ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1321/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: European funding for cultural projects

In the context of the cultural promotion of the city of Antwerp, local interest groups are considering launching a mobile maritime-cultural project. The project involves a cargo ship, which is to be converted and used as a backdrop for cultural events, with particular emphasis on the performing arts.

The plan is to give the project a European dimension by taking the ship to municipal cultural events in Europe's leading ports.

I would like to know whether a project such as this can be considered for co-financing under the Culture 2000 action programme. In view of its important socio-economic impact and cross-border character, I would also like to know if this project could also be considered for co-funding under other Community programmes, such as, for example, Interreg.

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

A Community subsidy for cultural projects can be granted under the Culture 2000 programme, whose aims include enhancing the common cultural area as well

as ensuring respect for, and promoting, cultural diversity. Through this programme, the Community supports projects that provide genuine European added value, i.e. projects involving aims, methods and types of cooperation that are not purely local, regional or even national in scope and which are designed to have an impact at European level.

To meet the European added value requirement, the programme clearly stipulates that Community support can only be given for projects involving the participation of cultural organisations from at least three of the countries that are allowed to take part in the programme. This financial support is given on the basis of specific calls for proposals which indicate the general requirements to be met by projects, eligibility and exclusion criteria, the procedure and criteria for selecting projects, and the financial and contractual obligations to which candidates will be subject.

The call for proposals concerning the implementation of the Culture 2000 programme in 2003 should be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities in the second quarter of 2002. In addition, this call will be placed on the Commission's Internet site at http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html, where the Honourable Member will also be able to find full details of the programme.

As regards participation in the Interreg programme, the Commission would like to point out that the project in question does not meet the conditions specified for the programme, which was established to promote cooperation between regions and requires that projects be submitted by a number of cross-border or transnational partners.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0780/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: Tax levied by Greece on private leisure boats

Can the Commission confirm whether there have been talks between the EU and the Greek government on the issue of tax levied on pleasure boats flying non-Greek flags?

If so, what has been the outcome of these talks?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

The tax to which the Honourable Member refers is levied whenever a private pleasure boat longer than 7 metres enters the country or approaches Greece's ports, harbours or coast; it also applies to boats flying the Greek flag but not permanently moored in Greek ports. For the purposes of this tax, pleasure boats permanently moored in Greek ports are taken to be those that spend fewer than 30 days a year outside Greece.

The Commission considers this tax incompatible with the provisions of Articles 23, 25 and 133 of the EC Treaty prohibiting charges having an equivalent effect to customs duties on imports between Member States and direct imports from non-member countries.

The Commission can confirm that on 26 July 2001 it followed up its letter of formal notice of 12 September 2000 by sending the Greek authorities a reasoned opinion concerning the tax on pleasure boats introduced by Article 11 of Greek Law No 2743/1999.

On 18 October 2001 the Commission received the Greek authorities' response to the reasoned opinion, which included four annexes.

Examination of these documents shows that the Greek authorities have not complied with the reasoned opinion, though Article 34(1) of Law No 2932/2001 does make a number of substantive changes to Article 11 of Law No 2743/99:

- A tax of 15 000 drachma per metre of a pleasure boat's length used to be levied if it re-entered the country and approached Greece's ports, harbours or coast within 30 days of last doing so. This represented a surtax on boats re-entering within a given period. This tax has now been reduced to 2000 drachma a metre, i.e. to the level applicable on its previous entry. The tax, however, remains payable whenever a boat enters the country and approaches Greece's ports, harbours or coast.

- Pleasure boats taking part in races, training voyages organised by sailing clubs and training schools or the educational programmes of foreign ministries are exempt from the tax, subject to the approval of the Shipping Minister.

- Commercial pleasure craft (carrying up to 49 passengers, with cabins other than the crew's and used exclusively for pleasure trips and/or excursions on a full charter basis), which were not previously subject to taxes, are now.

The Commission is considering how best to follow up the procedure it has initiated.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1247/02

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Availability of studies and reports produced with European funding

Through various action programmes the Commission provides funds to support European policy in the Member States. In this way not only Member States but also other authorities and bodies receive European public funds to produce studies and reports on their policy on such subjects as employment and the fight against social exclusion. In many cases these studies are not available to the public.

Is the Commission prepared, when granting financial support to produce reports of this kind, to require the beneficiaries to ensure that studies financed from European public funds must be made available to the public?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

The Commission's investigations into the Honourable Member's question have revealed the complexity of this subject, calling for several departments to become involved. The Honourable Member will be informed of the results of the investigations when they have been concluded.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0891/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Regular meetings between Mr Prodi and Mr Schröder

Following the meeting between the Commission President, Mr Prodi, and the German Chancellor, Mr Schröder, in Barcelona, it was decided that the Commission and the German Government would meet regularly prior to each summit. It is reported that the first such encounter will take place in Berlin before the next summit.

Will this be followed by similar meetings with leaders of other countries or will this initiative be restricted to Germany and possibly other larger countries?

Reply

(27 June 2002)

The Council would ask the Honourable Member to put his question directly to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1199/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Procurement of emergency vaccines

What procedures are each of the Member States following in the procurement of emergency supplies of vaccine to counter any possible terrorist threat?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1199/02, E-1200/02 and E-1201/02given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

The Commission understands that Written Questions E-1200/02 and E-1201/02 relate to the award of a contract by the United Kingdom authorities for the supply of smallpox vaccines to address possible terrorist attacks in the light of the 11 September 2001 atrocities and in particular the ensuing concerns about bio chemical terrorist attacks.

The Commission is not fully aware of all the steps which the United Kingdom authorities may have taken in the award of the contract. In the absence of such information, it is not possible to conclude with any certainty whether this particular contract falls within the scope of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993, coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts(1) and whether the award of the contract should have been subject to open competition.

As regards Written Question E-1199/02, information received by the Commission indicates that the Member States that have procured emergency vaccines to counter potential terrorist threats following the anthrax attacks in the United States in 2001 did not follow open public tender procedures on account of the security implications involved.

Article 2 of the above-mentioned Directive constitutes a derogation from the provisions for open public tendering. This includes supply contracts which are declared secret or the execution of which must be accompanied by special security measures in accordance with the laws, regulations or administrative provisions in force in the Member States concerned or when the protection of the basic interests of the Member State's security so requires.

As a derogation from the general rule that public contracts must be awarded by public tender, Article 2 has to be restrictively construed on a case by case basis. Relevant factors could include a perceived need at the time of the contract not to announce the existence or nature of the contract for public security reasons. Statements made by the European Court of Justice in Case C- 273/97 of 26 October 1999 to the effect that Member States have a degree of discretion when adopting measures which they consider to be necesssary in order to guarantee public security, may also be a relevant factor in this type of case.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Paired trawling and dolphin deaths

Is the Commission aware of the large number of dead dolphins washed up on the coasts of south-west England and France in recent months?

It has been suggested that the reason for this phenomenon is the increasingly common practice of paired trawling, where two trawlers drag a net at high speed between them.

Does the Commission accept that analysis? If so, what steps does it intend to take to help protect the dolphin community?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The Commission has received information on the issue mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Although all cetacean species are strictly protected by the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), which imposes Member States specific obligations in this regard, the Commission is increasingly aware that a Community action may be necessary to increase the effectiveness of the protection of small cetaceans from undesired effects of fishing activities. These measures could include, where appropriate, an overall downsizing of the fishing effort, and also more targeted measures aimed to avoid significant impacts on some sensitive species, such as cetaceans.

In this respect, the Commission is gathering all scientific and technical information available and has requested the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, (STECF), and also the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, (ICES), to provide the scientific and technical support that may allow the Commission to propose regulatory measures, in consultation with all interested parties. The possible impact of paired trawling has been included in this analysis.

As soon as the advice of STECF and ICES will become available, the Commission will design the appropriate measures in the field of fishing activities, following consultation with interested parties. This is expected to take place before the end of 2002. The measures shall be adopted by the Council in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 43 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0822/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Channelling and development work on the River Barxell in Alcoy (Alicante)

Can the Commission state what progress has been made on Complaint 2001/4783, SG (2001) A/9437 submitted by the Colla Ecologista la Carrasca environmental association on the project for channelling, protection and development work on the River Barxell, the first stage of which focuses on the San Jorge viaduct in Alcoy (Alicante)?

In the Commission's view, to what extent does this project fail to comply with Community law, with particular reference to Directives 97/62/EC(1), 92/43/EEC(2) and 79/409/EEC(3)?

Does it consider the project to be in keeping with the provisions of the water policy framework directive (2000/60/EC(4))?

(1) OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 42.

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

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The Commission has received a complaint, registered under the reference number 2001/4783, on the project of canalisation of the urban stretch of the river Barxell in Alcoy (Spain).

Pursuant to this complaint, the Commission has addressed a letter to the Spanish authorities in order to request their comments on the facts raised by the complainant and on the application of the following Council Directives:

- 92/43/EEC of 21 may 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

- 79/409/EEC of 2 april 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

- 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1).

In their reply, the Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that the project is to be executed within an urban area and will not affect any Site of Community Interest or Zone of Special Protection for Birds.

The Spanish authorities add that an environmental assessment was conducted in compliance with the current Spanish hydraulic legislation. This study was subject to a public consultation procedure.

The Commission is currently assessing the information provided by the Spanish authorities relating to the presence of the stripe-necked terrapin (mauremys leprosa) in the area. This species is included in Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive.

Finally, concerning Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Commission considers that it does not apply in this case.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0644/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: The Commission's views on the United States' international port security policy

The international port security measures which have been put forward by US Senator Hollings in the form of a security proposal could have far-reaching consequences. The first ominous reports suggesting that a mere ten ports would have the exclusive right to supply goods to the USA and concerning the exhaustiveness with which containers would have to be scanned at the external ports prove to have been based mainly on rumours. Nonetheless, the US's security measures will have a considerable impact on European ports.

What will the Commission do to secure agreement among the Member States when this problem is debated at the next meeting of the International Maritime Organisation? How will the Commission raise the issue of potential unilateral, protectionist regulations in the light of the international trade agreements concluded under the auspices of the WTO? What view does the Commission take of the possibility of an increase in container scanning, and can it provide a comparative calculation of the time and expense which will be involved in scanning each container?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The US security measures would only be acceptable within the international framework of rules established by the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) and the ILO (International Labour Organisation), particularly as regards measures with extraterritorial impact. International rules forbid the adoption of unilateral measures that would affect trade

Working parties have been set up in international fora to study the issue of checks on containers and persons and consider future regulatory action. The Member States and the Commission are currently working with industry to reach a European consensus on these issues, as witness the recent session of a special IMO working group.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0870/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Examination of possible breach of competition law

In late 2000, the pharmaceuticals distributor Kronan Droghandel lodged a complaint with the Commission against the Swedish Government and Apoteksbolaget (National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies) for breach of the Treaty. Kronan's action was in response to the joint plans of Apoteksbolaget and the Swedish Government to set up regional distribution centres. The aim of the Swedish Government in this respect was to create new jobs in places affected by the disbanding of military units.

Kronan considered that if Apoteksbolaget entered the market for pharmaceuticals distribution, it would strengthen its dominant position on the pharmaceuticals market through its monopoly on sales. In Kronan's view, that situation would be in breach of Swedish competition law (taken over from Community rules) which prohibits abuse of a dominant position and that, therefore, the Swedish Government and Apoteksbolaget would be in breach of their obligations under the Treaty.

The Commission was to examine whether there are grounds for the complaint. What is the outcome of that examination?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The Commission did indeed receive a complaint on 15 December 2000 alleging that the Swedish State-owned company Apoteksbolaget planned to extend its legal retail monopoly for pharmaceuticals in Sweden to the market for the wholesale sale of pharmaceuticals, thereby effectively foreclosing competition in the wholesale market.

However, as a similar complaint was lodged with the Swedish Competition Authority based on the Swedish Competition Act (which is closely modelled on Community competition law), the Commission decided that the Swedish Authority should take the lead in investigating the allegations. This was natural as the centre of gravity of the case was in Sweden. Moreover, this is in line with the Commission's planned modernisation of the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, involving a greater role for national authorities and courts(1).

In its decision of 6 June 2001, the Swedish Competition Authority concluded that there was no reason to reach a decision on the substance in view of the fact that Apoteksbolaget had withdrawn its plans to extend its activities. As a result, the complainant withdrew its complaint with the Commission. The case lodged with the Commission concerning the complaint referred to by the Honourable Member was accordingly closed.

(1) The envisaged legal basis for the modernisation of Community competition law is the Commission's proposal of 27 September 2000 for a Council Regulation on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty and amending Regulations (EEC) No 1017/68, (EEC) No 2988/74, (EEC) No 4056/86 and (EEC) No 3975/87 (Regulation implementing Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty), OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1603/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Funding for prototype riding helmet (L-TC158 WG 5) DG Enterprise

I would like to ask the Commission if it could give a factual response on the state of play of the above funding project and outline the reasons it sees for the continued delay.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

The Commission issued mandate M 281 for revising standard EN 1384 concerning helmets for equestrian sports (point 2 of the mandate). Initial Community funding for this work totalled EUR 15 317 (purchasing order 03/281/99-35 of 22 December 1999 concluded between the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the Commission).

An additional estimate for EUR 130 165 to fund lateral crush tests on riding helmets was submitted by the CEN to the Commission on 28 June 2000.

In a letter of 13 September 2000, the Commission replied to the CEN that it had no objections in principle to additional funding but requested information on the procedure for appointing the experts responsible for carrying out the studies, since conflicts of interest were emerging with the members of the CEN Technical Committee in charge of standardisation work. The Commission, in accordance with the rules in force, wanted to see greater transparency and impartiality in this dossier before committing any new appropriations, in particular via a call for applications.

In its letters of 19 February 2001 and 22 October 2001, the Commission urged the CEN to draw up a new estimate on the basis of an invitation to tender to launch this research while ensuring that work continued to progress on revising the standard.

Despite these reminders, the CEN has not submitted a new estimate to enable the Commission to fund this research.

The CEN has informed the Commission that a lateral crush test would be developed by the Chairman of Working Group 5 of Technical Committee 158 alongside the continuation of the standardisation work to revise standard EN 1 384. This work is due to be completed on 30 April 2003.

In order to encourage the research in question, the Commission is, however, still willing to make a financial contribution to the tests concerned on the basis of a request from the CEN.