ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0767/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: Financing by the Netherlands Government of participation in the Joint Strike Fighter programme

On 8 February 2002, the Netherlands Government decided to enable Dutch industry to participate in the further development and building (system development and demonstration phase) of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). In a letter of 11 February 2002 to the Lower House of Parliament, the Government enlarged upon this decision.

The total cost of participation ( 857,5 million) is partly to be met by means of contributions from the government ( 400,7 million from the defence budget, 60,1 million + 42 million from the Ministry of Economic Affairs) and industry ( 55,0 million).

The remainder of the money is to be found by means of loans of approximately 100 million per annum from the EMU balance in 2003, 2004 and 2005, which are not considered to be of any relevance to budgetary discipline.

It was stated in the newspaper NRC Handelsblad on 28 February 2002 that the method of financing proposed by the Netherlands Government may violate European rules.

1. Does the Commission agree with the Netherlands Government's view that the loan totalling approximately 300 million from the EMU balance in 2003, 2004 and 2005 is irrelevant to the rules concerning European budgetary discipline, or does it reject this analysis?

2. Are the Netherlands Government's proposals for participation in the JSF programme as described in its letter of 11 February 2002 to the Lower House of Parliament acceptable under European law on State aid?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community(1) defines the rules for the proper classification in the national accounts of measures such as the loans in question. They are classified as financial transactions. Eurostat may ask the Member State involved to clarify the way certain items in the past year's budget have been classified. Until now, Eurostat has not conducted such an assessment with respect to the Dutch JSF project.

2. The Commission has not assessed the compatibility with the State aid rules of the measures in question. It must be pointed out that under certain conditions Article 296 of the EC-Treaty allows Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the protection of the essential interests of their security which are connected with the production of arms, munitions and war material.

(1) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0494/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: The euro and the accession of Cyprus

In view of the impending accession of Cyprus to the European Union, what representations has the Commission made, or intend to make, regarding the fact that the island does not feature on the map of Europe depicted on euro notes and coins?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The design on the common side of the euro coins features a representation of Europe, as opposed to a map of Europe. No intention therefore exists to modify the design of the common side of the euro coins following the enlargement of the Union.

The original decisions on the design of the euro banknotes have been taken by the European Monetary Institute. This matter is under the competence of the European Central Bank.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0931/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Investigation into a possible cartel of coltan producers

It was impossible to deduce from its enthralling answer to Written Question E-3498/01(1) whether or not the Commission had actually begun an investigation into the Tantalium-Niobium International Study Center (TIC), an association of coltan producers which has its headquarters in Brussels. The well-founded presumption still persists that the Center is a front organisation for a cartel which determines coltan prices.

Has the Commission already carried out an investigation into whether the TIC constitutes a cartel?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The Commission has not started any investigation in order to assess if Tantalium-Niobium International Study Center (TIC) constitutes a cartel.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1107/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Increase in deaths of dolphins

Is the Commission aware of the recent deaths of dolphins off the coasts of Devon and Cornwall?

Will the Commission consider compulsory monitoring of all cetacean bycatch in pelagic trawl fisheries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problem posed by pelagic trawls operating in the Celtic Sea and Western Channel, where important by-catch of dolphins takes place every winter.

The Commission intends to design a comprehensive plan to protect cetaceans from the effects of fishing at the Community scale.

Notwithstanding the obligations set up by the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), this plan will include systematic monitoring of by-catch by observers on board as well as technical measures to mitigate the mortality of cetaceans due to fishing. It is expected that the scientific and technical basis that will support such a plan will be made available around June 2002.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0970/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Disability rights

The Commission recently produced a communication: Europe and Asia: A Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships(1). Among the objectives of this framework are: addressing the root causes of poverty and the spreading of democracy, good governance and the rule of law.

Whilst the World Bank estimates that disabled people account for 20 % of the world's poorest, there is no mention of disability in this document. How does the Commission plan to ensure that disabled people's rights are addressed in implementation of this framework?

(1) COM(2001) 469 final.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0969/02 and E-0970/02given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

This proposal for a new regulation on co-operation with Asian and Latin American countries does not intend to provide political or strategic orientations. Rather it provides the rules and procedures necessary to programme and decide effectively on co-operation between the Community and partner countries.

The objectives of co-operation are therefore defined in a very broad way, to make it possible to intervene in all areas of co-operation, which are envisaged in the agreements between the Community and the beneficiary countries and under the policy and co-operation guidelines which are adopted in the appropriate fora.

Accordingly, the proposal which the Commission is preparing does not include specific reference to the rights of disabled people, though these are contained in the human right and fundamental freedom article on which the proposal is based. Yet, as human rights are progressively mainstreamed into development co-operation, it is anticipated that cross-cutting issues, like the rights of disabled, will feature more regularly and comprehensively in Community-supported actions.

The Communication from the Commission Europe and Asia: a strategic framework for enhanced partnerships(1), while making no explicit reference to disabled people, makes clear that poverty reduction is one of the key aims of co-operation.

It aims to achieve this by supporting sector programmes in social areas; strengthening dialogue on policy issues and sharing Europe's own experience. It makes the respect of human rights a central objective of Community action in line with the Commission Communication The European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries(2).

It is in the context of the dialogue with partner countries and in the programming of its assistance that the Commission will ensure that human rights, and disabled people's rights amongst them, will be appropriately addressed.

(1) COM(2001) 469 final.

(2) COM(2001) 252 fnal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2054/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Subject: Mid-term review

Further to the reply to my oral question H-0410/02 June 2002(1), could the Commission explain the basis of its expectation of continuing high prices for sheep meat in the medium term, in view of the fact that the higher prices since 2000 directly resulted from scarcity of supply because of the BSE and foot-and-mouth disease impact on the market, and in view of the fact that for the seven years previously, income returns for sheep producers had been disastrous.

Given the special report of the Court of Auditors, does the Commission now intend to include all sheep in future calculations of extensification payments?

Would it agree that this would result in a mass exodus from sheep production in deficit within the EU and an increase in beef production already in surplus within the EU, as producers receive no extensification payments for sheep and this could reduce payments on bovines?

(1) Written answer, 11.6.2002.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

In the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member's oral question H-0410/02 during question time at Parliament's June 2002 session, it was stated that the Commission expected a solution to be found to the problem of the lower profitability of sheep, compared to beef production in Ireland, within the context of the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy.

At that time, the Commission had not yet adopted its Communication to the Council and the Parliament on the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy(1), which was done on 10 July 2002.

A key element of the Mid-Term Review is the decoupling of headage payments for beef and sheep, and their replacement with a single income payment per farm based on historical entitlements.

It is the view of the Commission that, together with reinforced cross-compliance conditions, this decoupling of aids should reduce pressure towards intensive production and help achieve a more balanced market situation.

In terms of the relative profitability of beef and sheep production in Ireland, under this proposal, all farmers would have the flexibility to adjust their stock numbers to what was economically best for their situation, without the relative level of the headage payments affecting their judgement.

It is thus in this context that the Commission would expect the problem of the distorting effects of the current headage payment system to be discussed and solved.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1160/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Arms embargo on Israel: halting military cooperation with Israel

Many EU countries have arrangements for cooperation with the Israeli defence industry, and thus support its defence system. I would particularly draw attention to the EU's support (under the Fifth Framework Programme of Research and Technological Development) for research by an Israeli arms company (Israel Aircraft Industries) into civil applications of UAVs (unmanned air vehicles). The sum involved is EUR 10 million divided between two

programmes over a period of two and a half years. It is well known that arms companies can easily convert civil applications into military ones. In this case, the EU is funding research to ascertain whether there are potential civil applications in addition to the military ones.

Bearing in mind the European Parliament's resolution of 10 April 2002, will the Commission halt this military cooperation between the EU and Israel and stop imports of the UAVs concerned? If so, with effect from when? If not, how can the Commission explain its refusal?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

UAV research is a minor activity of the 5th Framework programme's key action Aeronautics under the Competitive and sustainable growth programme. The work carried out in this field is strictly confined to the development of civil applications of UAVs. Community contribution to Israel Aircraft Industries in these research activities amounts to less than EUR 1,5 million.

Cooperation with Israelian entities is undertaken under the umbrella of the scientific and technological agreement existing between the Union and Israel for the 5th Framework programme, which specifically excludes any type of military research. Therefore, no aspect of military cooperation between the Union and Israel exist in the UAV projects concerned.

The research work focuses on advances of civil/commercial application of UAVs, in particular in areas such as environmental monitoring, communication relays and Earth observation, as well as the safe integration of civil UAV into Air Traffic management.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2424/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 August 2002)

Subject: Annual leave of Greek workers

Article 7 of Presidential Decree 88/1999, which incorporates Directive 93/104/EC(1) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time into Greek law, provides for paid annual leave for workers after continuous employment of at least twelve months. Given the importance of annual leave for workers and in the light of Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC and the judgment of the Court of Justice in case C-173/99, which ruled that it is not open to a Member State to adopt national rules under which a worker does not begin to accrue rights to paid annual leave until he has completed a minimum period of employment, will the Commission say what measures it will take to ensure that Greek workers also receive annual leave without restriction by reference to length of employment, as laid down by Directive 93/104/EC and the judgment of the Court of Justice in case C-173/99?

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2002)

In accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the Commission issued Greece with a formal notice on 21 March 2001 concerning the transposal of Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC(1).

In a letter dated 21 May 2002, the Greek authorities informed the Commission that they were going to take the necessary measures to amend national legislation on annual leave in order to bring it into line with the Directive.

The Commission may decide to deliver a reasoned opinion, as provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty, if it considers that the new Greek legislation does not comply with the Directive.

(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1834/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Protection of Costa del Sol beaches

The succession of storms which have affected the Costa del Sol this year have left its beaches in a condition totally unsuitable for bathing or for the enjoyment of the many thousands of tourists who visit that tourist region of Spain.

The beaches have been the subject of political debate in recent months, and are now at the centre of a full-blown controversy. It has been proposed, as a long-term solution, that a substantial fleet of dredgers should be created for the permanent maintenance of the beaches.

This fleet of dredgers would not come cheap, but appears to be a necessity if the beaches are to be kept in condition on a permanent basis. Can the Commission state in what form it could contribute to such a dredger system, and what programmes could be used to finance the purchase of the vessels, given their role in ensuring the wellbeing of the tourist business in the region and the users of the Costa del Sol's beaches?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2002)

The project indicated by the Honourable Member can be part-financed from the Structural Funds under the 2000-2006 integrated operational programme for Andalusia provided it is included in its strategy and priorities. Under the subsidiarity principle Member States choose the actual projects for part-financing in line with the selection criteria adopted in the programming and their own priorities.

Projects for environmental protection of beaches can in theory also be financed from the Environment section of the European Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE). However LIFE does not finance research, equipment and infrastructure projects but innovatory pilot and demonstration projects that satisfy the general requirements and assessment criteria of the LIFE Regulation. Full information on LIFE and project submission details can be found on the Commission site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/life/envir/index.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1023/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Public finance data

Will the Commission state which Member States' budget deficit figures and which Member States' public debt figures cannot be certified by Eurostat as being in line with ESA95 and in both cases for which years?

What measures is the Commission taking to remedy matters?

Will the Commission state the nature of Eurostat's reservations in each case?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Eurostat, as a Commission service, has named, in its press release on deficit and debt in the Union dated 21 March 2002(1), the Member States for which figures could not be certified due to lack of information on some statistical issues.

The Commission intends to pursue the issue by asking for additional details and by discussing the issues bilaterally with Member States. The next notification before the 1 September 2002 should contain certified data for these Member States.

The nature of Eurostat's reservations was explained in Eurostat's above mentioned press release.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=2-21032002-EN-AP-EN.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1972/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Waste-water depuration plant at Novelda Monforte del Cid, Valencia Region

The Novelda depuration plant at Monforte del Cid (Region of Valencia) was included in the National Waste-water Depuration Plan by means of an agreement signed on 27 February 1995 (Official Bulletin 16/12/95) and declared to be of public interest. Since then no project has emerged, although it will serve a population of more than 30 000 people, who at present have no alternative but to discharge their waste water into the already contaminated river Vinalopó. This situation is in blatant contravention of Council Directive 91/271/EEC(1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, Articles 3 and 4 of which set a deadline of 31 December 2000 for this size of population to be provided with waste-water collection and depuration systems.

In view of this blatant infringement, what steps will the Commission take to remedy the problem and improve the situation?

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(1) lays down clear objectives as regards deadlines and the environmental targets to be achieved.

It should be noted that urban areas with a population equivalent (p.e.)(2) above 15 000 must have secondary (i.e. biological) collection and treatment systems at the latest by 31 December 2000.

The Commission is currently checking whether all major urban areas in the EU comply with the above Directive and may shortly initiate infringement procedures against Member States in which delays have caused the date specified to be missed.

In the case of Spain, the Commission is aware of these delays and a general infringement procedure will be initiated for all towns which fail to comply with these obligations, which may include the towns referred to by the Honourable Member in this written question.

As it is, the Commission has sent a letter to the Spanish authorities to find out more about the waste water treatment plant at Novelda Monforte del Cid, in Alicante Province, in the Autonomous Community of Valencia.

It should also be noted that the Commission recently initiated an infringement procedure against Spain, under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, for failure by the Spanish authorities to provide sufficient information as to how Directive 91/271/EEC is being applied. A letter of formal notice has therefore been sent since the Spanish authorities have in particular failed to submit a general report regarding implementation or any information concerning industry. The Commission has also sent letters of formal notice to several other Member States for the same reason.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) Unit of measurement of organic pollution representing the average pollution produced per person per day.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1577/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Redefining the CAP

Agriculture has always occupied a leading position in the European venture. Articles 38 and 39 of the Treaty of Rome set out its objectives: to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers, to assure the availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. However, current constraints on agricultural policy leave practically no margin of manoeuvre for farmers.

Successive reforms have reduced the effectiveness of market management tools. They have emphasised direct aids, without ensuring that these form a safety net for agricultural incomes.

Against this background, how does the Commission intend to redefine the objectives of the CAP while distinguishing between those that concern management of agricultural markets and those that are part of policy on farmers' incomes?

Could the Commission also list objectives and tools in the areas of regional development and agri-environmental constraints?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

In successive reforms of the common agricultural policy, market management measures have increasingly focused on stabilising agricultural markets, while the income stabilisation role has been taken by direct payments.

The Commission is of the view that the objectives for the common agricultural policy defined in the Agenda 2000 reform meet the needs and expectations of European Society. These objectives give concrete form to a European Model of Agriculture in the years ahead involving more market orientation and increased competitiveness, food safety and quality, stabilisation of agricultural incomes, integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policy, the development of the rural areas, simplification, and strengthened decentralisation.

However, policy instruments could be adjusted to better meet these objectives. As regards market management there should be greater focus on the safety net role of intervention. For direct payments, it is necessary to examine how direct payments could play a more effective role in stabilising agricultural, particularly as regards increasing the margin for manoeuvre for farmers.

In the field of agri-environment, more could be done to achieve the objective of integrating environmental concerns with the tools of agri-environmental programmes and cross-compliance. The objective of a balanced territorial development of rural areas could be better achieved through a reinforcing the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, rural development.