ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2955/02

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 October 2002)

Subject: Data retention

Data preservation and not data retention is the principle on which protection of potential evidence is based in the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention. This has been supported by all EU Member States and, among others, the USA and Japan. Does the Commission believe that it is wise to go beyond what is in the Convention even before it has entered into force?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission believes that it is wise to go beyond the preservation regime of stored traffic data adopted in the Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-crime even before it has entered into force.

The Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-crime establishes specific requirements for international co-operation in the fight against cyber crime. While this Convention requires obligations for preservation of stored traffic data, it leaves the contracting parties free to adopt other measures necessary in the fight against crime.

Under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, it is up to each Member State adopting traffic data retention measures to provide evidence that the public interest objective pursued cannot be achieved through less privacy invasive measures such as, for instance, data preservation.

The Commission is fully engaged in ensuring compatibility between data protection and privacy rights and law enforcement needs. It considers that a consistent approach in all Member States on traffic data retention would be highly desirable, to meet the objectives of both proportionality and effectiveness and to avoid the situation where both law enforcement and the Internet community would have to deal with a patchwork of diverse technical and legal environments.

The issue addressed by the Honourable Member, traffic data retention, has been discussed in the Commission Communication on Cyber-crime(1). In its Communication, the Commission pointed out that any solution on this complex issue should be well founded, proportionate and achieve a fair balance between the different interests and fundamental human rights at stake. Only an approach that brings together the expertise and capacities of government, industry, data protection supervisory authorities and other interested parties as users will succeed in meeting such goals. Since then, the Commission has launched a large debate on this issue within the framework of the Union Forum on Cyber-crime, which has involved the Council, the Parliament and various other stakeholders. These discussions have not yet been completed and the Commission therefore considers premature to draw any conclusions on whether there is a need for any legislative action at Union level.

(1) COM(2000) 890 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3468/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Iberian lynx

Has the Commission made contributions to efforts designed to reverse the impending extinction of the Iberian lynx? Is the Commission aware of any breeding programmes, in captivity or in the wild? Are any EC funds allocated towards such a breeding programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

The Commission has supported, for several years already, conservation projects targeted at the Iberian lynx in both Portugal and Spain. In particular, several LIFE-Nature projects received community funding for increasing the knowledge about the species and for creating adequate conditions, in terms of habitats and food resources, for the conservation of the Iberian lynx on sites where it still can be found or for allowing the return of the species to areas that it inhabited in the recent past. Altogether there have been 18 LIFE Nature projects on Iberian lynx in Spain and two in Portugal; three of these are still ongoing.

The Commission is aware that during the year 2000 the Directorate-General for Nature Conservation in Spain has prepared an Action plan for breeding in captivity of the Iberian Lynx. The National Commission for Nature Protection in Spain approved this plan and it is carried out in the facilities of Doñana National Park. To date no direct funding for this undertaking have been requested or given by the Commission.

LIFE Nature projects on Iberian Lynx:

- Year 1994:

- Conservation of the Iberian lynx Castilla y León (LIFE94 NAT/E/001186)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (Comunidad de Madrid) (LIFE94 NAT/E/004808)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (LIFE94 NAT/E/004809)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (LIFE94 NAT/E/004810)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (Andalucía) (LIFE94 NAT/E/004811)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (Castilla-La Mancha) (LIFE94 NAT/E/004813)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (Extremadura) (LIFE94 NAT/E/004814)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (LIFE94NAT/P/001058)

- Year 1995:

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (Extremadura) (LIFE95 NAT/E/004815)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (Castilla la Mancha) (LIFE95 NAT/E/004816

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (Castilla y Leon) (LIFE95 NAT/E/004817)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (Andalucía) (LIFE95 NAT/E/004818)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (Madrid) (LIFE95 NAT/E/004819)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (LIFE95 NAT/E/004820)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx (LIFE95 NAT/E/004821)

- Year 1998:

- Conservation of Lynx pardinus in Extremadura (LIFE98 NAT/E/005343)

- Year 1999:

- Conservation of the Imperial eagle, Black vulture, Black stork and Iberian lynx on private protected land in Extremadura and Castilla-La-Mancha (LIFE99 NAT/E/006336)

- Recovery of habitats and preys of Lynx pardinus in Serra da Malcata (LIFE99NAT/P/006423)

- Year 2002:

- Recovery of the populations of the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus) in Andalucía (LIFE02NAT/E/8609)

- Conservation of the Iberian Lynx in Montes de Toledo-Guadalmena (LIFE02NAT/E/8617)
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3366/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 November 2002)

Subject: The Union's demands in the GATS negotiations

Why has it not been made public what the European Union is demanding of other countries in regard to deregulation in the GATS negotiations?

Will the EU's demands in the GATS negotiations be made public? If so, when?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

In July 2002 the EC and its Member States submitted their initial requests to other WTO members for improved market access in the services sectors under the Doha Development Agenda.

It goes without saying that the aim of the EC and its Member States is to be as transparent as possible with regard to the GATS negotiations. That is why the civil society and stakeholders have been widely consulted, already before the submission of requests, in order to obtain their input to the process. Furthermore, a detailed summary of the requests was published by the Commission last July.

The EU has more than 140 partners in the WTO. Therefore the conduct of the GATS negotiations must take place in a way that allows time and policy space for third countries to develop their own positions. Furthermore, confidentiality among negotiators is necessary in order to allow each partner the sovereignty to decide how to proceed with the requests and how to develop counter-bids.

Thus, while aiming at the widest possible transparency with all the stakeholders and public, there must be an appropriate balance between the transparency and the EU's ability to negotiate in an atmosphere conducive to frank and open discussions.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3455/02

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2002)

Subject: Outbreak of avian influenza in Italy

An outbreak of avian influenza caused by the low pathogenic H7N3 virus has been recorded in the Italian provinces of Verona, Mantua and Brescia. So far, the influenza has almost exclusively affected turkey farms. In order to check the spread of the disease, the Italian authorities are to ask the EU for authorisation to vaccinate vulnerable species in the risk area.

However, recourse to vaccination may mean that it is no longer possible for poultry products from the vaccination areas to be exported to other Member States. The three provinces in question produce around 80 % of the turkeys reared in Italy, with exports accounting for around 20 % of total production.

It is therefore clear that an export ban would entail:

- a 20 % reduction in turkey production;

- the importation of poultry meat from third countries (Brazil and Thailand);

- the loss of the German market;

- a possible limiting of the vaccination radius and the concomitant risk of the disease persisting and the virus mutating from a low pathogenic virus to a high pathogenic one.

In view of the above, could the Commission indicate whether emergency vaccination could be authorised without the possibility of exporting to other Member States being forfeited? Exportation was possible during the previous influenza outbreak in 2000, when discriminatory testing made it possible to distinguish between animals that had the disease and animals that had tested positive as a result of being vaccinated.

Would it be possible to vaccinate a vast area with a heterologous vaccine (H7N1) and to allow exportation to continue while still guaranteeing with absolute certainty that the animal meat to be exported is not harbouring the virus because the animals were not carrying it prior to slaughter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

After submission of an emergency vaccination programme by Italy and following the advice of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, the Commission by means of Decision 2002/975/EC on introducing vaccination to supplement the measures to control infections with low pathogenic avian influenza in Italy and on specific movement control measures(1) has authorised Italy to apply emergency vaccination against avian influenza in some areas of the regions of Lombardia and Veneto.

The meat of vaccinated turkeys may be dispatched for intra-Community trade to other Member States, provided that certain controls are carried out in the holding of origin, including the use of a laboratory test able to distinguish vaccinated and healthy poultry from the infected ones, as these controls are considered sufficient to ensure a high level of safety of the meat of these animals as regards avian influenza.

(1) OJ L 337, 13.12.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3667/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Expulsion of oil tanker, the Enalios Titan, by French navy

On Tuesday, 3 December 2002, the French navy expelled the single-hulled tanker, the Enalios Titan, flying the Maltese flag, from the French 200-mile economic exclusion zone (EEZ). Before being expelled, the ship was thoroughly inspected by the French authorities and was found to meet the required standards. In addition, the ship also has the highest rating (condition assessment programme grade 1) awarded by Den Norske Veritas, a member of the IACS, an organisation recognised by the IMO and the Commission.

Moreover, the ship's captain was subjected to intimidation and threats from French naval personnel who warned him that if he did not leave the French EEZ, the consequences would be on his own responsibility and at his own risk, with all that that implies.

Since such action is unprecedented and in breach of Community law, what measures will the Commission take to persuade the French authorities to put an end to their violation of Community legislation?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3666/02 and E-3667/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

In its communication of 3 December 2002(1), the Commission expressed its concern about ships that are already avoiding European Union ports in order to evade inspections and are continuing to sail off our coasts, including in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of the Member States. The Commission called on the Member States to take coordinated action and come up with solutions to protect their coastal waters, particularly the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone, against ships which are a threat to the marine environment.

The Member States must be able to defend their coast against the threat which could be posed by manifestly sub-standard ships or ships which are a major risk to the environment. In this context, and as stated in its communication of 3 December 2002, the Commission will take steps to have the International Convention on the Law of the Sea re-examined.

During its meeting of 6 December 2002, the Transport Council unanimously approved these guidelines and also confirmed its intention to ban single hull tankers transporting heavy fuel oil from European Union ports.

In this context, on 20 December 2002, the Commission sent Parliament and the Council a proposal for a regulatio(2) prohibiting the transport of heavy oil products in single hull tankers leaving or bound for ports of the Union and to speed up the timetable for phasing out single hull tankers adopted as part of the Erika-I package.

The Commission has asked Parliament and the Council to examine this text as a matter of urgency with a view to it being adopted at the Transport Council of 27 March 2003.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2) COM(2002) 780.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3804/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Natural disasters

A number of regions in western Greece were struck by a very powerful earthquake on 2 December 2002. Houses and shops were very seriously damaged, goods were destroyed and economic activity, especially in the Prefecture of Ilia, was disrupted.

Does this disaster meet the conditions and terms for the implementation of the new regulation setting up the new fund for natural disasters?

Is the Greek Government able to obtain funds from the Regional Operational Fund to repair the damage?

What other measures could the Commission take or propose to this end?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

The main purpose of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is to grant emergency aid in the event of major natural disasters having serious repercussions on living conditions, the natural environment or the economy in one or more regions of the affected country. A major disaster within the meaning of the EUSF Regulation means a disaster resulting in damage estimated either at over EUR 3 billion in 2002 prices, or more than 0,6 % of the country's gross national income (GNI).

Under exceptional circumstances a region can also benefit from assistance from the Fund, where that region has been affected by an extraordinary disaster affecting the major part of its population with serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of the region.

The mobilisation of the EUSF requires the submission of an application to the Commission by the national authorities within ten weeks of the date when the first damage occurred.

Furthermore, as regards the use of funds available within the regional programme concerned (ROP Western Greece), it is up to the Greek authorities to decide whether they wish to use part of these funds to deal with some of the damage caused by the earthquake to which the Honourable Member refers, subject to the Regulations governing the implementation of the Structural Funds, and in particular the rules on eligibility in force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3875/02

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

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Community criteria for the development of regional air transport

At present, regional air transport, thanks to its specific characteristics, is the part of the world air transport sector enjoying the most rapid growth: it may be considered the elite means of transport of both present and future.

However, many airlines in this sector have moved away from serving regional routes only, and now also provide services on international routes, operating for large airlines. This has led to complaints from the large airlines, which are concerned over strong competition on routes that are now served, in many cases, by regional airlines.

In view of these complaints, can the Commission state whether a specific Community regulation exists on the development of regional air transport, in the interest of avoiding conflicts over competition with the established airlines on international routes, given also that the volume of the operations involved entails costly obligations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Ever since the three Regulations comprising the third air transport liberalisation package (Regulations (EEC) No 2407/92(1), No 2408/92(2) and No 2409/92(3)) entered into force on 1 January 1993, all Community air carriers have been free to establish whatever air routes they deem to be of commercial interest between Community airports (Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92). Accordingly, the choices airlines make in this liberalised, competitive market are dictated by their own commercial strategies and the need for profitability, irrespective of the route.

Community legislation thus contains no specific provisions on regional airlines, which are subject to the same competition and State aid rules as any other airlines.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3925/02

by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Competition

The Community lemon-producing sector is going through a difficult period, mainly because of the excessive concessions granted by the EU to third-country produce. Furthermore, the latest reform of the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables has had a limited impact on the organisational capacity of lemon producers in countries such as Spain, where only 20 % of production is channelled through organisations.

The EU is about to amend Directive 95/2/EC(1) on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, and in one of the initial drafts of the amended version the Commission proposes replacing the citric acid obtained by synthesis (E330) by lemon juice, which has much healthier nutritional properties. This would provide an outlet for a large proportion of the lemon surplus. Unfortunately, the Commission has modified its original draft, reinstating the use of the artificial additive, used by the food and drink industry as an acidity regulator.

Does the Commission not consider that the amendment of Directive 95/2/EC provides a golden opportunity for a partial solution to these problems, whilst offering the consumer a healthier alternative at a time when the EU is increasingly often opting for improvements in the quality and safety of its products? Finally, does the Commission intend to propose measures to improve the operation of the common organisation of the market as part of a reform of the sector in the near future?

(1) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The use of citric acid (E 330) in foodstuffs, is regulated by the Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners. The Scientific Committee on Food has evaluated the safety of citric acid concluding that citric acid can be used safely in foodstuffs. Therefore, there is no safety reason why citric acid could not be used in foodstuffs. It should be noted that the use of food additives in food production is voluntary and that consumers are informed of the use through labelling. Should the food manufacturers wish they may replace citric acid by lemon juice. However, until now, many European food producers prefer to use citric acid as it offers technological advantages over the use of lemon juice.

Regarding the common organisation of the market for fruit and vegetables, the Commission intends to propose improvements of the current rules during the second quarter of 2003, as requested by the Parliament in its Resolution of 5 July 2001 and by the conclusions of the Spanish Presidency in June 2002. One of the main issues the Commission intends to raise in its proposals concerns inter alia ways to improve the degree of organisation and of concentration of supply in the fruit and vegetables sector, including lemons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1431/02

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

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Commission position on the Ministry of Development's forecasts for the arrival of high speed rail travel in Galicia

On 30 April 2002, the Spanish press reported the Spanish Ministry of Development's forecasts for the implementation of the high-speed rail network with Spain, involving the linking of Madrid with Vallodolid, Extremadura, Valencia, Cordoba, Asturias and Toledo, in addition to Barcelona, with no reference whatever to a link with Galicia. What projects did the Spanish Government submit in this connection in order to benefit from EU co-funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that where co-funding from the European Regional Development Fund is concerned Member States are obliged under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) to inform it only of major projects as defined in Article 25 thereof.

The Spanish authorities have so far sent the Commission two requests for assistance from the Cohesion Fund for high speed lines: Madrid-Barcelona-French frontier and Madrid-Valladolid. The Madrid-Cordoba high speed line has been in service since 1992.

The Commission recalls to the Honourable Member's attention the replies it has already given to a number of questions about high speed rail lines in Galicia. Among the most recent are: H-0362/02(2), H-0274/02(3) and E-2455/01 and E-2466/01(4).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Written reply on 11.6.2002.

(3) Written reply on 14.5.2002.

(4) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002.