ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1536/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Commission intervention in favour of the European sugar-refining cartel

Can the Commission confirm that it has intervened against the Portuguese government in support of the position submitted to the Court of Justice (Case C-282/00) by a sugar refinery situated on the European mainland?

Does the Commission not consider this intervention to be in flagrant breach of the principle of the separation of powers and a clear manifestation of the existence of a totally unacceptable democratic deficit in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

Case C-282/00, to which the Honourable Member refers, was brought before the Court of Justice by the Portuguese court hearing a dispute between two Portuguese sugar refineries, by way of reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the EC Treaty(1). It concerns the interpretation of various provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products(2).

Under the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Statue of the Court of Justice, the parties, the Member States, the Commission and, where appropriate, the Parliament, the Council and the European Central Bank are entitled to submit statements of case or written observations to the Court.

In its capacity of guardian of the Treaty, the Commission traditionally and systematically invokes this right, conferred on it by the Court of Justice, in matters relating to the interpretation of European law. It submits its observations to the Court in complete independence and objectivity as an amicus curiae, proposing the solution which, in its view, is the one most compatible with Community law and the general Community interest. It is for the parties to defend their own positions before the Court of Justice, which obviously may or may not coincide, fully or partially, with the Commission's position.

(1) OJ C 247, 26.8.2000.

(2) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1355/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Transfer of Steffen Smidt

Can the Commission state what happened over the weekend of 19-21 April 2002, given that Steffen Smidt was not on the transfer list for Directors-General on 19 April, but appeared in the list on 22 April?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2002)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the speech which I gave in my capacity as the Commissioner responsible for Personnel and Administration to the Committee on Legal Affairs on 21 May 2002.

A copy of my 21 May statement is transmitted directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Neither the Commission nor I are aware that anything relevant to Mr Smidt happened over the weekend of 19-21 April 2002.

Neither the Commission nor I are aware of the existence of anything called a transfer list for Directors General on 19 April 2002.

The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to the 3rd point of the joint answer given to written questions E-1430/02 from Mr Meijer and E-1563/02 from Mr Corbett(1).

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 122.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1205/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: ACP debt relief

Would the Commission clarify whether the proposal to settle all outstanding special loans to each least developed ACP country after the full implementation of HIPC means full cancellation of stock (after completion point)?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The terminology referred to in the question by the Honourable Member is from the Decision of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers of 20 December 2001. The Council, through the decision, requires the Commission to take the measures necessary to utilise EUR 60 million from European Development Fund (EDF) resources to settle all ACP Least Development Countries (LDCs) Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Special Loans, which would remain after full application of normal HIPC mechanism.

A financing proposal is currently under preparation and scheduled for approval by the Commission in July 2002. Operationally, once the beneficiary country will reach completion point the outstanding stock of special loans should be fully relieved or cancelled from the country books. Such a proposal will bring the total contribution of the European Union, acting as a creditor, to EUR 408,97 million of which EUR 200 million have been already transferred to a special account managed by the European Investment Bank. The Union is also contributing to the HIPC initiative by funding the HIPC as a Donor to an amount of EUR 680 million, out of which EUR 670 million are channelled through a Trust Fund managed by the World Bank. EUR 500 million have already been disbursed. Both proposals are in favour of ACP HIPC countries.

The non-ACP HIPC countries are covered from non-EDF sources of funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0403/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Roberta Angelilli (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN),Roberto Bigliardo (UEN), Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN), Antonio Mussa (UEN),Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), Franz Turchi (UEN)and Mariotto Segni (UEN) to the Commission

(20 February 2002)

Subject: Residence permits

Despite the much celebrated article in the Treaty of Maastricht providing for the creation of European citizenship, and despite the much heralded arrival of the single currency, Italian citizens in Europe, and in Belgium in particular, still suffer blatant discrimination.

Belgian legislation, like that of many other European Union countries (Germany, Netherlands, etc), does not allow the issue of a national identity card but still provides merely for a residence permit as the valid identity document for all Italian citizens resident in Belgium and Europe.

Will the Commission:

- remove the residence permit requirement for Italian citizens in Belgium and in all other Union countries;

- make representations to the authorities of all European Union countries to ensure that Member State citizens are issued with a national document and that such documents are recognised as being valid throughout Union territory;

- introduce practical measures to make the principle of Union citizenship a reality?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2002)

First, it should be remembered that the Community rules currently in force provide that a document known as a residence permit for a Member State of the European Union will be issued to EU citizens as proof of their right to reside in a Member State other than the one of which they are nationals.

The Commission has put forward a proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States(1), currently being discussed by Parliament and the Council, which proposes to abolish the residence permit during the first four years of residence and, after four years of residence, the issue of a permanent residence permit.

The proposed Directive is intended, as the Honourable Members have hoped, to give a more specific content to citizenship of the Union by making it easier to enjoy the right to freedom of movement and residence. The introduction of a permanent residence permit together with a right to social benefits and protection against expulsion is an example of this aim.

The residence permit is a very different document from the national identity card, which is issued by a Member State to its nationals. It is for each Member State to issue an identity card or passport to its nationals and there are Member States that do not issue identity cards at all.

(1) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 May 2002)

Subject: EU-Mercosur relations

Rodrigo Rato, the Spanish Minister of the Economy, recently highlighted the importance of a trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur, calling for a firmer attitude on the part of the Union. What are the obstacles preventing the signing of this agreement, given that the EU has already signed

one with Mexico, and is intending to do so with Chile on the occasion of the forthcoming Madrid European and Latin American summit? Why can an agreement with Chile be signed, and not with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay as members of Mercosur?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

1. As you are probably aware, the Council formally approved the EU-Mercosur negotiating directives on 13 September 1999, based on the political compromise reached in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999. This compromise instructed the Commission to start negotiations on non-tariff elements immediately and to begin negotiations on tariffs and services on 1 July 2001 in the light of the results of the WTO round. The Commission has a mandate to negotiate with Mercosur and it is fully in charge of these negotiations.

2. It is recalled that the Council, at its meeting on 28 January 2002, reiterated the importance it attaches to the establishment of an Association Agreement between the EU and Mercosur. It also welcomed the progress already achieved in those negotiations and reiterated the EU commitment to continue to make further progress.

3. At the EU-Mercosur Summit in Madrid on 17 May, the Heads of State and of Government of both regions, in the light of their objective to make rapid progress and conclude the negotiations as soon as possible, agreed to give a new impetus to the economic/trade negotiations under the interregional association agreement. With this in mind, they agreed that before the next meeting of the Bi-regional Negotiating Committee, there will be a meeting between EU and Mercosur negotiators at ministerial level. This meeting is expected to take place in Brasilia during the month of July 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1902/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Fishing of non-quota species in the North Sea

Can the Commission:

- provide a list of non-quota fish species in the North Sea, together with an analysis of their commercial value;

- outline the potential risk of quota species being caught as by-catch during non-quota species fishing in the North Sea; and

- confirm that it has assessed the impact on the ecosystem in the North Sea of increased fishing activities by Member States pursuing non-quota species from 2003 and that additional financial and human resources are available for control and monitoring to meet the challenges posed by free access?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

Many species of fish exist in the North Sea which are not subject to total allowable catch (TAC's) and quotas. Very little is known about the abundance and status of these fish species. These include some species of flatfish (predominantly long rough dabs, solenettes, topknots) and roundfish (such as gurnards, catfish, weevers). Some invertebrates such as squids also occur in the North Sea.

However, it is debatable whether targeted exploitation of these species would be possible or economically viable. Squids could, in principle, be caught without incurring by-catch of species subject to quotas. Many of the other non-quota species live on or near the sea bed and exploitation of these species would almost certainly incur by-catches of species subject to quotas of which many are fully utilised or even overfished and some are in need of recovery measures.

The Commission has insufficient information to comprehensively establish the commercial value of non-quota species for each or all Member States. For similar reasons, there is no scientific assessment of the effect of the probable impact on the ecosystem of increased fishing activities by Member States pursuing non-quota species.

As regards control and monitoring the Commission would like to point out that this lies in the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission indicates in Section 3.4 of its recently-published Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (Roadmap) that it will propose to setting up a Community joint inspection structure to coordinate national and Community inspection policies and activities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1703/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Aid C35/02 Adaptation of the national tax system to the specific characteristics of the autonomous region of the Azores

Can the Commission supply copies of all the correspondence referred to in its letter of 24 April 2002(1), notifying Portugal of its decision to initiate the procedure referred to in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to Aid C 35/02 (ex NN 10/2000)?

(1) OJ C 127, 29.5.2002, p. 16 et seq.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The Honourable Member's request will be dealt with in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(1).

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: EU driving licence

Has the Commission considered instigating an EU driving licence, alleviating the problems caused by different national legislation across the EU?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

On the subject of driving licences, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to Council Directive 91/439/EEC(1), which entered into force on 1 July 1996. The Directive provides for the mutual recognition of all driving licences issued in the Member States. However, some differences between the national laws do exist as the principle of mutual recognition is explicitly limited in Article 1(3) of the Directive, which states that Member States may apply their national rules on periods of validity of licences and the intervals at which medical checks must be carried out.

Since the Member States are still responsible for determining the period of validity, the rules are not the same throughout the European Union and this creates an unclear situation for its citizens. The fact that the period of validity is not always linked to the regular medical checks contributes to this complexity and this has been recognised by the Court of Justice(2).

The Commission is currently considering the advisability of preparing a proposal for a Directive amending Directive 91/439/EEC to remedy this situation, with utmost regard for the principle of subsidiarity.

In order to clarify the provisions in force with regard to driving licences for the public and the authorities concerned before any gradual harmonisation can be envisaged, the Commission adopted an Interpretative Communication on driver licensing(3) on 25 March 2002.

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2) See judgment of 29 February 1996, Case C-193/94 Skanavi, section 27.

(3) OJ C 77, 28.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2115/02

by Janelly Fourtou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Regulating transportation of human remains

The principles of free movement of goods, capital and persons have been laid down in the European Union's treaties and subsequently guaranteed by the adoption of secondary legislation. However, free movement of persons is not totally harmonised, given that there are no rules harmonising the transportation of human remains through the Member States of the European Communities.

A growing number of European citizens live in Member States other than their countries of origin. This is due to three migratory phenomena: many people work in a different country, levels of tourism are constantly increasing and, most importantly, pensioners move permanently into retirement homes in neighbouring countries. These phenomena are even more marked in border regions.

Why is a zinc coffin not compulsory on the territory of a Member State, but compulsory as soon as the coffin has to go over a border?

Does the Commission intend to legislate on this problem?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1573/02 by Mr Rack(1).

(1) See page 138.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1249/02

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 April 2002)

Subject: Tax in the Balearic Islands

On 23 April 2002 the Government of the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands adopted law 7/2001 on a tax on stays in tourist accommodation enterprises intended for the fund to develop tourist activity and protect the environment.

The explanatory memorandum to the law states that the extraordinary development of tourist activity has resulted in excessive spending on regional and environmental resources in the Balearics and that maintaining the competitiveness of the tourist product in the area will require an effort on the part of the relevant institutions to ensure that it can be sustainably developed. Given the lack of sources of funding, the abovementioned tax is therefore being introduced.

The Balearic Islands receive 11 million tourists per year, of which 50 % stay in tourist accommodation enterprises.

Does the Commission not think that a tax of this nature with the objective described above should be aimed at all tourists and not merely 50 % of them?

Does the Commission not think that this represents discrimination among tourists to the islands, according to where they stay?

Could this law be a barrier to the free movement of persons in a part of the Union's territory?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

The problem raised by the Honourable Member concerns a tax on stays in tourist accommodation enterprises, an indirect tax on consumption that has not been the object of harmonisation in the European Communities. Consequently, the Member States remain free to establish the criteria to levy such a tax, as long as the principles of Community law are respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1450/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Setting-up of a child pornography data bank

In March 2001, Patricia Vandersmissen, a Brussels barrister, asked the Belgian Minister of Justice and the President of the European Parliament questions relating to the establishment of a European or international centre to analyse and identify children and adults visible on CD-ROMS, on the basis of photographs of children and adults which suggest that they may be involved in such practices. In his answer to a parliamentary question from Mr Decroly, the Belgian Minister of Justice stated that a group of experts has been set up to consider the feasibility of creating an international data bank on victims appearing in child pornography products, that cooperation between Europol and Eurojust would be established during the Belgian Presidency and that a framework decision was being prepared at European level with a view to a harmonised legal qualification.

Are Europol and Eurojust working, as planned, on this project? If so, will the Commission provide detailed information on the state of progress of this work?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that on 15 November 2001 it decided to support the project International Child Exploitation Database Feasibility Study, under the STOP II Programme Committee. The fight against on-line child pornography is among the main objectives of the STOP II Programme. It was one of the priorities in 2001 and it is also a priority this year.

This project, presented by the United Kingdom in collaboration with Italy and Germany, aims to assess the feasibility of an international database with images of child sexual exploitation, sourced from the Internet or any other pictorial systems. The feasibility study will examine whether and how the international law enforcement community could contribute to feed images of children being used or engaged in sexual activities or description of such images into a central database, in order to assist in both victims and suspect identification.

Europol is fully associated to the project as well as the other Member States, Interpol and the the group of eight most industrialised countries. The final report is expected for December 2002.

The Commission is not aware of a possible joint initiative Europol/Eurojust aimed at setting up an international database of child pornography images.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2310/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Lack of regulation and legislation in Ireland concerning wild animals and circuses

It has come to my attention that there is a complete lack of regulation and legislation in Ireland concerning wild animals and circuses. When asked in May 2002 if the Irish Department of Environment would include circuses in the ambit of the EU Zoo Directive (Council Directive 1999/22/EC(1)), the Department prevaricated, and the impression was given that the Directive had not yet been implemented. No one was able to provide information about it, although it was indicated that it would almost certainly exclude wild animals in circuses because of the lack of experts in the field.

Given that Ireland was obliged to implement this Directive by April 2002, what is the Commission's opinion on the fact that this has not happened?

How does the Commission intend to censure Ireland in the light of this failure?

(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2002)

The objectives of Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos(1) are to protect wild fauna and to conserve biodiversity by providing for the adoption of measures by Member States for the licencing and inspection of zoos in the Community, thereby strengthening the role of zoos in the conservation of biodiversity. The Directive in question does not however specify requirements for circuses. These are matters for Member States to determine.

The Commission monitors the transposition by Member States of the above Directive and has already intervened with a letter under Article 226 of the EC Treaty to Member States which have not yet notified the Commission of the transposition of the Directive. Such a letter was sent to Ireland on 6 June 2002.

After taking note of the observations concerning the transposition submitted by Member States as a reply to the above letter, the Commission may, if necessary, deliver a Reasoned Opinion under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. It may also deliver a Reasoned Opinion if those observations fail to reach the Commission within the deadline given.

(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0971/02

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Taxes on wine-growing in Italy

Is the Commission aware of the fact that a number of Italian parliamentarians have tabled a parliamentary question asking the Italian Government to block the introduction of a tax on wine that would damage the Italian wine-growing sector?

The tax would cost the sector more than EUR 740 million and would hit workers and families in the low-to-medium income bracket particularly hard.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2002)

The Commission is not aware of this initiative taken by a number of Italian Members of Parliament, reffered to by the Honourable Member.

Council Directive 92/84/EEC, of 19 October 1992, deals with the approximation of rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. Under the provisions it is necessary for the excise duty rates laid down in that Directive to be reviewed periodically by the Council. This review shall be based upon a Commission report taking into account all relevant issues. At present, the Commission is preparing such a report that might be accompanied by a proposal, if appropriate.

Since the Commission has not yet taken a decision on the subject, it is not yet possible to comment on its content.