ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1344/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(13 May 2002)

Subject: Incorporation of motor vehicles into the Italian motor vehicle register

Further to my Written Question of 12 April 2000 (E 1450/00(1)) and to the answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission on 5 June 2000, can the Commission indicate whether, on the basis of the ruling recently handed down in Case C-451/99, it has changed its views on the legal issues involved? How will it proceed in this matter?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 193.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2002)

In its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question No E-1450/00, the Commission had stated that it was prepared to re-examine the possibility of taking initiatives concerning the residence or place of establishment requirement when registering vehicles, depending on the Court of Justice ruling in case C-451/99, Cura Anlagen. This ruling was handed down by the Court of Justice on 21 March 2002.

The Commission had already stated in its answer to Written Question No E-1450/00 that this question had to be examined in relation to the freedom to provide services under the terms of Article 49 of the EC Treaty. This approach has been confirmed by the Court of Justice.

In particular, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 49 precludes legislation which imposes a requirement that the person in whose name the vehicle is registered in the Member State of use reside or have a place of business there, in so far as it obliges a leasing undertaking either to have a principal place of business in that Member State or to accept registration of the vehicle in the name of the lessee and the consequent limitation of its rights over the vehicle.

As a result, the Commission intends to immediately investigate any infringements similar to the case brought before the Court of Justice, in order to bring the Member States' legislation in line with this case law.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1324/02

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2002)

Subject: Danish Football Association (DBU) rules on non-EU citizens

Two Danish football clubs, AB and Vejle BK, met on 14 April 2002. AB, who were leading 4-0, brought on a Polish player when they already had three non-EU players on the pitch. Under DBU rules, a team is allowed to field only three non-EU players, and the substitution was therefore against DBU rules.

As a result, AB lost the match 0-3 on the basis of an administrative ruling.

However, the European Union has an association agreement with Poland, pursuant to which Polish workers lawfully resident in an EU Member State have equal status with EU workers.

Will the Commission therefore confirm whether or not a Polish footballer is to be regarded as an EU worker in the footballing context under the association agreement?

Will it also explain which rules take precedence if EU and DBU rules conflict with one another as regards the nationalities whose holders are to be counted as non-EU citizens?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

As regards nationality clauses in the rules of sporting associations, the Commission wishes to refer to the judgement of the European Court of Justice in the Bosman-case(1) in which the Court held that Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC-Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations limiting the participation of players who are nationals of other Member States.

The Europe agreement between the Communities and Poland provides in Article 37(1) that the treatment accorded to workers of Poland legally employed in the territory of a Member State, shall be free from any discrimination based on nationality, as regards working conditions, remuneration or dismissal, as compared to its own nationals.

When a Polish player has been granted a work permit and recruited by a sports club, a sports association may not limit the right of the player to participate in competitions it is organising. Not fielding the Polish player in a match means discrimination based on nationality as regards working conditions.

According to the case-law of the European Court of Justice(2) the first indent of Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement must be held to have direct effect, so that Polish nationals who assert it may also rely on it before the national courts of the host Member State. The provisions of the Europe Agreement take precedence if Union and the rules of the Danish Football Association (DBU) conflict with one another.

(1) Case C-415/93, Bosman, 115 ECR I-4921, points 115-137.

(2) Case C-162/00, ECJ 29.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1159/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(16 April 2002)

Subject: Progress in the Commission's investigation into the outbreaks of legionnaires' disease in Alcoy (Valencia region, Spain)

In February 2001 the Commission informed the author of this question that, at her request, it had contacted the Spanish authorities in order to investigate the continuing outbreaks of legionnaires' disease in Alcoy (case No 2001/2048). According to the answer to question P-3913/00(1) the Commission acknowledged a possible infringement of Directive 80/778/EEC(2) on the quality of water intended for human consumption.

In reply to another question by the same Member, the Commission gave a further answer on 16 July 2001 (P-1937/01(3)) in which it stated that it had just received information from the Spanish authorities which the relevant departments were examining.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made in dealing with case No 2001/2048?

Can the Commission specify what was said in the answer from the Spanish authorities?

Is the Commission already in a position to determine whether there has been an infringement of Directive 80/778/EEC in Alcoy?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 34.

(2) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 11.

(3) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 144.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Following Written Question P-3913/00 by the Honourable Member, the Commission opened an own-initiative case, registered as No 2001/2048, to check that the Spanish authorities were applying Community law properly in this particular instance.

As part of its examination of the case, the Commission sent the Spanish authorities a letter asking them to comment on the situation reported by the Honourable Member and on the application, in this particular instance, of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption(1).

The competent Commission departments have examined the response by the Spanish authorities. Following an analysis of the information supplied and of the accompanying reports, the Commission considers that the Spanish authorities have taken the appropriate steps to identify the root of the problem and its spread, and that the necessary measures have been taken to remedy the situation. Furthermore, protocols for monitoring the quality of water intended for human consumption have been put in place to avoid the repetition of such cases. Lastly, the proper procedures have been followed in providing information to the public.

The papers in the case show that the Spanish authorities have done all that is necessary to ensure that effective action is being taken to combat the outbreaks of legionnaires' disease in Alcoy. The analysis of this case does not point to any infringement of the Community laws in force. Consequently, the Commission has decided to drop the case.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0868/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Quality control of bathing water

In protest against the Union's directive on the quality control of water in bathing areas, the municipality of Borlänge announced in August 2000 that it no longer had any bathing areas.

In explanation, the newspaper Dala-Demokraten quoted the town's environment officer as saying that sampling was too expensive and that the press just caused trouble.

The municipality of Borlänge thereby hoped to avoid additional expenditure for sampling by ceasing to designate its bathing areas as such for the EU's list.

Is it possible to avoid sampling the quality of bathing water in this manner?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2002)

The question refers to the obligation of monitoring bathing waters under the Bathing Water Directive (Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water(1)). The Directive provides a clear definition of bathing water, i.e. all running or still fresh waters or parts thereof (), in which bathing is explicitly authorised by the Member State, or bathing is not prohibited and is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers. Based on this definition Member States have the responsibility to identify bathing waters and to ensure the necessary monitoring.

Sweden has since its accession to the Union in 1995 never identified bathing waters in the Borlänge municipality, and therefore never provided monitoring results on them. The three bathing waters being closest to Borlänge are situated in the Säter municipality (Hyen, Ljusternbadet, Sovarbo). These waters were monitored in 2001 and will be part of the Commission annual bathing water report to be published shortly.

The Commission will take the opportunity of this question to enquire with the Swedish authorities whether there is reason to reconsider the fact of not identifying bathing areas in the Borlänge municipality. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member directly of the outcome of this enquiry.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1770/02

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 June 2002)

Subject: Ireland's voting on the 6th research framework programme in relation to decisions in other areas

The Irish press reports that the way Ireland votes on the 6th research framework programme or on specific research programmes is to be linked with decisions in other areas such as agriculture and government aid.

The fear has been expressed that, if Ireland fails to fulfil expectations concerning support for research, the country may be subjected to sanctions in other areas.

Does the Commission share the view that such reports may strengthen opponents of the Nice Treaty in a possible second referendum? Can the Commission make it clear that Ireland has the same rights as all other Member States in respect of voting in the Council and, in particular, that the Republic of Ireland is entitled to make demands of the specific research programmes and to reject one or more programmes if important requirements are not met?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

The Irish government, as the government of any other Member State, has the right to present and defend its opinion in the Council, in the context of the decision making process leading to the adoption of Community legislation. In doing so, it may choose to vote in favor or against any legislative proposal. A position taken in one area has no consequences for decisions in another area. This applies evidently also to the decisions concerning the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development and its Specific Programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Treatment of fish with water-binding substances to increase their total weight

There have been reports in the German specialist press about a method of processing fish and fish products which misleads consumers. Products are said to be in use in the Netherlands which bind excess water, thus artificially increasing the weight of the final product. These substances, known collectively as Tari, are allegedly used in both fillets and whole fish. The active ingredients are said to be proteins, so that the European ban on the use of phosphates does not apply. The proteins added are not listed on the label of the final product, in violation of the relevant legislation.

The consumer suffers because the 5-15 % weight gain, which is reflected in the price of the product, is entirely lost when the fish is cooked. Furthermore, the consumer is not informed that the substances have been added.

As well as this, the parts of the industry which do not use these unfair methods are affected by the competitive disadvantage they suffer.

1. Is the Commission aware of fish being treated in this way, in the Netherlands or elsewhere?

2. What can be done to prevent this practice, which is prejudicial to the interests of consumers and honest producers alike?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Council Directive 91/493/EEC, of 22 July 1991, laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(1), states clearly which treatments for fishery products are authorised. The use of substances binding excess water in fishery products is forbidden in the Directive.

The Commission has received a reply from the Dutch authorities regarding the treatment of fish with water-binding substances to increase their total weight. They confirm that in the Netherlands the use of these substances is illegal.

In their reply, the Dutch authorities stated that they are examining the situation following which any appropriate and necessary action will be taken.

The Commission is not aware of fish being treated in this way elsewhere.

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0284/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: EU-funded projects in Israel

Could the Commission give an assessment of the damage inflicted by the Israeli army upon EU-funded projects? What measures does the Commission intend to take as a result?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

The Commission, upon request of the Union Presidency, has compiled a preliminary list of Community-funded (Commission and Member States) projects which have either been destroyed or damaged by Israeli military forces. This is a tentative estimate and the assessment is ongoing.

The exercise has, for the time being, been limited to the replacement costs of physical infrastructure (construction and equipment), excluding indirect losses such as project delays or suspensions. The amount indicated in the attached list is a conservative estimate and is likely to rise. Moreover, the list does not make reference to a number of Community-funded projects which are unable to function properly due to Israeli military actions, for instance access to the European hospital in Gaza or delays (as a result of closures of access to raw materials) to infrastructure projects.

This matter was discussed at the General Affairs Council (GAC) of 28 and 29 January 2002. The conclusions of this GAC meeting state categorically that:

The European Union is seriously concerned at the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and other facilities which help Palestinians in their economic, social and humanitarian development and which are financed by the European Union and other donors. The European Union urges the Government of Israel to put an end to this practice and reserves the right to claim preparation in the appropriate fora.

The Commission is continuing the ongoing assessment in close coordination with Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1325/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 May 2002)

Subject: Access to information on fisheries policy

Publication of the first package of legislative reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy is currently delayed for at least another month. However, copies of the proposals under discussion have been circulating freely for the some weeks. Many NGOs and industry organisations apparently have access to drafts but MEPs cannot officially obtain copies even of those parts of the package not still under negotiation. In the interests of a level playing field of information and meaningful consultation with MEPs will the Commission formally review its procedures for providing draft copies to interested parties, including MEPs?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-1319/02, P-1325/02 and P-1341/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Members that it has not given access to or sent out copies of its draft proposals on the Common Fischeries Policy (CFP) reform to non-governmental organisations (NGO's), industry organisations or to any other stakeholders.

The CFP reform proposals will be published upon adoption by the Commission, in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1197/02

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Commissioners' salaries

There has been much talk about MEPs' possible future Rules of Procedure and salaries. Less has been said about the Commissioners' salaries and their social privileges.

What institution decides about the Commissioners' salaries, social advantages and taxation, in what documents are these decisions taken and what is a Commissioner's current salary (in euros)? What is the level of the residence allowance, and is it tax-free or taxable? What is the average percentage of the Commissioner's income payable in EU tax and the Commissioner's severance allowance at the end of his or her term of office?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

The Rules of Procedure and salaries of Member of the Parliament's are, of course, not matters for the Commission.

The terms, conditions and rewards of employment for Commissioners are a matter of public record and all details have been given in answers to previous Parliamentary questions (i.e. written questions E-2046/99 by Mr Titford(1), E-2235/99 by Mr Huhne(2), and others) and elsewhere.

The legal basis for Commissioner's salaries is set down in Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom(3) and it determines the emoluments of the President, Vice-presidents and Members of the Commission; the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice and of the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance(4).

(1) OJ C 221, 3.8.2000.

(2) OJ C 280, 3.10.2000.

(3) OJ L 187, 8.8.1967.

(4) As last amended by Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2778/98 of 17 December 1998, OJ L 347, 23.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1993/02

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Mail to the Canary Islands

A letter mailed from Strasbourg can take as long as 17 days to reach the Canary Islands, even though there are daily flights, direct or indirect, between the two locations. What action does the Commission propose to take to remedy this state of affairs, which is a visible obstacle to the operation of the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Postal Directive 97/67/EC(1) sets requirements at Union level for setting the quality of universal postal service targets, for performing its independent measurement and for publishing the performance results.

In particular, the quality standards for intra-community cross border services have been set for the fastest standard category of mail services in the Directive's Annex as follows: 85 % of the mail should be delivered within three working days after postage, whilst 97 % should be delivered within five working days after postage of the letter. The Canary Islands are not subject to any exceptions to these requirements.

As a consequence, a priority letter that would take seventeen days to be delivered from Strasbourg to the Canary Islands would not fulfil the requirements of the Postal Directive, unless exceptional circumstances had occurred.

The latest available independent quality measurement results(2) show that Spain meets, roughly(3), the expected standards in the flow of mail from France to Spain. However, these results do not specify the information for particular places within the Member States. For this reason, the Commission services shall make inquiries to the Spanish regulatory authority (Ministerio de Fomento) and, if necessary, the French authorities, about the measurement results for mail from France to the Canary Islands, and may take appropriate measures if the required standards are not fulfilled.

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2) International Post Corporation, Unex results for 2001, available athttp://www.ipc.be/documents/2001_UNEX_Results.pdf.

(3) 86 % in D+3 and 96.4 % in D+5.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1154/02

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

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Commission presence at the Fifth World Avocado Congress

The Fifth World Avocado Congress will be held in the Málaga and Granada provinces and will be attended by 700 participants, 100 of whom are engaged in research.

The Congress will focus on avocado marketing, as well as on different varieties and diseases. In the light of the forthcoming World Congress, the deplorable lack of health protection for this plant has prompted calls in the above-mentioned provinces to set in motion the necessary mechanisms for quality control and species protection.

Does the Commission believe that, in view of its special powers under the CAP, it should play an important role in the World Avocado Congress forums and discussions to promote avocado production in the provinces of Málaga and Granada, which represents 87 % of European avocado production and 97 % of Spanish avocado production?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for informing it of the Fifth World Avocado Congress in October 2003 in the Málaga and Granada provinces. It was not invited to take part in any of the first four congresses. If during the 18 months still to run before the fifth congress the organisers ask it to take part it will examine, bearing in mind the limit on the staff at its disposal, whether a presence is needed.