ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3523/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 December 2002)

Subject: Hidden deficit in Greece in 2001

According to the annual report of the State Audit Department of the Hellenic Republic for the financial year 2001, Greece appears to have an additional deficit in the order of Drs 1,5 trillion, which was never entered in the budget and represents almost 3,9 % of GDP for 2001. If added to the 1,2 % acknowledged by the government, this deficit exceeds 5,2 %.

What impact do these revelations have on Greece's financial indicators? How do they affect Greece's obligations under the Stability Pact? What are the precise figures for the deficits and government debt in Greece following the latest interventions by Eurostat in collaboration with the Greek Government?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2002)

The Commission (Eurostat) is aware of the existence of the annual report of the Court of Auditors of the Greek Republic for the financial year 2001, but has not examined its content.

However, it is likely that the Court of Auditors has focused its attention on the main aggregates of the public sector from the point of view of the public accounts. This should not be relevant in the content of the Stability Pact, which is based on the calculation of the main aggregates following the concepts and criteria of national accounts (ESA 95).

Courts of Auditors of Member States usually scrutinise state accounts and check whether the accounting of state operations adheres to the public accounting rules which are specific for each country. The aggregates that are relevant at Community level in the context of the Excessive Deficit Procedure and the Stability and Growth Pact in contrast follow the operation system of national and regional accounts in all countries.

Following the results of an audit mission of Eurostat in Greece which took place in 16 and 17 October 2002, and a new notification submitted by the Greek authorities, the Commission has published revised figures for the deficit and debt in Greece in 2000 and 2001 in a press release issued on 13 November 2002. According to this, Greek government deficit stood at 1,2 % of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001, while debt reached in 2001 107,0 % of GDP.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3127/02

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(30 October 2002)

Subject: Information for travellers using international trains

Information for travellers using international trains is currently given solely in the language of the country through which the train happens to be travelling at the time but not in the language of the country of final destination.

Have any agreements been concluded with a view to ensuring that travellers using international trains are provided with information in a variety of languages, including, as a matter of course, that of the country of final destination?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The question of the use of languages in international rail transport is not a matter for the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3284/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(20 November 2002)

Subject: DSP toxin

Is the Commission aware that the presence of DSP toxin in the sea has an extremely serious effect on the local economy and that activities such as the gathering of cockles have been seriously affected?

Is the Commission considering funding any pan-European research on DSP toxin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is aware of the presence of the diarrhetic shell fish poisoning (DSP) toxin, which represents a potential danger for human health. Commission Decision 2002/225/EC(1) establishes the maximum levels of certain marine biotoxins of the DSP group and identifies the methods of analysis. With this Decision, a common and harmonised approach within Member States has been established.

Once the DSP is detected, it is compulsory to close the fishing area to avoid intoxication in the consumer. This obligation is established in Council Directive 91/492/EEC(2). The Commission is aware that cockle fisheries in South Wales have been closed for extended periods in recent years on this account and is aware that this has had a knock-on economic effect.

The Commission is also aware that enhanced nutrient inputs (predominantly from agricultural and urban sources) and/or changes in the Nitrogen and Phosphorous (N/P) ratios of the inputs is among the causes of changes in the phytoplankton community structure towards an increased likelihood of the occurrence of such toxic species. Such effects have been suspected, and in some cases proven, to be responsible for the recent increases in space and time of blooms of such toxic species.

Extensive research activities take place on the causes of occurrence of toxin-forming algae species linked to eutrophication and oceanographic events and the implications for toxin presence in shellfish. A summary of Community funded projects on DSP can be consulted on the Cordis web-site (www.cordis.lu) by searching for DSP shellfish.

(1) Commission Decision of 15 March 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Directive 91/492/EEC as regards the maximum levels and the methods of analysis of certain marine biotoxins in bivalve molluscs, echinodermsn, tunicates and marine gastropods, OJ L 75, 16.3.2002.

(2) Directive 91/492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs, OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Fisheries research in the Six Framework Research Programme

I am surprised that in its Guide to the reform of the common fisheries policy the Commission claims that both the Commission and Sixth Framework Programme provide ongoing support for fisheries research.

Is there any specific heading or chapter dedicated to fisheries or maritime research? Do these subjects appear amongst the seven priorities of the Framework programme?

How does the Commission view the massive budgetary cut (by two thirds) in CFP support research as against the Fifth Framework Programme? How does it justify this cutback? Does this not in fact contradict the Commission's claims about ongoing support for fisheries research?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Under the Sixth Framework Programme (FP), research in fisheries and aquaculture are covered by Thematic Priority 5 Food quality and safety, Priority 6 Global change and ecosystems, and in particular Priority 8, Scientific support to policy, where a budget has been identified and earmarked. Under priorities 5 and 6, issues such as overfishing and overexploitation of marine resources can be taken into consideration under an ecosystem approach, as well as issues related to the quality and safety of seafood either caught or farmed. Furthermore, individual objectives of policy-oriented research under Priority 8 are being defined to be very specific and will allow the support to the Community Framework Programme (CFP) to cover a very wide spectrum of issues as effectively as in FP5. In this context, it is, nevertheless, worthwhile mentioning that the available budgets under priority 8 were substantively reduced from the initial Commission's proposal.

The underlying reason for the reduction of the overall fisheries research budget is the need, recognised by all Community Institutions, to concentrate Community resources on seven key priorities; this inevitably means less resources for other areas. Although the budget available for fisheries research has been decreased overall, compared with that of the Fifth Framework Programme, the Commission considers that the above three areas provide an adequate and well-balanced set of activities on fisheries research in FP6.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3094/02

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Gas appliances directive

A firm from Germany is proposing to install gas appliances, of a type mainly used in the Netherlands and bearing a European CE number,

in German homes. The German gas supplier has informed the firm that it will refuse to connect these appliances to the supply network, because the German assembly instructions have not been met. It claims that differentiation on a national basis is necessary on the grounds of different types of gas and differing gas pressures in Europe.

1. Can this case be reconciled with the EC Gas Appliances Directive?

2. Even though the appliances in question bear a CE number, the national gas supplier in Germany refuses to connect them. How does the Commission explain this situation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

Article 2(2) of the Directive(1) permits the use of different types of gas and corresponding supply pressures in the different Member States.

This implies that putting into service of an appliance complying with the essential requirements of the Directive should take into account the gas type and supply pressure available at the place of installation.

However, more investigation is needed to assess whether the German assembly instructions referred to constitute an infringement. For instance, there is no direct correlation between gas type and Member State, as some gas types are available in more than one Member State and, within one Member State, there can be more than one gas types available, depending on the respective region. Furthermore, it seems that the current state of the art, gives the possibility of appliances adjustable for different gas types or gas pressures, and thus, suitable for being put into service in more Member States or regions.

An inquiry concerning the Member State in question is currently under way, with the aim to have all the necessary information on the issue. In case, following this inquiry, the Commission finds that there is an infringement to Directive 90/396/EEC, it will not hesitate to take the appropriate measures in accordance with the procedure laid down by Article 226 of the EC Treaty, and to inform the Honourable Member.

(1) Council Directive 90/396/EEC of 29 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to appliances burning gaseous fuels, OJ L 196, 26.7.1990 as amended by council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Dominican Republic

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for EU budget funding in 2001 for the Dominican Republic and give details of the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3448/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Pensions and insolvency

Could the Commission explain what has been done in the past if Member States have not complied with Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer(1)? What does the Commission intend to do if the directive is not honoured by the UK Government in relation to the workers at Allied Steel and Wire Ltd?

(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The Commission examines the transposal of Community Directives into national law and monitors the application of provisions adopted for the implementation of Community law. If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under Community law, it initiates proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

In the case of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980(1), the Commission examined and evaluated transposal in the Member States in a report which was published in 1995(2) and supplemented by a further report in 1996(3). With regard to the implementation of social security provisions in the United Kingdom, the opinion given by the Commission in its report was that the provisions adopted by the United Kingdom complied with the requirements of the Directive.

(1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, OJ L 283, 28.10.1980.

(2) COM(95) 164 final.

(3) COM(96) 696 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2911/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Dominican Republic

Will the Commission say what projects in the Dominican Republic were funded from the EU budget during 2000?

Will it say how much aid in total was given to the country in all forms during 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2909/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Democratic Republic of Congo

Will the Commission say what projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo were funded from the EU budget during 2000?

Will it say how much aid in total was given to the country in all forms during 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3239/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Aquaculture

At the European Parliament Environment Committee meeting of 4 November 2002, a Commission official maintained that 150 European laws apply to aquaculture.

Would the Commission forward a list of them?

Does the Commission not agree that most of those 150 laws simply happen to apply to aquaculture, since they were developed for agricultural products?

Does the Commission not agree that it would be sensible to produce a European framework law on aquaculture, in the short term, since a number of Member States are presently working on national legislation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

The Honourable Member may find the list of references to Community Decisions, Directives and Regulations relating to aquaculture in the Legislation section of Directorate General (DG) Fisheries web portal, at the address http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/fisheries/index_en.htm. A more comprehensive list of documents relating to aquaculture, processing or marketing with links directly to the relevant documents is being prepared and will be available on this site soon.

Aquaculture development must be carried out taking account of a number of aspects going from consumer's health safety to environment protection, structural aid to trade rules, quality labels to promotional campaigns, etc. It is normal that such a complex activity faces a bulky set of norms and regulations covering all these aspects. In general the norms are not specific to aquaculture, as most of them are framework rules intended for general purposes.

A coherent and specific Community legislation for aquaculture has been repeatedly requested; ideally, the aquaculture sector should be dealt with at a global level, by a framework regulation taking care of all its facets. This is practically impossible to achieve, as many aquaculture concerns are regulated by legislation of national competence, which may be influenced by a number of horizontal Community Directives.

The recent Community strategy for sustainable development of European aquaculture(1) aims to define a coherent framework that will enable aquaculture producers to offer a healthy product in the quantities required by the market, while not degrading the environment.

The success of the strategy depends on collaboration by all the actors of the sector: national and local public administrations, mostly, but also the industry and the representatives of the other stakeholders, such as consumers. This Commission communication defines the needed actions and the appropriate level at which to implement them.

(1) COM(2002) 511 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3457/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Eurocost

Between 1990 and 2000 what budget was spent on officials posted outside of the EU for compensation due to differences in the cost of living compared to Brussels?

Between 1990 and 2000 what budget was attributed to the non-profit organisation Eurocost, founded by Yves Franchet, director-general of Eurostat, in Luxembourg since 1987?

How much have Eurocost's debts to the Commission increased?

An audit report on Eurocost was produced by external auditors. Will the Parliament be given access to the audit report on Eurocost?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Amounts in euro of salaries paid with the weighting applied:

- 1990: Not available (files kept for only ten years)

- 1991: Not available (files kept for only ten years)

- 1992: 3 503 268

- 1993: 3 416 472

- 1994: 2 139 027

- 1995: 2 981 949

- 1996: 2 501 742

- 1997: 1 661 738

- 1998: 1 959 123

- 1999: 2 214 210

- 2000: 2 394 710

Between 1990 and 1999, the amounts from the Community budget attributed to Eurocost were EUR 18 111 086,86.

Eurocost had no debts to the Commission until the conclusion of the audit in 2000. A recovery order has been issued for EUR 1 009 016 on the basis of the findings of an audit conducted in 2000. The recovery order is still open because Eurocost ASBL's liquidation is not yet completed. Eurocost's debts have not increased since the recovery order.

There was no audit report produced by external auditors. An audit was launched at the joint initiative of Eurostat's Internal Audit Service and Directorate General (DG) Financial Control (DG Audit at the time) and carried out during the first quarter of 2000. The Commission does not automatically transmit internal audit reports to the Parliament, but any formal request from the Parliament would be dealt with in accordance with existing rules and procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3056/02

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Subject: State aid for Alitalia

On 29 April 2002 the Commission received a request from the Italian government to grant further state aid to Alitalia in order to recapitalise the company.

Does the Commission not consider that the granting of such aid to Alitalia breaks the competition rules and causes severe damage to private airlines?

What does the Commission think of the possibility of other Italian companies taking over a certain number of services from Alitalia on a completely private basis?

Does the Commission not believe that this could provide an excellent solution, as in addition to complying with free market principles it would avoid the spending of public funds on pointless attempts to rescue Alitalia?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

On 19 June 2002 the Commission approved two financial measures concerning Alitalia. Firstly, it declared the payment of the third tranche of EUR 129 million of the restructuring aid approved in 1997 to be compatible with the EC Treaty. Secondly, it decided that the increase in capital, totalling EUR 1,4 billion at most and which is to be submitted to the company's shareholders, does not constitute State aid.

With specific regard to the increase in capital, notified on 29 April 2002, to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission finds that the State's participation accords fully with the market economy investor criterion. The operation involves both private and public shareholders, and the private sector is making a significant contribution (38 %). Indeed, the Italian State has undertaken not to take part in the recapitalisation without the 38 % guaranteed by non-shareholding banks. The Commission's favourable decision regarding Alitalia is thus based on a detailed examination of the Italian airline's situation and does not compromise Commission policy on State aid for the restructuring of airlines, which is based on the one time last time principle.

As to the Honourable Member's second point, regarding the possibility of other Italian companies coming forward to take over a number of services from Alitalia, the Commission can only welcome increased competition in the air transport market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2552/02

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Inadequate storage of pesticides

It has been calculated that in Russia there are currently 24 000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides which are not correctly stored; these include POP compounds (persistent organic pollutants). The impact of these environmentally damaging toxic substances extends throughout the Arctic, with the result that, for example, indigenous peoples in the region are exposed to risks because they eat large quantities of fish and sealmeat in which toxins have accumulated. Polar bears have even been found at the North Pole which had both male and female sex organs. At the dump at Krasbyj Bor waste disposal facility outside St Petersburg, tonnes of obsolete pesticides are likewise inadequately stored.

Has the Commission held discussions with the Russian authorities concerning the inadequate storage of these toxins or will the Commission raise the subject, for example, in the context of the EU's partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia? What will the Commission do to ensure that the Stockholm Convention on POPs is complied with and that it is ratified and enters into force as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The Russian Federation signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) on 22 May 2002. While the Commission welcomes this step it has not received information from Russia about its plans to ratify and implement the Convention.

The Commission proposals for a Council decision on ratification of the Convention by the Community and on the necessary implementation legislation are both under preparation and are likely to be adopted during the 1st quarter of 2003. The aim is that the Community becomes a Party before the first Conference of the Parties, which may be held in mid-2004.

The Commission will raise the subject of Russian ratification and implementation of the Convention both in forthcoming multilateral meetings and in bilateral meetings under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. It will also study possible funding for related projects in the light of progress.