ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1678/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Commission proposal for a Council Directive concerning the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of employment or self-employed activities

What is the legal basis for Article 11(3) of the Commission proposal for a Council Directive concerning the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of employment or self-employed activities(1)?

(1) COM(2001) 386 final, OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001, p. 248.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

The Commission proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities(1) is based on Article 63(3) of the EC Treaty. Article 63(3) is the legal basis for all provisions contained in this proposal, including Article 11(3).

(1) OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) in the UK

Is the Commission aware of the PFI approach in the UK and does the Commission consider it to be in line with existing public procurement legislation? Furthermore, does the Commission judge that such practices are in line with the Commission's proposal for a new directive on the coordination of procedures for the award of public supply contracts, public service contracts and public work contracts(1), particularly with regard to Articles 1(7) and 32? Finally, what would the Commission's evaluation be of the consequences were the Directive to be amended according to the amendments passed by the European Parliament, in particular Amendment 24?

(1) COM(2000) 275 final, OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001, p. 11.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The United Kingdom's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is a broad concept covering a multitude of arrangements where the public sector contracts to procure services using private sector management skills and private finance. The exact legal and economic make-up of a given PFI transaction will determine the extent to which the matter is regulated by public procurement legislation. Subject to this, a given PFI transaction may, for example, constitute a public contract within the scope of the Community public procurement directives, a works concession subjet to minimal regulation under Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts(1) or a services concession outside the scope of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts(2), and subject to general provisions of Community law. The Commission would therfore need a detailed description of any given transaction to be able to consider whether it is in conformity with existing or proposed legislation.

In its proposal of 10th May 2000 on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public supply, service and works contracts the Commission came forward with a new buying technique known as the competitive dialogue designed to allow a degree of flexibility in the award of particularly complex contracts. The Commission considers that the competitive dialogue may be an appropriate framework for, among other things, the award of complex PFI public contracts.

As regards Article 1(7) and Article 32 of the above proposal, the Commission is not aware of any general practices concerning the use of framework agreements in PFI contracts.

Concerning the Parliament's Amendment 24, the Commission has already indicated to the Parliament that it would be prepared to accept this amendment in principle if it is modified so as to clarify that several contracting authorities may enter into the same framework agreement at the same time.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0062/02

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

(23 January 2002)

Subject: The Spanish presidency's position on the budget forecasts and the implementation of the Structural Funds after 2006, when the new Member States have been fully incorporated

The Spanish presidency's priorities presented by the Spanish Head of Government, José María Aznar, and the Foreign Minister, Josep Piqué, do not include the negotiations for the budget

forecasts and the implementation of the Structural Funds after 2006. This is all the more serious in that they include the conclusion of negotiations with the most advanced countries in the second half of 2002.

Since this issue affects both the candidate countries and regions in the Union of fifteen such as Galicia, which may, after 2006, find themselves below the level of 75 % of the Community per capita average income, what reasons which cannot be made public can there be to explain why the Council presidency's priorities do not include the preparation of negotiations on these issues of vital importance for the shaping of the EU?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council stresses the importance it attaches to the policy of economic and social cohesion, as well as to the continuation of the negotiations with the candidate countries.

With respect to the budget forecasts up to 2006, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that it intends fully to respect the 2000-2006 financial perspective attached to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure(1). It particularly draws attention to point 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 which provides, on quite specific terms, for the 2000-2006 financial perspective to be adjusted, if need be, to cater for enlargement to include new Member States so as to take account of the expenditure requirements resulting from this enlargement.

Furthermore, on 30 January 2002, the Commission published a communication on the common financial framework 2004-2006 for the accession negotiations, which outlines the global approach the Commission intends to take in the draft common positions in the fields of agriculture, structural actions and the budget. The Council will obviously study both this approach and the Commission's draft common positions carefully.

With respect to the questions and the negotiations on the financial perspective and the budget forecasts, as well as on the implementation of the Structural Funds after 2006, these will be dealt with in due course, since the Council has not yet in fact received a proposal from the Commission regarding the Structural Funds.

The Council would also inform the Honourable Member that, where the Council's priorities for the 2003 budget are concerned, the Council adopted the budget guidelines for 2003 at its meeting on 5 March 2002.

(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/02

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 1999/13/EC on solvent emissions

Can the Commission indicate the current record of each Member State in implementing Directive 1999/13/EC(1) on solvent emissions?

Can the Commission indicate how the website which has been set up to facilitate implementation of the Directive is to be promoted and maintained and whether it could be a useful precedent for assisting implementation of other environmental directives?

(1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The record of Member States in transposing Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations is far from being satisfactory. In accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the Commission has initiated infringement procedures against all Member States for their failure to notify the transposing measures within the deadline laid down in the Directive. Eight infringements have been closed in the meantime, while Austria has received a reasoned opinion for having failed to transpose the Directive and cases against Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom are being brought before the Court of Justice. Moreover, the infringement procedure against Belgium is still under examination.

In relation to the website which has been set up to facilitate implementation of the Directive which is accessible from the Commission's web site, the Commission is examining options to ensure that the information on the web site remains up to date. It is too early to say whether the configuration of this particular web site will serve as a good model to assist in the implementation of other environmental directives. However, in general, internet based tools such as web sites clearly have a role to play in general in both communicating environmental legislation and in assisting in its implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0376/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2002)

Subject: Problem of stray animals in Greece

There is a very serious problem with the countless number of stray animals in Greece, for which there is no form of public welfare service.

Are there any Community initiatives for the protection of such stray animals? Have Community programmes for their protection ever been implemented in Greece? Have the Greek authorities received support for that purpose and what amount was involved? Has the Greek Government proposed any methods of resolving this problem? What is the Commission's assessment of the present and future situation in Greece in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2002)

There is no Community legislation on stray animals and in Greece, as in other Member States, this is a matter for local authorities with the possible assistance of non governmental organisations.

The Commission is not proposing any particular initiatives in this matter, which, under the principle of subsidiarity, is considered best left to be regulated within the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/02

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Proposed cuts in aid for citrus fruits

The Commission is currently considering a proposal to replace the current financial aid for citrus fruits to be delivered for processing with a flat-rate contribution of EUR 260 per hectare (as against the present figure of EUR 4 524,16). The current contribution is calculated by multiplying the Community aid per kilogram (EUR 0,13) by the average production per hectare (400 q), plus EUR 0,01 per kilo from the processing industry to which the fruit is delivered. The system currently being considered by the Commission would therefore cut producers' annual gross revenue from EUR 4 524,16 per hectare to EUR 260 per hectare!

Would the Commission not agree that a Community contribution of this size would result in orange growing being abandoned in most of the Union's production areas, particularly in those areas in which the bulk of the oranges grown are intended for industrial processing?

Given that the cost of producing 400 q of oranges (average production per hectare) stands at more than EUR 7 000 and the gross revenue would be EUR 260, on what basis is the Commission proposing that such a huge cut be made?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Commission is not considering changing the aid scheme for citrus fruits as described by the Honourable Member in his written question.

In the coming months the Commission will launch an evaluation of all the instruments available to the common organisation of the market in fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, starting with the aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of this exercise, which will be conducted by independent evaluators, it is no secret that one alternative to the present aid scheme is to provide area aid per hectare. This option will be analysed as such, among others.

The only official proposal from a Member State to convert the existing aid scheme into an area scheme per hectare was made by the Italian authorities in 1999 and again in 2002. This would indicate a consistent willingness on their part to continue promoting this policy line.

Any accusation that the Commission wishes to change the current aid scheme for citrus fruits in the way and to the extent described in the Honourable Member's question is thus totally unfounded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2221/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Euratom safeguard inspections

What plans does the Commission have to increase the coverage of Euratom safeguards inspections in the United Kingdom in connection with UK plans to immobilise a proportion of its unwanted plutonium into a stable matrix waste form?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Euratom safeguards applies to all civil nuclear materials in the Union. Safeguards on these materials are applied according to established Commission's goals and objectives, commensurate with the strategic value of the material concerned and independent of the Member State on which territory the materials are processed or stored. The Commission will therefore attribute the necessary resources to any new civil nuclear activities that are undertaken in the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2431/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Injection of growth hormone into dairy cattle

With the current EU moratorium due to expire on 16 December 2002, what steps is the Commission taking in order to ensure the continued ban on the injection of growth hormone into dairy cattle to promote bigger milk yields?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

It is assumed that the question of the Honourable Member refers to the prohibition of use of bovine somatotrophin (BST) established by Council Decision 1999/879/EC of 17 December 1999 concerning the placing on the market and administration of bovine somatotrophin (BST) and repealing Decision 90/218/EEC(1). The prohibition of use in this Decision has no time limit.

(1) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2540/02

by John Hume (PSE) to the Commission

(5 September 2002)

Subject: BNFL convoy from Japan to Sellafield

Is this Commission satisfied with the safety arrangements in place for the shipping of MOX fuel pellets from Japan to Sellafield through European waters scheduled for September 2002? Given that the reason for the return of the MOX pellets is the fact that false quality assurances had been given, what action will the Commission take to assure EU citizens, (especially those living around the Irish Sea) that such shipments will never take place in future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-1904/02 by Mrs Doyle(1).

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 252.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0791/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE)and Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Banning of a film in Turkey

The Associated Press reports from Ankara that the Turkish authorities have banned the screening of a Turkish film entitled Big Man, Small Love because it contains dialogue in Kurdish. The film was in fact partly funded by the Turkish Ministry for Culture, which issued the order not to show the film in cinemas because it considered that there was a problem with the inclusion of dialogue in Kurdish, despite the fact that Turkish subtitles were shown.

Is such a measure consistent with Turkey's conforming to standards of conduct befitting a European state? What action has the Commission taken in the past when violations of intellectual freedom and gross infringements of democratic freedoms in Turkey came to light? In how many cases did Turkey rectify the situation and which cases were those? What instructions does the Commission's delegation in Ankara follow when it discovers violations of the human rights and cultural identity of the minorities living in Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

The film Big Man Small Love was banned in March 2002 by the Cinema, Video and Musical Works Supervision Board, following a report from the police alleging incitement to chauvinism, separatism in relation to the 'so called' Kurdish language. Apparently, the police was offended by a scene in the film of a bloody police raid on a Kurdish house. The ban is clearly not in line with the principles of freedom of expression under the Copenhagen political criteria.

In the context of the political dialogue under the pre-accession strategy with Turkey, the Union regularly raises matters of concern relating to the political criteria. It discusses general developments including reforms but also individual cases. Moreover, the Commission reports on developments and progress in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria in its Regular Report. The last report was published in November 2001 and the next one is due in October 2002.

The Commission Representation in Turkey has the task of monitoring the political and other developments in Turkey. In this context, it has established wide-ranging contacts in Turkey including with representatives of public authorities, the private sector, non governmental organisations. The Commission is part of the political dialogue mentioned above. In some cases it attends individual court cases in the field of human rights in Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1697/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Compensation for fishermen and ship-owners in the event of temporary cessation of activities

Small-scale coastal fishing is of great socio-economic importance for the fishing communities dependent on it. Periods of temporary cessation of activity, for example because of biological rest periods, call for due compensation. In the case of Portugal, storms and poor sea conditions during long periods in winter are of particular significance, as are biological rest periods, particularly for sardines in the North, and fishing for bivalves using dredges in the Algarve.

Commissioner Fischler, in his answer to Written Question E-1648/01(1) of 12 June 2001, said that there is provision for such compensation in Community legislation and it may be granted to Member States, in accordance with the criteria specified in Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999(2) of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector. However, this fact, albeit positive, does not in itself ensure the implementation of this measure in the various Member States of the European Union.

In view of this, can the Commission say whether, in the context of the revision of the common fisheries policy, it intends to introduce a system of Community aid to compensate fishermen and ship-owners in the event of temporary cessation of activities, to be financed or cofinanced by the Community budget?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 167.

(2) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Article 16 (Temporary cessation of activities and other financial compensation) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector provides for compensation to be paid where fishing activities are stopped temporarily.

As part of the reform of the common fisheries policy, the draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 contains a number of changes to Article 16, including the extension from two to three months of the period for which compensation may be granted in the event of unforeseen circumstances arising in particular from biological causes.

Where the Council adopts a multiannual management plan or the Commission or one or more Member States adopt emergency measures, the limits set for the period 2000-2006 of EUR 1 million or 4 % of the financial contribution from the Community awarded to the industry in the Member State in question may be exceeded, provided the measure includes a decommissioning programme for the withdrawal, in the two-year period following adoption of the measure, of a certain number of fishing vessels with a fishing effort at least equivalent to that of vessels whose fishing activities are suspended as a result of the plan or emergency measure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1109/02

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE)and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Protection of human rights in Algeria

In the light of the flagrant violations of human rights which have occurred in Algeria and of the new framework for cooperation between the EU and the Mediterranean countries which, in accordance with the Union's decision, must be based on the principles of human rights, how will the Council ensure that the human rights situation in Algeria is taken up as a specific topic for discussion at all meetings held in the context of the EU-Algeria Association Council, in application of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation process (Barcelona process)?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Council is keeping a close watch on matters concerning respect for human rights in Algeria. In 1997 it instituted a political dialogue with Algeria at ministerial level. This is where the Council, represented by the Troika, regularly raises issues relating to respect for human rights and strongly urges that any departure from this or any abuse, even as part of the fight against terrorism, be avoided.

The Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement was signed with Algeria in Valencia on 22 April 2002 and will come into force following the assent of the European Parliament and ratification by the Member States. Respect for human rights is an essential element of this Agreement which guides the Parties' external and domestic policies. Moreover, it institutionalises regular political dialogue at various levels, particularly within the Association Council, on all matters of mutual interest.

As long as respect for human rights poses a problem in Algeria, human rights questions will feature on the agenda for the political dialogue, whether that established in 1997 or that to be institutionalised by the Association Agreement, once it comes into force. At the political dialogue meeting in Brussels on 5 December 2001, the EU requested Algeria to provide it with information on the fate of a number of missing persons and asked it to cooperate with UN mechanisms and with NGOs in the area of human rights. A meeting of the same nature took place in Algiers on 5 June 2002, providing another opportunity to continue discussion of these matters with the Algerian authorities.