ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1707/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Dialogue on radioactive waste

What involvement have the Commission, Euratom or the EC Joint Research Centres had in the stakeholder dialogue on radioactive waste coordinated by the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency? What resources have been committed by the Commission to this dialogue? Will the Commission publish regular updates on the appropriate part of its website on developments in this dialogue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2002)

The Commission is presently represented on the Nuclear Energy Agency's (NEA) Forum of Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) by the Directorates General (DG) for Energy & Transport (TREN) and for Research (RTD). The Directorate-General for Environment (ENV) was represented in the Forum until the transfer of the radioactive waste management activity to DG Energy and Transport in 2000.

At least one official has been present at all of the FSC's meetings and workshops to date. There have been three meetings and two workshops. Further such events are planned as part of the FSC's mandate, which officially expires in 2003 but is likely to be extended until at least the beginning of 2004 to allow two more workshops to be hosted by Member States of the Nuclear Energy Agency.

All finalised FSC reports are accessible through the NEA's own Web site (www.nea.fr) under the heading radioactive waste management. The nominated Commission officials have played an active role in the activities of the FSC and have provided all the relevant information on such aspects as environmental impact

assessment, public opinion (e.g. results of Eurobarometer surveys) and on-going research into aspects of decision-making and governance in the field of radioactive waste management. These officials also figure among the chairmen and rapporteurs of the first two workshops, the reports of which can be accessed through the NEA Web site. The information provided to the FSC is based on other publicly available documentation, also accessible through the Europa Web site.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0594/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Carriers' liability

In reply to a Written Question on illegal immigration (P-2079/01(1)) dated 17 September 2001, Commissioner Vitorino said that the Council had adopted, in June 2001, a Directive defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, movement and stay and an accompanying Framework Decision on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence, which established a procedure for the prosecution of facilitators.

Can the Commission confirm that these two documents have been formally approved?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 181.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The Honourable Member has asked the Commission about the state of play of the proposed Council Directive defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence and the Council Framework Decision on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence.

With reference to the earlier reply given on this subject the Commission would point out that agreement was reached at political level upon both the mentioned Directive and the Framework Decision during the Council meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on 28/29 May 2001.

However, contrary to reasonable expectations, a formal adoption of the two instruments has not yet been possible due to parliamentary scrutiny reservations of two Member States, one of which has only recently lifted its reservation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0967/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: The capturing and killing of dolphins in Devon and Cornwall

Over the last few weeks Wildlife Trust volunteers have reported an alarming number of incidents of stranded dolphins. The mutilated bodies of over 85 dolphins have been collected from the beaches of Devon and Cornwall.

The UK Government has carried out a limited observer programme on the British pelagic fleet. The results showed that 53 common dolphins were caught in 14 hauls for bass.

Since 1 January 2002 the EU has banned the use of drift nets in tuna fisheries, because of substantial by-catches of dolphins.

Does the Commission agree that similar measures should be put in place for bass fishing? Will the Commission also agree that these measures would lead to a substantial reduction in the incidental capture and killing of dolphins?

Many European countries such as France and the Netherlands are not conducting independent monitoring of their pelagic trawl fisheries. Does the Commission agree that the monitoring of cetacean by-catch in all pelagic trawl fisheries in European waters should be made compulsory?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The problem of dolphin by-catch in the bass fishery off Devon and Cornwall is just an example of the problem of by-catch of protected or threatened species. Cetaceans, which are strictly protected under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), suffer mortality from diverse types of fishing, not just the winter bass fishery in the Western Channel. Updated details on by-catch of cetaceans may be obtained from the report of the STECF (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries) subgroup on Fishery and the Environment. Details on the problem can also be found from the 2002 report of the Advisory Committee for the Environment (ACE) of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

The above-mentioned reports also highlight possible remedial measures to keep by-catch of cetaceans under control. However, technical details that will be needed to draft efficient measures proportionate to the threat to cetacean populations are still missing. The Commission expects to have a complete picture of these details by June 2002.

As far as the monitoring of by-catch is concerned, it should be borne in mind that Article 12 of Directive 92/43/EEC already stipulates this obligation for Member States, as well as the obligation to set up remedial measures. The Commission believes that, in any case, action at Community level is required for monitoring and alleviation of by-catch to be effective.

On the basis of the forthcoming reports of STECF and ICES, and following further consultation, the Commission will elaborate the appropriate legislative proposals on monitoring and mitigation of by-catch. Whether these measures will include measures similar to the drift-net ban cannot be anticipated at this stage.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1817/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Investigations into the international trade in animals used in experiments

On 31 May 2002 a case of cruelty to animals was uncovered on the Brenner Pass motorway. A small lorry was carrying 56 beagle puppies under unacceptable conditions the animals had neither food nor water and were being transported in cages which were much too small. The puppies came from Reggio Emilia and were intended for use in experiments to be carried out by a toxicological institute in Hamburg. Following a wave of public sympathy homes have now been found for the puppies with families.

In Germany and in other countries there are many such institutes which carry out animal experiments, although it is not always clear whether the laboratories and institutes comply with the relevant legal provisions.

Could the European Commission please investigate the Hamburg Laboratory of Pharmacology and Toxicology KG (D-21134 Hamburg) and check that its activities are lawful?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

According to Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes(1) the control of laboratories carrying out animal experiments is the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission has so far not received any indication that the German authorities do not sufficiently control the laboratory in question. The Commission also has no indication that the activities of the laboratory do not comply with the requirements of Directive 86/609/EEC.

Therefore, the Commission considers that there is currently no basis for a Commission investigation. However, the Commission would be grateful for information about possible infringements of the Directive in above context, which the Honorable Member may have.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0948/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Infringements of Community law in the Member States

Can the Commission provide a comparative table of the most recent data on infringements of Community law per Member State?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its annual report on monitoring the application of Community law. The nineteenth annual report covering 2001 is currently being drawn up for presentation to Parliament. In the meantime updated particulars can be found on the Commission Secretariat-General's Europa site at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm

infractions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1176/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Council

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Muslim imams' incitement to violence

European citizens' security, European human rights and peace in the Member States are under threat from certain fundamentalist Muslim imams who are openly calling in the Member States for holy war and publicly supporting the use of Islamic law, Sharia.

In declaration upon declaration, the EU proclaims its intention to create an area of peace, security and justice. It may seem contrary to such designs for the EU to allow fundamentalist political forces, under the guise of alleged religious faith, to call on Muslims in Europe to go to holy war and to voice their support for Islamic law, the atrocities of Sharia.

On 5 April 2002, during Friday prayers at a Copenhagen mosque, Imam Ahmed Abu Laban, whose followers number between 10 000 and 15 000, called on his fellow believers to support their compatriots at home who, he claimed, wanted jihad and were willing to pay the price to liberate the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. The newspaper Politiken reports him as saying you must not believe that those killed in combat are dead. They are alive with Allah and Allah bestows gifts upon them. We should think about being active rather than passive. He added that Muslims should not rely on the UN or its Security Council but should put their trust in Allah over the Middle East conflict.

Only a week earlier, the same imam had voiced his support for the use of Sharia to carry out the death sentence imposed on a Nigerian woman, Safiya Hussaini, for adultery.

In a judgment of 31 July 2001 (cases 41340/98 and 41342/98), the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that Sharia (Islamic law) is clearly contrary to the values set out in the Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, the EU's contribution has consisted in the main of one distorted report after another from the so-called Observatory for Racism and Xenophobia vilifying anyone who voices misgivings about the advance of fundamentalism in the EU.

Will the Council take steps to introduce legislation which ensures that any person inciting to holy war, violence and violation of human rights is deported from the EU?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that no legislation of that kind is planned to be introduced at EU level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Accidents caused by non-edible contents of chocolate eggs

Using the European Home and Leisure Injury Surveillance System (EHLASS) to record accidents caused by non-edible objects contained in chocolate eggs, the Athens University Accident Research and Prevention Centre has found that these products are dangerous and continue to cause accidents, primarily to children. Moreover, other studies carried out in Germany, Israel and the USA confirm the Athens findings.

With Easter in view, what measures will the Council take to ensure that foodstuffs containing non-edible objects are subject to legal rules and standards (regarding their size, for example) which will guarantee that they are safe and prohibit such practices as mixing edible and non-edible objects? How can the Council contribute towards bringing about an agreement with manufacturers to design these products more safely in order to avoid any recurrence of fatal accidents in the future?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

The Council shares the concern of the Honourable Member to ensure the prevention of this kind of accident, which can have serious consequences, particularly where children are concerned.

As the power of legislative initiative in this field belongs to the Commission, the Council will pay careful attention to any proposal that the Commission makes on the matter, so that appropriate measures are adopted as soon as possible. For the time being, it would suggest that the Honourable Member approach the Commission directly for more detailed information on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1395/02

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: Chicken meat imports into the EU

Can the Commission state what quantities of chicken meat are imported annually into the EU and from what countries? What percentage do these imports represent compared with European production? Further can the Commission state to what extent food safety standards and animal welfare standards are being observed in the production of these imported products?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

The imports of poultry meat into the Community, although having increased in recent years, represent less than ten per cent of Community production. The statistical data of the carcass weight equivalent for the period 1997 to 2001 are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat. The three principal exporting countries are Brazil, Thailand and Hungary.

Imports of poultry meat are subject to sanitary requirements as strict as those applied to Community production. The authorisation to export is given only after an evaluation of the competent authorities and of the system of inspection and certification of the third country. This evaluation includes visits on the spot from the inspectors of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office to check that the competent authorities of the third country are in a position to apply the Community sanitary requirements and that these conditions are actually respected for the products exported to the Community.

In addition, controls are carried out in the Community border inspection posts to check systematically the health certificates accompanying the products and to carry out, on a random basis, sampling and analyses in order to detect possible failures in the inspection system of the third country.

Recently, the Commission adopted decisions to reinforce the control of poultry meat imported from Thailand and to ban the imports from China.

Concerning poultry meat imports from Brazil, following a request for increased surveillance by the Commission, problems have been identified recently by certain Member States, which relate to the presence of residues of nitrofurans, a class of antimicrobials banned in the Community. During high level contacts between the Commission and Brazil, guarantees were received that an amendment of the Brazilian legal provisions bans the use of nitrofurans since the beginning of May 2002 and that all poultry meat consignments will be tested for nitrofurans prior to dispatch towards the Community.

Concerning animal welfare standards, the inspections carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office cover also the question whether legislation for the protection of animals at the time of slaughter is applied. However, the scope for measures in relation to animal welfare is currently restricted, although the issue is under discussion in the current Doha Development Round.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1240/02

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Change of airline

What is the Commission's view on the situation whereby a member of the public, who buys a plane ticket from a specific airline at a specific price, in this case SN Brussels Airlines, finds out at boarding time that, without any prior warning, the whole operation, including the plane, is managed by an airline different to that from which he bought his ticket, and whose prices are lower?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2002)

According to Article 7 of Council Regulation 2408/92/ECC of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes(1):

In operating air services, a Community air carrier shall be permitted by the Member State(s) concerned to combine air services and use the same flight number.

This is called code-sharing.

Code sharing allows a carrier to offer customers a wider range of services than if it operated them all itself. However, the Commission strongly believes that passengers must be informed of the identity of the operating carrier when they book a ticket, so that they are able to make an informed choice of airline. It also considers that the question must be addressed of which carrier is legally responsible for performing the contract.

As regards information, at present Community legislation on computerised reservation systems(2) obliges an agent using such a system to inform consumers of the carrier actually operating the flight. Also many airlines have signed and are progressively implementing the Passenger Service Commitment, under which they undertake to inform passengers of the operating carrier (among other things). It has to be seen whether this gives satisfactory results. The Commission, therefore, will again raise the issue of whether passengers receive sufficient information before booking, in a consultative paper on airlines' contracts that the services of the Commission will soon publish. Once it has received and analysed the responses, it will take a decision regarding further measures to ensure that passengers receive adequate information.

So far as responsibility is concerned, in its consultative paper on airlines' contracts the services of the Commission will pose the question of whether responsibility for carrying out the contract lies with the operating carrier or jointly with the contracting and the operating carriers.

As for differences in prices, Council Regulation 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services(3) gives airlines freedom to set their own prices. The Commission believes that this is essential for competition, which brings down prices and gives consumers the possibility to choose between airlines. As said, it is very important that they have sufficient information to make an informed choice.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2) Council Regulation No 2299/89 as amended by Regulation 3089/93 and 323/99, OJ L 220, 29.7.1989.

(3) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Seignorage revenue forecast in 2002

1. Will the Commission estimate the seignorage revenue accruing to each Member State's central bank either on the basis of a forecast for 2002 (taking into account the new key for sharing seignorage revenue of the European Central Bank) or on the basis of applying the new key to the actual seignorage revenue in 2001 assuming that all EU countries were members of the euro area, including Britain, Sweden and Denmark?

2. Will it express this as a proportion of GDP in each case?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

1. The European System of Central Banks (hereafter: Eurosystem) has responsibility for the calculation of monetary income and its allocation among the Member States. It is up to the central banks of the Eurosystem to apply the coefficients of the adjustment scheme

the Governing Council has agreed upon on 6 December 2001. Estimates would depend on interest rate assumptions, which the Commission has decided not to publish on a regular basis as the European Central Bank (ECB) has full responsibility for setting interest rates in the euro area. Estimates would also depend on the forecast of the development of the monetary base in the euro area in the year 2002, which appears to be difficult to provide given extraordinary circumstances (e.g. euro cash changeover, dual currency period). Future shifts in the patterns of cash holdings and possible non-surrender of notes and coins in the original national currencies will also have an impact on the balance sheets of central banks (notes) and governments (coins). At present the scale of such impacts and the timing of their recognition in balance sheets are not clear.

The Commission respects the position of the Member States that have not adopted the euro so far and regards it as inappropriate to investigate or publish hypothetical scenarios what might have happened or what would have happened if these Member States would have made other decisions.

For the aforementioned reasons the Commission is not in a position to provide estimates of monetary income accruing to each Member State based on the adjustment scheme agreed upon in December 2001 for the current euro area Member States.

2. The aforementioned position applies to expressions in other terms as well.