ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0089/01

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Reverse discrimination against German participants in frequent flyer programmes

1. Is the Commission aware that frequent flyer programmes such as the Star Alliance programme confer a particular status?

2. Is the Commission also aware that a distinction is made between participants resident in Germany and other participants?

3. Does the Commission take the view that this constitutes reverse discrimination against the German participants in contrast to citizens of the other Member States of the European Union?

4. What steps, if any, is the Commission planning to take?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

The commercial practice of airlines offering different advantages to loyalty scheme participants depending on their place of residence does not appear to infringe the provisions of the third air package, since pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services(1) Community air carriers may set passenger air fares freely, and the advantages granted to passengers under loyalty schemes are an element of such fares.

The Commission has never found that frequent flyer programmes are, in themselves, in breach of Community competition law. However, in its examination of alliances between airlines the Commission has identified the combining of the frequent flyer programmes operated by the parties to the alliance as a factor making it more difficult for third parties to compete with the parties to the alliance and has proposed remedies to alleviate this effect(2).

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2) See, for example, Commission notice concerning the alliance between Lufthansa, SAS and United Airlines, OJ C 239, 30.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1079/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Commercial action for the storage of umbilical cord blood for obtaining stem cells

In the Netherlands, and several other Member states, there is a commercial organisation called CRYO-Cell (website: www.cryoc.com) which asks prospective parents to agree to blood from the foetal umbilical cord or from the placenta to be frozen for a period of 20 years. The intention is that the blood should subsequently be used to cure illnesses such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, brain haemorrhages, muscular problems such as multiple sclerosis, malignant tumours and diabetes. The risk of children suffering from these illnesses in the first 20 years of their lives is low.

Furthermore, with progress in medical science it is theoretically possible for the diseases in question - most of which occur in the elderly - to be properly treated, if not cured, even without storage of the stem cells. The firm pays NLG 2 170 (ca. 983) for storage, removal, transport and processing of the stem cells. The campaign plays on the concern of prospective parents to prevent illness, and the fear of death.

The Commission:

1. Can it say whether this firm, or comparable commercial organisations, operates in other Member States, too, and under what conditions (costs, payments etc.)?

2. What is its view of the potentially misleading nature of offers such as those made by CRYO-Cell?

3. Will it submit this matter to the European ethics committee for an opinion on the desirability of such companies?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The Commission has no information on the existence of comparable commercial organisations in the Community.

No Community legislation currently exists on this type of service. It falls to the Member States to deal with the problem.

Opinion No 15 on ethical aspects of human stem cell research published in November 2000 by the European Group on Ethics (EGE) mentions, by way of information, the existence of umbilical cord blood banks for the treatment of leukaemia or aplastic anaemia after chemotherapy, and the possibility of systematically retrieving cells from the umbilical cord blood at birth and freezing them in order to have autologous stem cells available in case of later need. However, in its opinion No 15 the group did not address the ethical aspects specific to this type of activity.

Under the revised remit of the EGE adopted by the Commission on 26 March 2001, and especially Article 2 thereof, Parliament may draw the Commission's attention to matters that it considers ought to be referred to the EGE.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2001)

Subject: Belgian visas

The injudicious issuing of Belgian visas is a matter which needs to be looked at under the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs), in particular because the temporary right of residence in the Belgian Federation automatically confers access to all Schengen countries. Such rights of residence are worth their weight in gold to criminals and they throw the immigration sector wide open to corruption.

Last year Belgium issued some 9 500 visas to Moroccan applicants. Roughly 88 % of these visas (for both short-term and long-term periods) were issued by the Aliens Service in Brussels, despite an opinion to the contrary from the consular services in Morocco. Hence, despite the fact that the applications fail to satisfy the criteria, such opinion is systematically ignored.

Some applicants have openly said that they have no intention of travelling to Belgium, but rather to one of the other Schengen countries where the issuing of visas is subject to stricter rules.

This is why the opinion of the consular services is negative, but the Aliens Service invariably replies that the visa still has to be issued to the applicant. It is feared that more and more traffickers in humans will try to enter the EUJ via Morocco.

This will render null and void action by the EU to stop lucrative routes for human trafficking.

Is the Council aware of the injudicious issuing of Belgian visas?

- If so, what action has the Council taken to induce the Belgian Federation to find a solution to this problem?

- If not, will the Council seek information about the fraud involving Belgian visas, given the importance it has for the third pillar of European Union (justice and home affairs) and the policy of the Schengen countries?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0621/01 and E-0622/01

(30 May 2001)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, matters relating to immigration, visas and asylum fall within the Community's sphere of competence under Title IV of the TEC. It is therefore for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to verify whether Member States fulfil their obligations in respect of those matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1035/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Penalisation of cereal growers in Noto (Sicily)

In the 1998/1999 crop year the harvests of cereal growers in the commune of Noto (Sicily) were greatly reduced as a result of a freak drought.

Having ascertained a shortfall in relation to the minimum requirements laid down in the Community legislation governing additional aid for durum wheat, AIMA, the Italian State intervention agency, enforced Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92(1), which rules out the aid in question when the discrepancy between the declared area normally under crops and the area actually determined is found to be greater than 20 %. An area as large as 4 831 hectares consequently failed to qualify for additional aid for durum wheat, which has therefore not been paid, severely penalising the cereal sector, the mainstay of Noto's economy.

In a note dated 25 August 2000 the Commission inexplicably rejected the request from the Italian Ministry for Agricultural Policies for the above-mentioned Article 9 to be waived.

The Commission:

1. Why did it reject the waiver request, without, moreover, stating its reasons?

2. Given that the poorer harvests were due entirely to a natural cause, does it not believe that enforcement of Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, in this particular case, was an excessively harsh step to take?

3. Could it reconsider its attitude so as to avert the huge damage that the Noto cereal growers will otherwise suffer?

(1) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 36.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

1. The Honourable Member is right in saying that the Commission rejected the Italian Ministry of Agriculture's request for a waiver. The Commission did, however, state its reasons, referring to non-compliance with the rules laying down minimum conditions for area payments, i.e. that the crop must be maintained until at least the beginning of flowering.

2. Under Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, cases of force majeure must be notified to the competent authority in writing, with relevant evidence to the satisfaction of the authority, within ten working days of the date on which the farmer is in a position to do so. In the absence of such notification, the competent authorities have no option but to apply Article 9 of the above-mentioned Regulation for calculating the amount of aid.

3. For the reasons given above, the Commission cannot reconsider its position.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1262/01

by Simon Murphy (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Proposed precious metals directive

Will the Commission categorically deny that it is putting any pressure on applicant countries to include the Commission's draft directive - Articles made of precious metals (gold, silver, platinum, palladium), harmonisation of essential requirements, COD930472 - in their acquis communautaire procedures?

What is the Commission's assessment of the latest state of play in respect of this draft directive?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

The Union did not request the candidate countries to comply with the draft Directive relating to articles of precious metals(1) in the context of the negotiations. Indeed, the Proposal for Directive is a draft and it is therefore not yet part of the acquis. The accession negotiations focus on the terms under which the applicants will adopt, implement and enforce the acquis.

However, the Commission has informed the candidate countries, when so requested, on the Proposal for the Directive as well as on amended proposal adopted by the Commission in 1994(2).

The Commission notes that since 1998 the Council has not discussed the proposal. Its services will examine what steps to take in the light of the current situation.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.11.1993.

(2) OJ C 209, 29.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0202/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: VAT rates on the repair of churches

Are any Member States currently applying a reduced rate of VAT on repairs/maintenance to buildings used as places of worship? If so, under what provisions is this taking place?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

According to the information available to the Commission, the only Member State currently applying a reduced rate of VAT on repairs/maintenance to buildings used as places of worship is Ireland.

Ireland applies a rate of 12,5 % to these services in accordance with Article 28(2)(e) of the sixth VAT Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1). This Article permits Member States that on 1 January 1991 applied a reduced rate to goods and services not listed in Annex H of the sixthVAT Directive, to continue to apply a reduced rate of not less than 12 % during the transitional period.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2001/41/EC of 19 January 2001 (OJ L 22, 24.1.2001).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0598/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2001)

Subject: Referendum on independence for the Faeroe Isles

The Danish Government is threatening to suspend the subsidy it pays to the Faeroe Isles with immediate effect if the Faeroese people support their government's plan for independence. The Danish Government is uttering this threat in order to thwart the Faeroese Government's plan to achieve independence in 2012 or thereabouts.

On Saturday, 26 May 2001, the Kallsberg Government will be submitting its plan to the Faeroese people in a referendum. The proposal seeks a gradual transition towards independence, together with a systematic reduction in the Danish subsidy. A final decision would be taken in 2012 on whether or not the Faeroe Isles should become independent after 600 years of Danish rule.

1. What is the Council's view of the Danish Government's threat to suspend the subsidy it pays to the Faeroe Isles with immediate effect if the Faeroese people support their government's plan for independence?

2. Does the Council feel that this threat is consistent with the principles of good governance? If so, what arguments can the Council advance in order to reconcile this threat with the principles of good governance?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has no competence to reply to questions concerning the domestic policy of a Member State of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0606/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: European Union campaign to combat child deaths caused by accidents

Accidents are the main cause of child deaths in the developed countries and a UNICEF report has estimated that 20 000 children will die as a result of accidents by the end of this year. Injuries caused by accidents are responsible for 40 % of deaths among children aged from one to 14 in the OECD countries.

The most frequent causes of fatal injuries to children are road accidents, drowning, burns, falls and poisoning.

In view of these alarming figures and bearing in mind the campaigns conducted by the EU against other scourges affecting our society, such as cancer or tobacco, does the Commission not think it should launch a forceful Community-wide campaign to raise public awareness of the risks to children, so as to bring about a sharp reduction in the alarming number of accidents of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the very high number of children aged one to fourteen who are killed in accidents, particularly in road accidents. Under the Community Action Programme on Injury Prevention the development of a Community policy is on the way. In setting up such a policy the Commission, together with the Member States, will develop as one of the fundamental aspects of the prevention of accidents an awareness building strategy with a view to reducing fatal accidents involving children.

Furthermore, the protection of children and other vulnerable road users has been a feature of the Commission's road safety policy since the early 1990's. The Commission is currently preparing its 3rd Road Safety Action Plan which will cover the period 2002-2010. Protection of children against accidents and education to prevent accidents will be addressed in this document.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0500/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Dumping of munitions and radioactive waste in EU waters

The Commission will be aware that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of munitions, including shells, bombs, landmines, grenades and phosphorous flares, were dumped by the UK Government prior to 1973 in the Irish Sea, at Beaufort's Dyke off the south-west of Scotland, and that low level radioactive waste was also dumped in the Irish Sea during the 1950s and 1960s.

Is the Commission aware of other instances of dumping of munitions and radioactive waste in EU waters, and, if so, of what materials, at what locations, and by whom?

What, if any, action is the Commission taking to ensure that such materials can cause no harm to human or aquatic life?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

As confirmed in the reply to Written Questions E-4005/97 by Mr Macartney(1) and P-2495/97 by Mrs McKenna(2), the Commission is aware of past dumping of radioactive waste at Beaufort's Dyke and a number of other locations.

Between 1950 and 1963, low-level radioactive waste was also dumped in the English Channel by Belgium and the United Kingdom, other disposal sites in the North East Atlantic were used until 1982. All sites are listed in a report published by the Commission: The radiological exposure of the population of the European Community from radioactivity in North European marine waters, project Marína (Radiation Protection 47, 1990).

The Commission has no additional information on the dumping of munitions.

The Marína study is now being updated. A comprehensive assessment will be made of the radiation exposure resulting from dumped solid materials and radioactive effluent discharged in North European marine waters. This will constitute an important basis for the achievement of the strategy on radioactive substances under the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention, agreed at the Ministerial Meeting in Sintra in 1998.

The assessment will to a large extent be based on the results of monitoring of levels of radioactivity in marine samples as carried out by Member States in compliance with Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty, and communicated to the Commission under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty.

The new Marína study will look into any possible health detriment to the European population and any possible detriment to aquatic life.

(1) OJ C 310, 15.12.1998.

(2) OJ C 60, 25.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0797/01

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Support for producers' organisations and reform of COM in cotton

Part of the argument used by Commissioner Fischler in his statement to Parliament of 15 February 2001 concerning the report by Mr Korakas on the system of aid for cotton was based on an error.

Mr Fischler said that he could not accept Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 16 and 19, proposing the introduction of a scheme to support cotton producers' organisations, because Regulation (EC) 398/82(1) had already established a system of incentives for such organisations and it would amount to duplication. All the signs are that Mr Fischler was misinformed or failed to take into account the fact that the regulation in question expired nine years ago on 25 February 1992. It was precisely this that prompted myself and other members to table these amendments in the Committee on Agriculture.

In view of this error, will the Commission now accept the validity of these amendments?

If it continues to oppose them, what mechanism does it intend to introduce under the COM in cotton to assist producers' organisations?

(1) OJ L 51, 23.2.1982, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

Paragraph 4 of Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, provides for the grant of aid with a view to encouraging the formation of producer groups and associations thereof and assisting their operation.

The general rules of the aid scheme were laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 389/82, which determines in particular, in its Articles 1 to 3, the system for recognising producer groups and associations. The Community, from 1982 to 1992, thus encouraged their formation: launching aid was provided together with investment aid, primarily for the purchase of harvesting machinery. The possession of harvesting machinery has now become general, in Greece as well as in Spain.

Currently, and this has been the case since 1993, no common measure provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 389/82 is the subject of Community financial support, since the period envisaged for carrying out these measures is over. However, it should be noted that the Regulation has not been repealed and that the rules on the organisations in question, in particular their articles of association and the way they operate, still apply.

In addition, it should be pointed out that cotton also benefits from the across-the-board structural and agro-environmental measures which concern farms or collective action in the regions where cotton growing is established.

Since it did not appear justified to finance the creation of the same producer groups twice, and their operation is already indirectly supported by the cotton regime and the across-the-board measures, the Commission rejected amendments 7, 8, 16 and 19 referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0990/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: EU delegations, representations and offices in non-member countries

The European Union's Interinstitutional Directory shows that a fair number of the EU delegations, representations and offices in third countries do not have a head. Will the Commission say why these posts remain vacant and what it intends to do to fill them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

Vacancies at the level of Head of Delegation appear regularly as a result of the transfer or retirement of officials in the External Service. This is a normal feature of any administration with a rotation requirement for its staff. At present eight Delegations are without a Head of Delegation. Seven of these posts are in the process of being filled. This, however, takes time. The selection procedure involves in depth interviews of candidates at Director General level. At times specific publication for particular posts is needed. Selected candidates then have to be confirmed by the Appointing Authority. Following that the nomination is referred to the Council and only after that can agreement be sought from the accrediting country. From request for publication to the Head of Delegation actually arriving in post can take several months.

For four of the seven posts referred to above the new Head of Delegation has already been nominated. In the case of the eighth Delegation, Burundi, there is no proposal to fill the post at present.