ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3380/02

by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Subject: Silver fibre high-tech clothing for neurodermatitis sufferers

I understand from various scientific reports that high-tech clothing with medical uses has been developed over the past few years and is now obtainable on the market. One of the most promising developments is silver fibre clothing which can give significant relief to neurodermatitis sufferers and visibly improve their skin condition.

One of the disadvantages of this approach to treatment, however, is that therapeutic clothing of this kind is rather expensive, but the reports suggest that if the cost of such clothing were eligible for reimbursement from sickness insurance schemes it could even be to the latter's financial advantage as it would result in considerable savings in costly ointments and medicines for neurodermatitis sufferers.

In the light of this is the Commission aware of this new method of treatment?

Is it taking specific account of this method in the development of health policy?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

No. The Commission is not informed of this product nor of its characteristics and possible health effects. The public health policy of the Community falls under Article 152 of the EC Treaty on the basis of which the Parliament and Council have recently adopted a six year action programme(1). This programme has three main areas of priority; improving health and knowledge, rapid reaction to health threats, and action on health determinants.

The reduction of health care costs to which clothing of the type referred to could possibly contribute is considered a matter of Member State competence and would not be covered by the above-mentioned public health programme.

(1) Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) Commission statements, OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3248/02

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Emergency triggered by volcanic activity on Etna

For some weeks now, Mount Etna, the highest volcano in Europe, has been erupting with a violence not seen for years.

The inhabitants of the towns and villages close to the volcano have therefore had to reconcile themselves to living in a state of continuous alarm. The magma flows that well up, often unexpectedly, out of the slopes of the mountain, have even licked population centres such as the town of Linguaglossa, and have already razed 400 hectares of Sicily's most important pine forest and the ski resort of Piano Provenanza, which is internationally renowned as a site for alpine and cross-country skiing.

This emergency is having significant repercussions on the economy of the area, in that it is impacting on key industries such as agriculture and tourism and exacerbating an already precarious situation.

In the light of the above, and considering that 2002 is the International Year of the Mountain, can and will the Commission adopt emergency measures to help alleviate the damage to the economy and also to the environment thus inflicted on the populations of Catania and neighbouring villages?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that on 11 November the Council approved Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(1), the purpose of which is to enable essential emergency operations to be carried out when a major disaster occurs. If the Italian authorities submit an application on the terms of the Regulation the Commission will examine it with a view to channelling aid as quickly as possible to the region in question.

The Commission also reminds the Honourable Member that in the case of zones and regions eligible for Structural Fund assistance appropriations for the 2000-2006 programming period that have not yet been committed to particular projects can at a Member State's request be reassigned among the various priorities of the regional programme in question.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3042/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Regularisation of past situations in Portugal

According to press reports, it is estimated that in Portugal in 2002 an amount in public expenditure corresponding to 3 % of GDP has been excluded from the budget, on the grounds that this is expenditure intended to regularise past situations and does not concern the 2002 budget year.

Can the Commission confirm whether this is the case? Can it confirm whether this practice is consistent with the accumulation of deferred payments by a number of state organs over 2002?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3042/02, E-3043/02 and E-3044/02given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2002)

On a national accounts basis and according to the European System of National and Regional Accounts (ESA 95), expenditure is recorded on an accrual basis and not on a cash basis, which means that expenditure shall be registered in the years when the commitment was made and not when the actual payment took place. In the economic report of the Portuguese rectifying budget for 2002, it is mentioned that the regularisation of expenditure arrears in 2002 on account of commitments made and recorded as expenditure in previous years amounts to EUR 2,1 billion, which represents 1,6 % of the estimated gross domestic product (GDP) for 2002.

Concerning the extra-budgetary deficit in the Ministry of Education, it should be highlighted that the focus of the Commission budgetary surveillance is the general government sector as a whole and not any of its constituent units or sectors in particular, unless the latter display uncommon features that might risk compliance of the general government sector with overall budgetary targets. Moreover, the deficit referred to by the Honourable Member seems to be on a public accounts basis and not according to the ESA 95 national accounts rules.

According to the economic report accompanying the Portuguese 2003 budget, the general government deficit target on a national accounts basis for 2003 is 2,4 % of GDP. National accounts budgetary figures are those relevant for budgetary surveillance, in particular, the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact. The Commission is not aware of any other official projection for the Portuguese government deficit in 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3222/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 November 2002)

Subject: Accession countries and volume of hot air

Is there an estimate on how big a volume of so-called hot air is possessed by the 10 (and later 12) new Member States during the initial period of the EU emission trading scheme (2005-2007) or the subsequent period(s)? What is the volume, in comparison, of the hot air the German Federal Republic is able to sell taking into account the fact of the German reunification which took place after the base year of the Kyoto protocol?

Has the EU developed strategies on when and how this hot air should be put on the market in regard to the price of emission allowances (and the actual reductions of emissions in the EU) and where have such strategies have been published if they exist?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3222/02 and E-3224/02

(3 March 2003)

The Council is not aware of any estimates of the kind the Honourable Member is asking for, and in particular of estimates regarding project-volumes likely to be initiated. The EU has not made any agreements with the accession countries regarding the promotion of JI-projects. The Council is neither aware of specific models that quantify the eventual effects of JI-projects on the future price of emission allowances, and it should be noted that the present draft on the EU emission trading allowance scheme does not contain provisions regarding such inclusions. The Commission is expected, however, to make a proposal on the linkage between the Kyoto Protocol project mechanisms (CDM and JI) and the EU emission allowance trading scheme in 2003. In this context, it might be appropriate to put the questions raised to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2541/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Irregularities involved in the future construction of a regasification plant in the Ria de Ferrol (Spain)

Is the Commission aware that, despite the accidents in Toulouse and Enschede the firm Reganosa with the approval of the municipal authorities responsible for the

policy of allocating and using land, and contrary to the Seveso Directive and Spanish legislation setting the minimum safety distance at 2 000 metres is planning to build a storage and regasification plant for LNG in a place where within a radius of 2000 metres there is a population of more than 40 000 and the point of manoeuvre envisaged for the tankers which will supply the plant with methane is barely 500 metres from the Ferrol naval base with its arsenals and warships?

Is the Commission also aware that the regasification plant has not been the subject of an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Directives 85/337/EEC(1) and 97/11/EC(2), merely of a decision on the environmental effects issued by the Galician regional government, which has a 10 % holding in the firm involved?

Has the Commission contacted the Spanish Government to request detailed information on this matter? What information has the Spanish Government supplied?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2541/02 and E-2555/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission is aware of the situation reported by the Honourable Member.

Following parliamentary questions E-1310/01 by Mrs McKenna, E-1359/01 by Mrs Gonzalez Alvarez and E-1379/01 by the Honourable Member(1), the Commission decided to open an own-initiative case, registered as number 2001/2141.

During its examination of the dossier, the Commission has twice contacted the Spanish authorities to check that Council Directives 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(2) and 96/82/EC of 16 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(3) (Seveso) are being properly applied in this instance.

The Commission is currently examining the latest reply from the Spanish authorities.

This dossier will be discussed with the Spanish authorities in October during the bilateral meeting being held to review certain complaints and infringements relating to the environment.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary steps to ensure that Community law is observed in the case in hand.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2692/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Uniform European registration system for weapons

A good number of arms manufacturers have a system for identifying and registering the weapons they produce. Usually serial numbers are put on one or more of the weapon's components. Exchange of information among the EU countries as to the method used is somewhat patchy. In addition, the markings used at present can sometimes be removed very easily. Each of these factors adds weight to the call for a simple, efficient and universally applicable method. The markings can be kept in a national register so that the route taken by arms found in a conflict zone can subsequently be traced.

Does the Council share my view that the EU would do well to launch a uniform, watertight registration system as quickly as possible? If so, what steps has it taken, and will it take, to put this into effect? Will the Council urge the Member States in this case to set up an efficient system of data exchange and to establish national registers so that arms which are circulating illegally can be traced? If not, why not?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons lays down a comprehensive system regulating inter alia the acquisition and the movement of firearms(1).

Article 91 of the 1998 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 establishes a system for the exchange of information on the acquisition of firearms which supplements Article 13 of Council Directive 91/477/EEC. Moreover, the Decision of the Executive Committee of 28 April 1999 on the illegal trade in firearms (SCH/Com-Ex (99)10) sets out the forms to be used for the exchange of information between Member States on seized firearms.

Council Directive 91/477/EEC does not apply to commercial transfers of weapons and ammunition of war. The possibilities for the Community to act in that field are limited by Article 296 of the Treaty.

The Council would, moreover, point out that at its meeting on 15 April 2002 it adopted conclusions on a list of concrete measures with regard to the implications of the terrorist threat on the non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control policy of the European Union. Under those conclusions, the European Union as such and its Member States undertook to promote, in particular, implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action on the fight against the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and of the OSCE document on SALW, and to reinforce, where needed, the multilateral instruments, in particular by drafting an international instrument on marking and tracing of SALW (inter alia a French-Swiss proposal) as a priority.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2509/02

by Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 September 2002)

Subject: Distribution of newspapers in Member States

Is the Commission aware that, in order to be supplied with UK national newspaper titles, newsagents in the Republic of Ireland have to pay a surcharge (carriage service charge) to the relevant wholesaler, but do not pay such a surcharge in respect of certain Irish national newspaper titles?

Is the Commission further aware that the requirement to pay a surcharge is made possible because there is a system of exclusive distribution that applies to some newspaper titles, so that newsagents have no alternative source of supply?

Does the Commission consider that this situation is in conformity with the principles of the Single Market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2002)

The Commission is aware of the existence of distribution systems for newspapers, including the practice of carriage charges, in the Member States, in particular in the United Kingdom(1), but it has no specific information on the current functioning of this system in Ireland.

Exclusive distribution systems as referred to by the Honourable Member, if based on agreements between publishers, wholesalers and newsagents, may be relevant under Community competition rules, as laid down in Article 81 of the EC Treaty and, in particular, Block Exemption Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999(2) in conjunction with the Guidelines on vertical restraints(3) rather than the market freedom provisions of the EC Treaty which mainly target State regulation.

The situation described in the written question has not been the subject of a notification or a complaint to the Commission with regard to Community competition rules. Nor has the Commission currently any evidence that the differences in the wholesale price for Irish and British newspapers in Ireland are the consequence of behaviour incompatible with the above

Block Exemption Regulation or Guidelines or are otherwise contrary to Community competition rules. It should also be noted that carriage charges specifically foreseen for printed products imported from the United Kingdom may be designed to cover additional transport and distribution costs incurred by the wholesaler.

The Commission, which is following closely the evolution of cross-border pricing for newspapers and magazines within the Union in the light of Community competition rules, will establish contact with the Irish and UK competition authorities with a view to further assessing the matter.

(1) See review by the OFT, http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press+releases/2002/pn+02-02.htm.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices OJ L 336, 29.12.1999.

(3) Commission Notice Guidelines on vertical restraints OJ C 291, 13.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3060/02

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Council

(25 October 2002)

Subject: European Convention

In an interview published in the Financial Times on 7 October 2002, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, chairman of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which has a remit to draft a European Constitution, stressed that he was opposed to any increase in the powers of the Commission and was in favour of greater cooperation between the governments of the Member States, which must remain sovereign. This unmistakably shows that the chairman of the Convention advocates a confederative model.

Does this confederationist approach espoused by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing coincide with the Council's approach?

What is the Council's view of the suggestion by the chairman of the Convention that the name European Union could possibly be replaced with the name United Europe, which according to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing would be closer to the citizens?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

The Council never comments on statements made to the press. It has not taken a view on the discussions currently underway within the Convention, nor would it be appropriate for it to do so. The choice of a model for a future Europe or the suggestion of a possible change to the name of the European Union were put forward by the President of the Convention on his own initiative. The Council has neither discussed nor taken a view on these issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3503/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Wild birds caught in long-line fishing lines

Would the Commission inform me as to what action they are taking to ensure that fishing boats in the EU are taking steps to prevent seabirds becoming caught when they are long-lining?

Hundreds of thousands of seabirds are caught in this way each year and die a cruel death.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of the problem and shares the concern of the Honourable Member.

It is a particular problem in the Southern Hemisphere, where seabirds are protected by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Maríne Living Resources, (CCAMLR) rules, transcribed in Community legislation(1).

Since 1998, CCAMLR has adopted new technical measures concerning the reduction of the incidental mortality of seabirds and marine mammals. In July 2002, the Commission presented a proposal for a Council Regulation(2), bringing together in a single instrument all the provisions concerning technical measures applying to fishing by Community vessels in the Convention area. Articles 7 and 8 of the proposed regulation refer specifically to incidental mortality of seabirds in the course of longline and trawl fishing.

Furthermore, one of the four International Plans of Action (IPOA), under Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), aims to reduce the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries; this is a voluntary instrument within the framework of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which provides further protection through national schemes.

The Commission is aware of the need to improve the present situation. Before the end of 2003, it intends to present legislative proposals to increase seabirds protection in Union waters, as envisaged in the Action Plan(3).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 66/98 of 18 December 1997 laying down certain conservation and control measures applicable to fishing activities in the Antarctic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2113/96, Article 14 paragraph 3 and Annex 4 OJ L 6, 10.1.1998.

(2) COM(2002) 355 final.

(3) COM(2002) 186 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3166/02

by Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(6 November 2002)

Subject: The Joola disaster

On Thursday, 26 September 2002 the Joola ferry, which provided a service between Ziguinchor and Dakar, calling at the island of Karabane, sank off the coast of Gambia. Of the 1 034 people on the ferry, only 64 have so far been rescued, making this one of the worst disasters in civil navigation, with about 1 000 people lost.

The government of Senegal made great efforts to save the shipwrecked passengers, repatriate those who survived and assist the families of the victims and those still unaccounted for, but the extent of the disaster has of course had a devastating effect on the whole country.

What measures has the Commission taken to come to the aid of the victims' families and the Government of Senegal, thus demonstrating the European Union's practical solidarity with one of the countries associated with the Union under the Cotonou Convention?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

The Commission does not have the necessary instruments to provide aid to the families of disaster victims.

With regard to emergency humanitarian aid, the Commission is not in a position to respond to such a situation within the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996, concerning humanitarian aid(1). The Regulation is primarily aimed at saving and preserving lives during emergencies and in the immediate aftermath of disasters. The sort of assistance which the families of the victims of the Joola ferry incident require in this instance is not covered by the Regulation.

(1) OJ L 163, 2.7.1996.