ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1263/01

by Eva Klamt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Attempts by non-EU nationals to gain illegal entry to the UK

German haulage contractors report that illegal immigrants, with the aid of people smugglers, endeavour to board lorries bound for the UK at the borders of transit countries en route from Germany to the UK. The hauliers claim that the French, Belgian and Netherlands authorities are aware of this situation but that nothing is done. The UK authorities, on the other hand, search lorries specifically for illegal immigrants and fine the haulage firms £2000 for each illegal immigrant discovered. This fine is also payable even if the drivers or firms can prove that they have checked their vehicles. The persons apprehended have to be taken back across the border and released, only to make another attempt at illegal entry immediately, while the national border authorities look on.

Is the Commission aware of the situation described above and is it an accurate account?

Do the fines which haulage firms are required to pay the UK in respect of illegal immigrants affect the operation of the internal market?

What measures will the Commission take in response to the lack of cooperation in preventing illegal immigration on the part of the French, Belgian and Netherlands authorities, and to the fines imposed by the UK?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the situation that illegal immigrants, quite often with the aid of people smugglers, attempt to board lorries bound for the United Kingdom in neighbouring Member States, especially Belgium, France and the Netherlands. The tragedy of Dover where, in June 2000, 58 Chinese nationals suffocated to death in the lorry in which they were clandestinely travelling, illustrated in a most shocking way the complex problem to face. According to information available to the Commission, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have recently started technical discussions on how to improve the prevention of illegal crossings across the Channel.

Regarding the question whether the existing british legislation on carrier's liability affects the operation of the internal market, especially for haulage contractors, the Commission has already stated on previous occasions that, in its view, this legislation does not lead to an infringement of Community law. In that connection, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions P-4042/00 by Mrs Doyle(1) and E-1110/01 by Mr Konrad(2).

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 220.

(2) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 205.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/01

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Systems for monitoring food safety, animal feed and BSE tests

1. What systems for do the countries of central and eastern Europe, and in particular the candidates for accession, have for monitoring:

(a) food safety, and

(b) animal feed?

2. Which central and eastern European countries have already introduced instant testing for BSE or are planning to do so?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The existing systems in the candidate countries for monitoring food safety, including animal nutrition, are diverse, with various authorities involved. Changes are in many cases necessary in order to align their systems with the Community approach on food safety, and the Community legislative acquis.

Food safety has been identified as a priority in the enlargement process. The entire food chain must be covered by applying the farm to table approach, including the animal feed sector. In order to introduce a coherent approach in this field, the Commission has invited each candidate country to submit a Food Safety Strategy. This strategy should include the order and timing for transposing the food safety- related Community legislation. Moreover the strategy should explain the structures and resources of the responsible authorities and the co-ordination between different authorities.

According to the information available to the Commission at the moment, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic have either introduced testing methods for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or are planning to introduce them.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0821/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Substandard subsidised tobacco

Can the Commission give details about the identity of the principal recipients of the tobacco which is grown within the EU and which benefits from enormous subsidies (almost 1 000 million) under the common agricultural policy? Can it confirm that a substantial proportion is exported to non-EU countries because it is substandard and that it is used in the manúfacture of high-tar and/or high-nicotine cigarettes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

According to the latest available data (1999), the main markets for Community exports of raw tobacco are:

- Russia (20 % of total Community exports), United States (13 %), Egypt (7 %), Poland (6 %), Romania (6 %), Switzerland (5 %), Algeria (5 %), Japan (3 %), Ukraine (3 %), Indonesia (2 %), Turkey (2 %), Uruguay, (2 %), Czech Republic (2 %), Tunisia (2 %) and Hungary (2 %).

Community exports of raw tobacco have decreased from 192 000 tonnes in 1995 to 118 000 tonnes in 1999, i.e. a reduction of approximately 40 %, particularly in the area of lower priced tobaccos; this meant that the quality of the tobacco actually exported has improved, as shown by an increase in the unit value of the exported product. The average unit value of Community tobacco exported towards the 15 principal importing countries represented in 1995 around 30 % of the average unit value of the tobacco imported from the 15 principal exporting countries. In 1999 this proportion amounted to 60 %. The average price of Community exported raw tobacco in 1999 was 2,49 per kilogram while the average world price was approximately U$ 2,60.

Concerning the final destination of Community exported raw tobacco, the Commission is not in a position to confirm that a substantial proportion is used in the manufacturing of high-tar and nicotine cigarettes. As a matter of fact cigarettes are manufactured with blends of raw tobacco from numerous origins. In addition, it should be borne in mind that additives and manufacturing technology used by the cigarette industry have a significant effect on the content of nicotine and tar in cigarettes.

Furthermore, the new reform of the common market organisation (CMO) in raw tobacco applied since 1999 has incorporated a quota buy-back programme and the possibility of transferring between varieties. This has resulted in a decrease in the production of lower priced tobacco varieties, which often contain high levels of tar and nicotine.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/01

by Mechtild Rothe (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Competition and subsidies in the steel chimney construction sector

There appear to be considerable price differences in the steel chimney construction sector in the European Union and the question arises as to whether these differences, which are in some cases as much as 30 % result from the granting of subsidies in certain Member States.

1. Are government subsidies provided for steel chimney construction in certain EU Member States?

2. Is the EU actively promoting this sector? If so, under what programmes?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

1. The question regarding price differentials in the steel chimney construction sector relates to the competitive situation in the sector.

The Commission has the responsibility of monitoring compliance with the European competition rules by the Member States. If price differentials in a particular sector are attributable to subsidies, we refer to the individual competition provisions when assessing compatibility with the common market.

Basically, there are no specific rules for vetting state aid in the steel chimney construction sector. To that extent, where state assistance for this sector is concerned, the rules on the assessment for approval of state aid with horizontal objectives or the general rules on the assessment for approval of regional aid are applicable.

If a firm is located in a region eligible for regional aid, it may apply for such aid under the aid rules for that region.

The arrangements for applying the general rules on regional aid and those for applying the rules on state aid with horizontal objectives apply equally to all firms in the Member States.

2. The Commission is not aware of any subsidy programmes for the steel chimney construction sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1886/01

by Rolf Berend (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Town twinning programmes

Numerous municipalities and town twinning associations are currently receiving letters from Brussels informing them that their applications have been rejected. A list of 22 possible reasons is appended, and the relevant reason is marked with a cross. Often only a signature or bank form is missing, but this means that the application is not even submitted to the selection panel for a decision.

Unlike in previous years, the Commission is not able to get back to the applicants concerned. Applications which contain only a very small formal error are not forwarded to the selection panel.

This causes pro-Europe town twinning associations and municipalities a great deal of frustration, and, if this is to be avoided, it is absolutely essential that the Commission gets back to the applicants in such cases so that the omissions can be rectified.

What prospects does the Commission see for redeploying its staff so that the previous practice can be resumed, so as not to put enthusiastic pro-Europeans off Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

This year the Commission adopted the call for proposals procedure for funding town-twinning activities. This had been discussed and agreed with the national and regional organisations involved in town twinning. The idea was to resolve the problems that had regularly occurred in the past (e.g. processing delays) and bring the management of this type of funding into line with the rules generally applied at Community level for the awarding of grants.

This procedure requires the submission of complete dossiers including various annexes which are clearly specified in the call for proposals, by a date which is known in advance. The aim is to improve the administration of dossiers, of which more than 2 500 are submitted each year, in the interest of applicants (quicker processing and prompt payments).

In order to launch the new system under the best possible conditions, staff have already been redeployed to the extent allowed by the available resources. A return to the previous practice would mean a return to long processing times for all grant applications.

The Commission has arranged a meeting with the above-mentioned organisations and the European Parliament in autumn 2001 to take stock of the situation and examine any simplification possibilities compatible with the rules of sound administrative and financial practice.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1499/01

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Programme to strengthen the economic competitiveness of frontier regions

The Nice European Council called upon the Commission to propose a programme for the frontier regions in order to strengthen their economic competitiveness (see paragraph 7 of the Presidency conclusions). This request was prompted by the fact that, if the European Union is enlarged, businesses and employees in the regions bordering on the applicant countries will be exposed to particularly harsh competition on account of the huge wage differentials between the applicant countries and the neighbouring EU Member States. In its Communication on its work programme for 2001 (COM(2001) 28 final), the Commission itself states that, as a follow-up to the second report on cohesion, it will submit a Communication on the EU's frontier regions.

Against this background, would the Commission answer the following questions:

- In its work programme for 2001, why does the Commission provide only for the submission of a Communication on the EU's frontier regions when the European Council called specifically for the drawing up of a programme designed to strengthen the economic competitiveness of those regions?

- What stage has been reached in the preparations for submitting such a programme?

- What sort of conditions and measures designed to strengthen the economic competitiveness of border regions are contained in the programme, how much funding is to be allocated and when are the measures in question to be implemented?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The Commission is currently preparing a Communication on border regions which will analyse the socio-economic situation of regions bordering candidate countries, evaluate the potential impact of enlargement on these regions, examine the Community instruments in place and evaluate if further measures need to be taken to support border regions. This Communication will include a number of specific measures which the Commission will pursue as a single Community action for border regions and which can help to ensure a smooth transition while helping to sustain public confidence with regard to enlargement.

This Community action to support border regions is likely to be adopted by the Commission before the summer break.

Issues such as structure and form of support, starting date, the possibility and level of Community co-financing will be dealt with in the Communication.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/01

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: French tax provisions for foreign life insurance

French tax provisions for foreign life insurance policies are different from those stemming from French contracts. Hence, one constituent living in France with an English life insurance policy will be expected to pay 17,5 % tax, whereas a French life insurance policy would only incur a rate of 7,5 %. What measures has the Commission taken since the original complaint (No 1999(4835) to rectify the situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Acting on the complaint to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission studied the relevant legislation and asked the French authorities for further information, following which they were sent a letter of formal notice.

The French legislation categorically rules out discharge of withholding tax at the special rate (taux du prélèvement libératoire) where income is derived from investments or policies under Articles 125-0 and Article 125 A of the Code Général des Impôts (CGI) and the person liable is not resident or established in France. The Commission considers this to be incompatible with Articles 49 (ex 59) and 56 (ex 73B) of the EC Treaty.

In the light of the French authorities' reply to the letter the Commission will shortly decide whether to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 226 (ex 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1340/01

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

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Recipients of EU funding

Could the Commission provide details of the normal control procedures applying to all recipients of funding from the Community Budget as mentioned in the reply by Romano Prodi on 22 March 2001 to Written Question E-0612/01(1) on European political parties?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 229.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

All files relating to the recipients of Community funding are subject to the control procedures applicable under the Community's financial and budgetary legislation, and in particular the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(1), the rules implementing that Regulation and the internal rules on the execution of the budget.

Specific rules have also been laid down for the treatment and management of grants. These rules are the subject of a special vade-mecum which applies uniformly to all recipients of grants, except where the legal basis provides otherwise. Generally speaking, the approach followed by the Commission aims to ensure compliance with all the transparency requirements in terms of eligibility, award procedures and provision of information.

In the particular case of grants to European political parties, the Commission, given the especially sensitive nature of such funding, has tightened the control arrangements by including special provisions in the proposal for a Council Regulation on the statute and financing of European political parties(2), namely:

- parties applying for a grant will be required to publish annually their accounts and budgets, which must also be certified by an independent external audit body;

- the Commission will have the right to carry out any on-the-spot checks which may be needed and to have free and unrestricted access to any document or evidence needed for the purposes of such inspection.

(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977.

(2) OJ C 154 E, 29.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1170/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: World-wide genocide of Christians

The United Nations and several human rights organisations have recently sounded the alarm over the increase in persecutions of Christians world-wide: in 2000, 165 000 were killed and 200 million persecuted.

Europe, which still bears unhealed scars from the shame of the Holocaust, has a duty to take action to guarantee the right to freedom of religion.

What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to safeguard and guarantee freedom of religion to which everyone has a right in Europe and the rest of the world?

How does the Commission plan to act to stem these cases of intolerance and religious discrimination and to protect laymen and missionaries at work, as they daily put their lives at risk?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Union condemns all forms of discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief, a point which it underlined at the 57th United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights in Geneva this year. This stance was reflected, inter alia, in the support offered by Member States for the resolution introduced by Ireland on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance and in the Union Statement on Civil and Political Rights which condemned all forms of discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief. The Union also calls on all Governments to ensure that their domestic legal systems provide effective guarantees for the exercise of the freedom of religion and belief to all without any discrimination. It supports the continuing efforts of the Special Rapporteur to examine incidents in all countries that are incompatible with the relevant international standards, in particular the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.

The Commission, which played an active role in Geneva, fully supports the importance attached to freedom of religion. Activities to promote and defend this freedom in third countries are eligible for support under the European initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

Article 10 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights also emphasises the importance of freedom of religion.

The European Union raises and will continue to raise religious freedom in its various dialogues with third countries where this is appropriate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0375/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Return of canis lupus to Alpine areas

The return of wolves (canis lupus) to Alpine areas, as a result of their migrating from the Italian Apennines, has met with contrasting reactions on the part of national authorities in the light of the laws of the countries concerned, so that various subterfuges have been employed to get round the inflexible Community rules according to which the wolf is a species that may not be hunted.

What are the Commission's views on the subject, and does it consider that it would be appropriate to agree on joint measures and, possibly, changes to the existing legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The wolf (Canis lupus), with the exception of some populations in Spain and Greece, is included in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive(1) as a species of community interest for which rigorous protection is required. According to Article 12 of the same Directive, this protection includes, among others, the obligation by the Member States to prohibit, in their natural range, all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens in the wild and deliberate disturbance, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration.

The Habitats Directive foresees, in Article 16, the possibility for the Member States to derogate from the provisions of Article 12, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. The reasons which can justify such a derogation include the prevention of serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock and other types of property, the interests of public health and public safety, or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature.

Finally, for a number of years already, the Commission has financed with Life-Nature funds projects focussed on assessing the evolution of the situation of the wolf in Europe and particularly in the alpine zone, and on its conservation. These projects have studied and applied several methods of compensation to the farmers for damage eventually caused by the wolf, and of mitigation of that damage. One conclusion of these projects is that the present wolf population in the alpine region is not so large that it might create problems at the regional level, and that the damage caused is at the local level.

The Commission does not believe, therefore, that it would be helpful to work on common measures or to adjust the existing Community legislation, particularly for what refers to the Habitats Directive and its annexes.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0640/01

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Environmental impact of Low Frequency Active Sonar

It has been alleged in Germany that sound waves from Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) both above and below water cause harm to cetaceans in the EU's seas. The German government has been testing LFAS systems for military purposes.

Is the European Commission, in one of its many environmental research capacities, considering this issue and studying the effects of LFAS on the marine environment?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Although the specific programme on Energy, environment and sustainable development Key action 3: Sustainable marine ecosystems in no way precludes taking proposals for research on the impact of Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) systems on cetaceans into consideration, the Commission has received no applications for funding research on this subject in response to the invitations to submit proposals published for this programme to date.