision of the Council summit of Laeken, it has taken the necessary measures to allow the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to begin operations in Brussels on a temporary basis.

The Commission has received no communication from the Spanish authorities renouncing the candidature of Barcelona as a seat for the Authority.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1426/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Use of the euro

Which countries outside of the twelve have been authorised to issue euro coins, and what procedure is necessary for such authorisation?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2002)

In addition to the twelve participating Member States, three countries not belonging to the Union have been authorised to issue euro coins: the Principality of Monaco, the Republic of San Maríno and the Vatican City.

This stems from the Maastricht negotiations where it was agreed (Declaration No 6 annexed to the Treaty) that the monetary relations between Italy and San Maríno and the Vatican City and between France and the Principality of Monaco remained unaffected by the Treaty establishing the EC . The Community undertakes to facilitate the renegotiations of the existing arrangements as might become necessary . On 31 December 1998 the Council granted a mandate to France and Italy respectively to negotiate on behalf of the Community (Council Decisions 1999/96/EC, 1999/97/EC, 1999/98/EC of 31 December 1998 on the position to be taken by the Community regarding an agreement concerning the monetary relations with the Principality of Monaco, the Republic of San Maríno and Vatican City(1)). In 2001 monetary agreements were concluded by the Italian Republic, on behalf of the Community, with the Republic of San Maríno(2) as well as with the Vatican City and, on its behalf the Holy See(3). The same year, a similar monetary agreement was reached between the Government of the French Republic, on behalf of the Community, and the Government of His Serene Highness the Prince of Monaco(4). All three agreements provide for the issue of limited quantities of euro coins by the States concerned.

(1) OJ L 30, 4.2.1999.

(2) OJ C 209, 27.7.2001.

(3) OJ C 299, 25.10.2001.

(4) OJ L 142, 31.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1874/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Gabon

With respect to Gabon, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2773/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: Health and safety of workers complaint 00/4404, SG(2000) A/3828/2

Recently in Greece, several workers have lost their lives in accidents at work. Industrial diseases are simply not recorded. Complaints to the Commission on this subject include a file 00/4404, SG(2000) A/3828/2 containing evidence of a specific refusal to implement the legislation on workers' health and safety at the workplace. The Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) has added a mass of data to this file concerning numerous similar cases. The number of complaints is mounting and it is commonly held in Greece that the authorities responsible for implementing the directive on workers' health and safety are failing in their task. Despite my repeated questions (E-0014/00(1), E-3049/01(2), E-3050/01, E-0906/01(3)) and its assurances that it will examine the information, the Commission has yet to take action.

1. What means does the Commission have of bringing pressure to bear on the Greek regulatory authorities to carry out more effective checks within their powers?

2. Is the Commission considering the possibility of investigating the matter on the spot and examining all the data supplied by the GSEE?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 158.

(2) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 187.

(3) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 119.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

1. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure adequate monitoring and supervision of national measures transposing Community directives in the area of health and safety of workers at work (cf. Article 4 of Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(1)).

However, where concrete facts generally suggest a situation of non-application of the national legislation transposing Community directives, the Commission may make use of the procedures provided for by the EC Treaty, in particular those based on Article 226 (initiation of infringement proceedings against a Member State which has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty).

2. The Commission is currently examining all the facts which have been transmitted to it in the context of complaint 00/4404. On the basis of the results of this examination, the Commission will take the appropriate measures and, if necessary, continue its contacts with the Greek authorities and/or the plaintiff with a view to completing its analysis of this specific case.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2605/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Working time provisions for heavy goods vehicle drivers

This question refers to European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/15/EC(1) on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, which was adopted on 11 March 2002.

The issue of including self-employed HGV drivers in the scope of the directive gave rise to intense discussion within the Council and disagreement between the Council and Parliament. The Conciliation Committee resolved the problem by temporarily exempting self-employed drivers from the directive until 2009. However, just a few months after the entry into force of the directive, carriers and haulage contractors in Europe are already calling for all HGV drivers whether self-employed or not to be treated in the same way in relation to working time arrangements. From the point of view of traffic safety, provisions that may lead self-employed drivers to drive for even longer periods are very questionable, and applying rules on the reduction of working time in a one-sided way would result in distortion of competition in favour of very small companies.

The Commission:

- Would it note this state of affairs, particularly in the light of the report which it is required to present at the latest two years prior to 23 March 2009?

- Could it set out its present views on this matter, above all with regard to the road traffic situation and conditions of competition?

(1) OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 35.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission is aware of the potential for distortion of competition between salaried drivers and self-employed drivers introduced by the application of the provisions of the sectoral Directive 2002/15/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, to the former group in 2005 and to the latter group in 2009. However, this was the result of a difficult conciliation process between Council and Parliament that the Commission accepts and respects.

Both categories of drivers are already subject to Community rules on driving time and rest periods (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport(1) and fatigue caused by excessive working time does not distinguish between employed and self-employed drivers.

At this stage, the Commission recognises the strongly diverging views amongst both Member States and the industry on this Directive and the difficulty in achieving a compromise. Furthermore, it wishes to remind the honourable Member that its original proposal(2) aimed at applying common working time rules for all drivers. The Commission will examine the impact of implementation on the sector prior to drawing up the report on the inclusion or otherwise of self-employed drivers within working time, but will not prejudge the outcome, at this stage

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.

(2) OJ C 43, 17.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0875/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Government credit guarantees

In early 2000, the Commission halted the Swedish Government's plans to grant credit guarantees to the aircraft engine manufacturer Volvo Aero in Trollhättan which the Commission judged to be illegal. The Swedish Government and Volvo Aero had to change their plans and discuss converting the credit guarantees into conditional loans instead.

In 1995, however, the Commission had approved the UK Government's plans to grant similar aid amounting to GBP 200 million to Rolls Royce to enable the company to continue developing the Trent project.

What is the difference between these forms of aid? Why did the UK Government's aid to Rolls Royce in 1995 receive Commission approval and the Swedish Government's aid to Volvo Aero in 2000 not do so?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

To the Commission's knowledge the only state aid to the Volvo Aero company during the past five years dates from 1997.

At that time, the Swedish Government notified the Commission of its plan to give the company credit guarantees. In October 1998, the Swedish authorities withdrew the notification. The Commission therefore took no decision, negative or otherwise.

In any case, the form taken by a State aid has no particular impact on the Commission's analysis. In the past, the Commission has authorised both reimbursable advances to the aerospace industry, for example to Rolls-Royce (the repayable short-term loan referred to by the Honourable Member approved in 1998, aid case N 17/98) and credit guarantees, for example to Fairchild-Dornier (N 281/99).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/02

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

(10 September 2002)

Subject: Illegal fishing for tuna with drift nets

Fishing for tuna with drift nets, or nets of death, has been banned in the EU since 1 January 2002, largely thanks to the initiatives launched by the European Parliament.

Community fishermen have reported that vessels flying a flag of convenience have been found illegally using drift nets in international waters this fishing year. According to these reports, the fisheries inspection services were alerted and illegal fishing activities were detected on a vessel called the Albatross, which was flying the Belize flag. Illegal gear was found in which cetaceans and other marine species had become trapped.

Can the Council confirm that these reports are true?

Could it also provide all available information on the infringements committed to date in the current tuna fishing year?

Is it aware of the existence of the Albatross and of its illegal activities?

Can it confirm what the vessel's Flag State is and where its owners are from, and say where it lands it catches?

What measures has it adopted or will it adopt with regard to the presumed illegal fishing activities carried on by this vessel?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

The matter of the illegal fishing activities detected on a vessel called Albatross to which the Honourable Member refers, has not been formally submitted to the Council.

In conformity with Council Regulation No 1936/2001 laying down control and inspection measures relating to fishing for stocks of highly migratory fish, it is the responsibility of the Member States to prohibit any landing of resources covered by an ICCAT conservation measure in force and to inform the Commission of inspection findings. The Commission shall send this information as soon as possible to the ICCAT Executive Secretariat.

In general, concerning the application of the Council Regulation No 1239/98 prohibiting the use of driftnets, the Commission ensures the coordination and supervision of Member States' compliance with these obligations.

Regarding any further measures in order to prevent the illegal fishing activities, the Council is currently examining the Commission Communication on the Community Action Plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, with a view to its adoption by the Council in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2150/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Malawi

With reference to Malawi, will the Commission say which projects were financed in 2000 under the EU budget?

Will the Commision specify the total amount of aid allocated during 2000 to all the initiatives relating to Malawi?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0524/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2002)

Subject: The elections in Zambia

Does the Commission consider the recently-held elections in Zambia were carried out in a free and fair manner?

If not, will it be applying pressure for a re-run of these elections to be held?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

An assessment of Zambia's recent elections is available in the form of a Final Statement issued on 5 February 2002, by the Union's Chief Observer, Mr Michael Meadowcroft, and can be found on the following website: www.eueu-zambia.org.

The Commission takes note of this statement and shares the concerns raised.

It is now for Zambian authorities to restore the full confidence of the electorate by promptly addressing all the election complaints, and by publishing detailed results by polling station.

The Commission recalls that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law constitute essential elements of the Cotonou Agreement. In accordance with the framework of the Cotonou Agreement the situation in Zambia will be followed closely, and in particular the follow-up to the elections on 27 December 2001.

A court case regarding the official outcome of the presidential elections is expected to begin in Zambia before the end of this month. President Mwanawasa has publicly declared that he will abide by the court ruling.

The Commission welcomes the fact that Zambia sought co-operation for the consolidation of its democratic system, and pledges support for the peaceful consolidation of Zambia's emerging democracy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1882/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Guinea

With respect to Guinea, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1997/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Mauritius

With respect to Mauritius, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2055/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Subject: Violation by the Commission of the principle of separation of powers

This Member's Written Question P-1536/02(1) was not answered by the Commission, which is why it is being asked again.

In accordance with Article 234 of the Treaty the Court of Justice is considering Case C-282/00 against the Portuguese Government, aimed at banning the shipping of sugar from the Autonomous Region of the Azores to Community territory. The case is being backed by a sugar refinery located on the European mainland.

Can the Commission confirm that it has initiated parallel infringement proceedings against Portugal on the same subject pursuant to Article 226 (Case 2002/2012) in support of the claims made by the aforesaid refinery?

Does the Commission not consider that its parallel proceedings constitute a gross violation of the principle of separation of powers and are an indication of an unacceptable democratic deficit in Europe?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p.116.

Reply given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to his Written Question No P-1536/02 concerning Case C-282/00.

As regards the procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty for Member States which have failed to fulfil an obligation, the Commission confirms that it has sent the Portuguese authorities a letter of formal notice. Article 226 explicitly authorises the Commission to initiate this procedure if it considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty.

The Member State can defend its position both before the case is brought before the Court (it receives a letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion which set deadlines by which it must reply and comply respectively) and once the case is before the Court. As with the procedure for a preliminary ruling, the case is judged by the Court on the basis of the de jure and de facto circumstances which emerge from the procedure in which both parties are heard. The Court confirms or excludes wholly or partially, objectively and independently, the position defended by the Commission.

Where the legal problems arising in the course of the two procedures are similar in nature, the Commission can only defend the same approach, unless there are new factors to be taken into account. There is thus no question of there being any violation of the principle of the separation of powers or any democratic deficit.