ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0807/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Convention financing

In the supplementary and amending budget passed by the European Parliament at its February II plenary session, EUR 150 000 was put aside for Entertainment. For what, exactly, will this entertainment fund be used?

In the interests of transparency and openness, could the Commission please detail the payments, allowances and other expenses payable to the President and individual members of the Presidium?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The Commission submitted the Preliminary Draft SAB 1/2002 after the conclusion of an inter-institutional agreement with the Parliament and the Council, organising the contribution of the three institutions to the financing of the Convention. The Commission's proposal, adopted without amendment by the Council and Parliament, merely aimed at introducing in the budget the changes necessary to allow the transfer of appropriations to the Convention as agreed in the inter-institutional agreement. The Commission's proposal does not include any forecast on the use of the budget allocated to the Convention.

The Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, which created the Convention, provides that the draft Convention's budget is to be established by the Convention's Secretary General.

By letter of 13 March 2002, the Secretary General of the European Convention transmitted the draft budget of the Convention to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The Commission gave its approval on 3rd April 2002, and the Parliament voted its approval on 10th April 2002. The Budget of the Convention for 2002 was adopted on 18 April 2002 by the Representatives of the Member State Governments meeting within the Council.

The Honourable Member could raise directly both questions to the Convention's Secretariat, or to the representatives of the Parliament in the Convention's Praesidium, in the framework of the approval procedure of the draft budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1774/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Pump-action rifles

It is sad but true that reports of murders, instances of manslaughter and accidents resulting from the use of pump-action rifles are now a daily occurrence.

Does not the European Commission take the view that it would be sensible to prohibit pump-action rifles on the grounds that they are not used by security services, members of amateur shooting clubs or hunters?

Will the Commission indicate it if shares this view, if it is taking independent action and if it is making representations to the Member States on this issue, and will it give a progress report on developments in this field?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons(1) states that passing from one Member State to another while in possession of a weapon should, in principle, be prohibited and that a derogation therefrom is acceptable only if a procedure is adopted that enables Member States to be notified that a firearm is to be brought into their country. In addition, the Directive allows Member States to go as far as to prohibit the possession of firearms not already included in the category of weapons for which possession by private individuals is forbidden. So far, the Commission has no information suggesting that the arrangements introduced by Directive 91/477/EEC do not provide a satisfactory solution for controlling the acquisition and possession of pump-action rifles.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1198/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Road haulage companies with their registered places of business in Luxembourg

Several European road haulage companies, including Danish ones, have their registered place of business in Luxembourg, because of tax advantages and in order to evade national regulations on driving times, labour agreements and safety requirements for lorries.

Can the Commission state how many European road haulage companies have their registered place of business in Luxembourg, and whether these are simply letterbox companies which do not really operate from Luxembourg? What does it plan to do to combat this practice, which manifestly distorts competition?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Current Community rules permit the freedom of establishment of road transport operators within the Union and facilitate the mutual recognition by Member States of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications to this effect. The choice of Member State of establishment is based on many factors, amongst which may be tax rates, although for annual vehicle taxes Community-wide minimum rates apply. Driving times are governed by common Community rules as are many of the vehicle safety requirements.

In correspondence with the Luxembourg authorities, the Commission understands that 315 road haulage firms were established in Luxembourg in 2000. The Commission initially expressed its concern to the Luxembourg authorities following complaints from trade union sources at an apparent rise in post-box companies set up in Luxembourg. The exact number of these companies is however unknown. Following the ruling by the Court of Justice on 13 December 2001(1) on a case brought by the Commission where Luxembourg was condemned for not transposing Community rules on admission to the occupation of road transport operator and the recent Kralowetz case, the Luxembourg authorities have now indicated that the relevant legislative proposals to address this situation will be treated with due urgency.

The Community rules(2) governing the establishment of road transport operators in Member States lay down minimum qualitative conditions and also require the Member States to check regularly that these conditions have been fulfilled. The common Community rules have been strengthened in 1998 and the Commission has no plans at present to amend this legislation.

(1) C-107/01 Court ruling given 13 December 2001.

(2) Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international operations, OJ L 277, 14.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0242/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: EU/ACP trade negotiations

To what extent will the draft negotiating instructions for the ACP-EU trade negotiations, which are set to start in September 2002, allow the Commission to comprehensively address the concerns of ACP governments in respect of:

- the impact of the introduction of free trade with the EU on the fiscal revenues of ACP governments;

- the impact of a reformed CAP on the development of ACP agricultural export sectors;

- the supply side constraints in ACP countries which inhibit their effective exploitation of trade preferences;

- a real improvement in ACP access to the EU market;

- ensuring respect for the rights of least developed countries to non-reciprocal trade preferences under the Commission's economic partnership agreement proposals?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The draft directives for the negotiation of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are being finalised within the Commission. It is therefore still too early, at this stage, to give a detailed answer to the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

However, the Commission agrees that EPAs are primarily designed to promote the sustainable development of the African, Carribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and to contribute to poverty eradication in these countries. EPAs will therefore need to take account of the specific economic and social constraints the ACP countries are facing as well as of their capacity to adapt to the liberalisation process.

In order to ensure that this objective will be achieved, the Commission will initiate, prior to the start of the negotiations, a Sustainability Impact Assessment. This analysis will include the potential impact of trade liberalisation on the fiscal revenues of ACP governments, the impact of market changes in the Community on ACP export sectors and the potentials for tackling the existing, serious supply side constraints in ACP countries. The preparatory period will thus provide an unique opportunity to combine analysis, negotiations and development co-operation in a most effective way to further the development of ACP countries under future EPAs.

As far as least developed countries are concerned, the non-reciprocal preferences granted under the Everything But Arms (EBA) will, of course, continue to apply. However, it must be borne in mind that the removal of barriers to trade between the parties is an essential building block for the achievement of the objectives of EPAs, which is to enlarge the markets of the ACP countries in order to allow them to increase their level of competitiveness and to help them to attract investment. Least developed countries wishing to participate in EPA can therefore not be excepted from this rule, without depriving EPAs of their essence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1778/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Exclusion of Arreu valley from the proposed SCI and expansion of the Baqueira-Beret ski resort

Plans to expand the Baqueira-Beret ski resort in the Lérida region of the Pyrenees (Catalonia, Spain) were submitted in 1999. The project, promoted by the private firm Baqueira-Beret S.A., was to have been located in Arreu valley, which was then included in the SCI for the alpine biogeographical region (ES5130003). The project was finally withdrawn with an unfavourable environmental impact assessment.

In August 2001 Baqueira-Beret S.A. submitted fresh plans for expanding the ski resort, involving a significant area in Arreu valley and the proposed SCI of Aigüestortes (ES513002). When this last plan received a favourable environmental impact assessment and the administrative applications allowing the ski resort to be expanded above Arreu valley were approved, WWF/Spain lodged a complaint with the Commission (Ref: 2002/4204, SG(2002)A1912).

Is the Commission aware of this project to expand Baqueira-Beret and the facts given by WWF/Spain in its complaint?

Is the Commission aware that this project will affect both alpine SCIs and an IBA which have been proposed pursuant to the Habitats and Birds Directives?

Is the Commission aware of the changes made by the Spanish autonomous communities to their proposals for sites for the Natura 2000 network, whereby areas previously protected have been excluded to facilitate the implementation of projects which are not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site (Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC(1)), without an adequate assessment having been made of their environmental repercussions?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1498/02 by Mr De Roo, Mr Mayol i Raynal and Mr Mendiluce Pereiro(1).

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 217.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1354/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Commission's position on the use of nuclear energy in the EU

In statements made at the end of April 2002, Commissioner Loyola de Palacio publicly and unambiguously advocated the use of nuclear energy in the EU with a view to enabling the Union to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. She thus confirmed her previous statements, which had led the author of the present question to put an earlier question on 4 February 2002 (E-0133/02)(1). The Commission's remarkably brief answer, received on 2 April 2002, simply stated that the Commission's position on nuclear energy is set out in the Green Paper on energy supply of November 2000 and that the statements referred to in the questions concerned should, like those of any other Commissioner, be understood in context. Despite this, press reports published today state that the Commissioner for the environment, Mrs Margot Wallström, has expressed her opposition to Mrs de Palacio's pro-nuclear views. The author of this question obviously agrees with Mrs Wallström and, it may well be, with a majority of public opinion.

Given these circumstances, can the Commission state whether its official position on nuclear energy is that of Mrs Wallström or that of Mrs de Palacio?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 151.

Answer given Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

As the Honourable Member has so rightly stated, the Commission's position on nuclear energy remains that which is clearly set out in the Green Paper entitled Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply(1).

Any statement made by a Member of the Commission must therefore be interpreted solely in the light of that document.

The Honourable Member is requested to refer also to the reply given by the Commission during Question Time at the Plenary Session of the Parliament in May 2002(2) to Oral Question H-0287/02 on this very subject.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2) Written answer 14.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Illegal use of driftnets

According to reports in the European press (Faro de Vigo, 4 July 2002), the Irish fishing vessel Albatross, flying the Belize flag, attempted to land 36 tonnes of bonito caught using driftnets, a type of gear which has been banned in Community waters since 1 January 2002, in the port of Vigo. The port and inspection authorities prevented the fish from being landed, and the Albatross then headed for Ireland to attempt to land its catch at an Irish port.

Is the Commission aware of this incident? What action has it taken or will it take? Have any infringements of the ban on driftnets been detected by the Commission or by Member State inspection services since it entered into force? If so, where did these infringements occur and what steps were taken with regard both to the vessel and any catch landed?

Furthermore, fishermen currently engaged in coastal fishing for bonito in Cantabrian waters have noted the presence in those fishing grounds of vessels from the French island of Yeu which are allegedly fishing with encircling nets. This type of gear is banned for the Spanish fleet because it is highly unselective and is associated with high levels of bycatches.

How does the Commission assess this situation? Will the Commission take any initiative with a view to banning the use of encircling nets to catch bonito in Cantabrian waters?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of the activities of the Belize-registered vessel Albatros II fishing for albacore tuna in the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas' (ICCAT) Convention Area.

Spanish authorities have informed the Commission of the sighting of the vessel Albatros II on the high seas. The vessel was fishing in contravention of ICCAT conservation measures notably using driftnets. The Commission have asked ICCAT Secretariat to circulate this information amongst all Contracting Parities of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Commission has been informed by the Scottish Sea Fishery Protection Agency (SFPA) of the attempt of Albatros II to land her catches in the port of Lochinver (Scotland) last 26 July 2002. SFPA permitted the port call of the Albatros II for refuelling but denied permission to land its albacore tuna. SFPA passed the information regarding the vessel's departure with the fish still on board to the Irish authorities.

The Commission is aware that the enforcement of the driftnet ban is encountering problems in some areas. However, the Commission is committed to a strict enforcement of the current ban and, whenever infringements of Community law are discovered, proper action will be taken against the Member States concerned.

Encircling gears are usually quite selective because the catch is visible before the nets are handed in. In the absence of scientific advice recommending a ban on encircling gears for tuna fisheries, the Commission has no intention to take any action to prohibit the use of encircling gear targeting albacore tuna.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 July 2002)

Subject: Oil pipelines and their financial benefits

It is known that plans are being envisaged to lay oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea to the European Union Member States, with preference apparently being given to three possible solutions, the Baku-Ceyan pipeline, the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline and the AMBO (Albanian-Macedonian-Bulgarian Oil) pipeline crossing the northern Greek border and linking Burgas and Avlonas. If this last pipeline is built, it will run through three countries (some of which are highly unstable) and will be 898 km long.

In the Commission's opinion, what are the financial benefits of these three pipelines? Has it launched any studies into their macro-economic advantages or the dangers they would present to the Union in terms of its energy self-sufficiency? Would it not be more realistic to build a pipeline passing through only one country (an EU Member State) for example between Alexandroupolis and the port of Igoumenitsa (which is currently being modernised and enlarged using Community funding) so as to ensure unobstructed and secure oil supplies to the principal Member States of the Union? Is there any prospect of Community funding (for example loans from the European Investment Bank or other forms of funding) for the realisation of one of the above projected pipelines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The Commission cooperates, in the framework of security of supply within the EU, with the main neighbouring producer countries, including Russia and the countries of the Caspian Sea. The EU's position on Caspian Sea resources was laid down by the General Affairs Council in May 1998, namely that the EU is in favour of multiple pipeline routes, with the choice of routes and construction entirely in the hands of the private sector.

The Commission has recognised, in the framework of the Inogate technical assistance programme, the importance of the transit of resources from Russia and the Caspian Sea through the Central and Eastern European countries, in particular the Ukraine (Odessa-Brody-Gdansk), Romania (Constantza-Belgrade-Omisalj-Trieste) and Bulgaria (Burgas-Alexandroupoulis).

With regard to Community co-funding, the Commission has allocated EUR 3,55 million under the Community initiative programme Interreg II for the period 1994-1999 for feasibility studies on the Burgas-Alexandroupolis project. The project is aimed at linking the Bulgarian port of Bourgas to the Greek port of Alexandroupolis and will enable oil from the Russian terminal in Novorossisk to be transported to the European markets. No Community funding is planned for the construction of the oil pipeline.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0149/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: Extra costs incurred by bank customers as a result of failure to comply with the agreements on exchanging old currencies into euros

1. Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Ministry of Finance has alerted Dutch banks to the fact that they have charged customers unlawfully for changing Dutch guilders into euros?

2. In the different member states of EMU-12 are there similar voluntary agreements between the government, consumers organisations and banks or any binding legal rules on charges for exchanging old currencies into the new means of payment, or do the exchange charges that may be imposed vary significantly from one member state to another?

3. During the exchange period from 1 October 2001 to 1 April 2002 what costs may banks charge to their own customers who credit the money to their accounts, and what costs can be charged to clients who are not bank customers?

4. In calculating exchange costs, can a difference be made between the former currency of the country where the exchange takes place and the former currencies of other countries that have introduced the euro?

5. Can the Commission give an estimate of the amount paid by consumers in each Member State as a result of exchange costs that they would not have incurred if no new means of payment had been introduced?

6. What will the Commission do to compensate consumers who have had to pay unlawful charges to one or more banks in order to make this unavoidable exchange of currency?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2002)

1. and 5. Following the Commission Recommendation of October 2000(1), the banks agreed to change national notes and coins into euros for their customers free of charge during the period of dual circulation. The Commission knows of only a few isolated cases where a charge was made for exchanging the old national currency.

2. Spain was the only Member State to introduce a law requiring that the national currency be exchanged for euros free of charge. The voluntary agreements introduced in the Member States generally applied the principles set out in the Recommendation of October 2000, namely exchange free of charge for bank customers for the entire duration of the period of dual circulation, subject merely to a period of notice for large amounts, and free exchange for non-customers subject to a ceiling to be set by each bank.

3. and 4. The Commission takes the view that no charge should have been imposed by banks during the period of dual circulation for accepting the old national currency of the State in which the financial institution is established. A handling charge could, however, be levied for accepting the old national currencies of the other participating States.

6. Except in Spain, the banks were free to choose whether or not they followed the recommendations, with the result that no compensation can be claimed.

(1) C(2000)2985 final.