ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/02

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: The EU and the risk of war between India and Pakistan

The extremely serious developments of recent days would appear to point towards the possibility of an all-out war between India and Pakistan, which would have a disastrous effect on the entire region given that both countries have nuclear weapons. Would the Commission not agree that it should take urgent diplomatic action, using all the means at its disposal including a mission by High Representative Javier Solana, to avert such a tragedy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's concern about tensions between India and Pakistan, which have reached a dangerous level. A military conflict, with the inherent risk of spilling into a nuclear war, would indeed have unimaginable consequences for Pakistan, India, the region and beyond.

The international community has taken an active interest in trying to help defuse tensions and to convince both sides to de-escalate and resume dialogue.

This was the aim of the Commissioner in charge of External relations when he visited Islamabad and Delhi on 22-24 May 2002, where he met, inter alia, Pakistan President Musharraf and Indian Foreign Minister Singh.

These intensive international efforts have, at the time of drafting (mid-June 2002), led to first confidence-building steps, which could initiate a reciprocal process of de-escalation. Reports that India has sent warships back to port, re-opened its airspace to Pakistan and envisages re-appointing a High Commissioner to Islamabad are encouraging and should be built upon.

It remains however important that the international community continues to actively monitor the situation and keeps pressing to ensure that President Musharraf effectively delivers to stop cross-border infiltration in a visible, effective and verifiable way. Furthermore, India and Pakistan need to enter into a genuine dialogue on the underlying Kashmir issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1837/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: A European tax to finance the Community budget

The proposal made by the Commission presidency for the creation of a European tax to finance the Community budget has elicited a wide range of reactions and comments in political, business and economic circles, despite the absence so far of any concrete details to back it up.

Given the Commission's powers of initiative as conferred on it by the Treaties, it is clear that the proposal will receive consideration for the medium- and long-term future, even though it remains hypothetical and has not, for the moment, led to any concrete decisions.

Can the Commission state whether this proposal for a European tax to finance the Community budget is based on any concrete initiative on the Commission's part, and provide information on the state of progress concerning any studies which have may have been drawn up by experts to propose to the Commission the structural bases which might support its President's proposal?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Following Article 9 of the Council Decision of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities own resources (2000/597/EC, Euratom)(1), the Commission shall undertake, before 1 January 2006, a general review of the own resources system. It committed itself before the Parliament to perform this review by the end of 2004. As part of the review, the question of creating new autonomous resources should be addressed.

Ahead of this review, it could be useful to open a political debate with regard to the main options to tackle future revisions of the Union financing system. This could involve an examination how to maintain the level of ressources needed to support EU policies in view of enlargement and to respond in the budgetary field, while respecting the principle of equity, to the need to better connect Europe and its Institutions to the general public by increasing their democratic accountability and transparency, a horizontal theme guiding the wider debate on the future of Europe.

These issues could in particular be discussed in the Convention on the future of Europe.

The outcome of these discussions will then be taken into account for the general review of the own resources system that the Commission shall undertake and in the preparations of the accompanied concrete proposals.

(1) OJ L 253, 7.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Friesland salvage operation

Is the Commission aware of the case of Peter Devlin, who led a team of divers (British nationals) salvaging tin ingots with the authorisation of the Spanish Government from the wreck of the Friesland

off the Galicia coast, but was subsequently arrested with his colleagues in June and now faces criminal and civil proceedings in Galicia for activities authorised by the national government?

Has the Commission made representations to the Spanish national authorities and the Galician Government at what appears to be a clear breach of the Treaty of Rome's provisions on the free movement of goods, services, capital and people?

Does it feel that Mr Devlin and his team may have a claim for compensation if it turns out that this is merely an internal Spanish quarrel?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the case involving criminal and civil proceedings in Spain to which to the honourable Member's question refers.

It should be noted that it is not possible, on the basis of the information given in the written question, to judge the substance of the case. In particular, the question does not point to any factors that could constitute a manifest infringement of the provisions on free movement laid down in the Treaty of Rome.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2253/02

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Withdrawal of banknotes from cash dispensers in the euro zone

Under the provisions of Regulation 2560/2001(1) of 19 December 2001, from 1 July the entire euro zone constitutes an internal market in which people travelling outside their country in the euro zone will be able to withdraw money from cash dispensers under the same conditions as in their own country.

The intention of this Regulation is clearly to have a single currency in the internal market. However, I have received letters from customers of Sogenal in France and the Caisse d'Epargne de L'Etat in Luxembourg stating that anyone wishing to withdraw money in other euro zone countries or in their own country but from cash dispensers of banks other than their own will be obliged to pay increased charges. All this seems to me to be incompatible with the provisions of Regulation 2560/2001.

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to resolve these problems?

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

The provisions of Regulation No 2560/2001 of 19 December 2001 relating to charges for withdrawing money from cash dispensers(1) have been in force since 1 July 2002. Consequently, cardholders pay the same charges for withdrawing money in their country of origin as in other euro zone countries.

In 2001 charges for withdrawing money from cash dispensers varied widely from one country to another. In certain countries charges made for this transaction if they exist at all are identical for all cash dispensers. In others, charges vary according to the network concerned; cardholders pay different charges according to whether they use a cash dispenser belonging to their own bank or to a rival establishment. In the second instance, withdrawals carried out abroad are considered as being withdrawals from a rival bank. This situation is compatible with the Regulation if it really costs the same to withdraw money from a rival bank in the country of origin as it does to withdraw money abroad.

The Honourable Member is probably referring to the announcement by a major French bank that it was going to start charging for withdrawals made from banks outside its network; such withdrawals, it announced, would be subject to charges after the fourth transaction of the month performed outside the network. The Commission protested via the press, because the information disseminated by the bank in question suggested that the measure was a direct result of implementing the Regulation, although another major French bank has been doing the same for several years.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3491/02

by Renzo Imbeni (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Adapting the occupation of customs agent in response to EU enlargement

EU enlargement will lead to the abolition of customs formalities relating to trade with the new countries, which will then be part of the Union. Will the Commission say whether or not such abolition will be gradual and whether or not customs documents will continue to be issued in respect of trade with those countries, such as the T2 form for goods under the internal Community transit scheme which are transported across one of the countries concerned?

If there is to be wholesale abolition of customs formalities, is the Commission intending to submit to the Council a proposal for a regulation laying down Community flanking measures for the benefit of customs agents, including special initiatives additional to the Structural Fund measures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to written question E-2488/02 from Mr G. Lisi.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2995/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 26 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote a safety culture among shipowners, salaried and independent fishermen and public administration in the world of fisheries in each phase of their activities, including prevention, which should be reflected in vocational and continuing training and incorporate the most modern technology in localisation and life-saving equipment. Such training must include the improvement and maximisation of safety.

Paragraph 28 Asks that this safety culture should be required, in particular, as part of vocational training for young seafarers preparing to undertake fishing activities.

What measures has the Commission since adopted to promote this safety culture in the fishing industry?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission has adopted the Communication entitled Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006(1) which rests on the consolidation of a culture of risk prevention, the combination of different policy instruments legislation, social dialogue, innovative approaches and identification of best practice, corporate social responsibility and financial incentives and the establishment of partnerships involving all health and safety actors.

In particular, acknowledging that the promotion of well-being at work cannot be realised through health and safety policy alone, the Communication provides for the development of an approach based on coordination with other policies aimed at prevention-based protection, in particular policies on transport, the environment and civil protection and the common fisheries policy. As far as the common fisheries policy is concerned, the Commission will invite the social partners to identify measures aimed at improving living, working and safety conditions in the fisheries sector, to strengthen the role of women within the sector and to contribute to job creation, notably among young people, in the regions which depend on this sector.

(1) COM(2002) 118 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2194/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: Industrial fishing geared to the processing of fish into meal

Given the alleged scarcity of Community fisheries resources and the drastic recovery plans which the Commission intends to implement for certain species, does the Commission not consider it necessary to reconsider the question of industrial fishing devoted exclusively to the processing of fish into meal for animal feed?

Could the needs of the Community domestic market not be met by imports from third countries and by European industries which process meal exclusively from fishery byproducts?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Fishing for reduction to fish meal should target fish for which there is no market for direct human consumption. Industrial fishing, like other types of fishing, will be subject to the conservation and management measures developed under the Community framework programme (CFP), including multi-annual management plans.

The Commission has recently asked the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to carry out an evaluation of the impact of industrial fishing on marine ecosystems. It will continue to monitor the conduct of industrial fisheries to ensure that their impact on human consumption fish species and other marine species remains low and improved management measures will be proposed as appropriate.

As regards the appropriateness of substituting Community production with imports the Honourable Member is referred to the answer to his written question E-2192/02(1).

It does not appear that the proportion of fish meal coming from processing byproducts can be increased substantially at this time. In 2001 an estimated 170 000 tonnes of fish meal was produced by this sector. The relative share of production from this source by Member State was: United Kingdom 26 %, Spain, 24 %, Denmark 17 %, Ireland 9,5 %, Sweden 9,5 %, France 7 % and Germany 7 %. There are indications that this sector may reduce in size due to difficulties in meeting the requirements of Council Directive 2001/102/EC(2). Because the raw material can come from many different sources and sampling is to be on a lot basis, the dioxin limits could mean that some of this material will be debarred from use in animal nutrition in the future.

(1) See page 35.

(2) Council Directive 2001/102/EC of 27 November 2001 amending Directive 1999/29/EC on the undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition, OJ L 6, 10.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Classification of Galicia as a fisheries-dependent area

Since recent events have once more highlighted the major importance to Galicia of its maritime and fisheries resources, will the Commission now take the necessary action to ensure that Galicia is classified as a fisheries-dependent area, and that this designation under the common fisheries policy has the requisite consequences?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

As indicated in the Commission's joint answer to written questions E-2097/02 and E-2096/02(1), the concept of fisheries dependence appears in article 4.8. of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(2) which defines the general objectives and tasks of the Community Structural Funds and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) as an eligibility criterion for Objective 2 regions. This concept was introduced in this regulation after Spain and Portugal had become Member States and thus taken into account when these two Member States and the Commission drew up the list of areas eligible under Objective 2, in conformity to article 4.3 and 4.4 of Council regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

With respect to the tanker Prestige which shipwrecked off the coast of Galicia in November 2002, the Commission has closely followed this catastrophy and its impact on the fishing fleet of Galicia and for the whole fishery sector.

To help alleviate the consequences of this disaster, the Commission proposed to the Council certain modifications to the existing legal framework for structural interventions in the fishing sector to support the fishing fleet and the aquaculture sector in that area in order to provide financial aid.

As a result of this proposal, the Council adopted on 20 December 2002 Regulation (EC) No 2372/2002 instituting specific measures to compensate the Spanish fisheries, shellfish industry and aquaculture affected by the oil spills from the Prestige(3).

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 182.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(3) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2958/02

by Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Commission Decision 2002/525/EC of 27 June 2002 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles

Pursuant to Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of 18 September 2000(1) on end-of life vehicles, the use of lead balance weights is to be prohibited from 1 July 2003 for vehicles type-approved after that date and for all vehicles after 1 July 2005. Lead balance weights constitute an important safety element for vehicles by preventing wheel vibration and knocking.

Can the Commission indicate whether prior inquiries were made to ensure that alternative materials for balance weights are available which can guarantee the same safety level as lead balance weights?

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

The Commission has carefully prepared Commission Decision 2002/525/EC(1) amending Annex II of this Directive in light of an elaborate scientific and technical assessment. This assessment included a technical study completed by an independent consultant as well as investigations carried out directly by the Commission. The Commission also benefited from several meetings with the concerned economic operators, as well as discussions with the Member States experts within the Technical Adaptation Committee referred to by Article 11 of the Directive.

The technical study is available on the Commission's web site, at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/heavy_metals.pdf. Pages 12-20 of this study analyse the situation for lead in wheel balance weights. This study confirms the availability of substitutes for lead in wheel balance weight and states that some substitutes are already in use. It concludes that a temporary exemption until 1 July 2004 seems adequate, in order to allow for the necessary adjustments and to leave time for the alternative market to grow.

On the basis of its overall assessment, the Commission proposed to include lead in wheel balance weights in the list of exemptions of the revised Annex II. More specifically, the Commission proposed to temporarily allow the use of lead for wheel balance weights on vehicle models type-approved before 1 July 2003 as well as for wheel balance weights used by the repair and service sector in relation to these vehicles. The Commission proposed 1 July 2005 as expiry date for this exemption. On 22 May 2002, the Technical Adaptation Committee unanimously voted in favour of the proposal, including the temporary exemption for wheel balance weights.

It should also be noted that the Commission will closely monitor the implementation of Commission Decision 2002/525/EC. By 1 January 2005, the Commission will assess, among others, the temporary exemption for lead in wheel balance weights in relation to road-safety aspects.

(1) OJ L 170, 29.6.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2372/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

We recognise that many of the concerns felt by local/regional authorities within the EU with regard to GATS, particularly the delivery of health, education and other essential services, are shared by sub-national governments across the world, including developing countries. Given that the EU is a major donor to developing countries in areas such as health and education, has the European Commission carried out an independent assessment of the potential impact of GATS on service delivery in these sectors and EU development policy?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Since the European Communities have not included any requests for improved market access in the health and education sectors to developing countries in its initial requests, the Commission has not undertaken any specific assessment of the potential impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on service delivery in these sectors and Union development policy. Nevertheless, the Commission is working with some of the Member States and other major international partners to further document the potential impact of GATS on service delivery for poor people, both women and men, and to inform our positions.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3731/02

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Report on the implementation of Directive 98/6/EC of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (price indication per unit)

Directive 98/6/EC(1) made it compulsory to indicate the selling price and the unit price of products offered to consumers. The directive should have been implemented by 18 March 2000 at the latest. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive, however, a number of Member States made use of the transitional period of up to 3 years during which firms were not required to indicate the price per unit for products other than those sold in bulk.

Under Article 12 the Commission is required to submit a report by 18 March 2003 on the implementation of the directive, particularly on the application of Article 6, together with a proposal.

By making it compulsory to display the unit price the European legislator sought to enable the consumer to make a quick and simple comparison of prices for each product. However, this requirement involves an excessive administrative effort for small retail stores, at any rate for those with sales areas under 400 m2, and will have a proportionately much more serious effect on them than on larger retailers.

It is also not of much real advantage to the consumer, for two reasons. Firstly, the opportunities for comparison in small retail shops are very limited in view of the narrow range of goods which a small shop necessarily has on offer. Secondly, the most important factor for the consumer in deciding to patronise this kind of shop is their proximity, rather than the price of the products sold.

When does the Commission propose to submit its evaluation report to the European Parliament?

Does the Commission consider that small retail stores should in future be completely exempted from the obligation to show the unit price? Does not the Commission think that the imposition of this kind of requirement on the whole of the retail trade would be incompatible with earlier commitments to stimulate business in the EU and reduce administrative burdens?

(1) OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p. 27.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The Commission understands the Honourable Member's view that it would not be wise to charge small retail stores with unnecessary costs, although the price indication is an important element for consumer protection.

The Commission is currently gathering information in order to prepare the report under article 12 of the Directive 98/6/EC. In this context, the report will indeed examine the issue as to whether the obligation to indicate the unit price constitutes a serious burden for certain small retail businesses. It is not possible, at this stage, to anticipate the conclusions of the report, which, once finalised, will be submitted to the Parliament and the Council.