ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/45

(2004/C 65 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0797/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject: Objective information from the Commission on the environmental damage of industrial farming of carnivorous fish

In his reply to my Written Question E-0009/2003 (1) the Commission repeated its asseveration (see the reply to question E-2675/02 (2)) that I had expressed the view that ‘fish farming is a principal threat to the sustainable development of fisheries’, which is simply untrue, as I explained in question E-0009/2003 and reiterate here.

In Portugal, the production of clams, for example, has traditionally been far more important than the farming of carnivorous fish, employing a very large number of — generally low-paid — workers, and making a major contribution to their incomes; it is now threatened by tourism-related pollution (e.g. at Ria Formosa), but this is an issue on which the Commission and its ‘fish farming strategy’ are completely silent.

Reports from the academic community, the major environmental organisations and the press flatly contradict the Commission's defence of the farming of carnivorous fish both in its Parliamentary replies and in its ‘strategy’.

This being so, when does the Commission intend to provide objective, independent data on the damage to sustainable fisheries caused by the farming of carnivorous fish?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

As already pointed out in reply to the two previous written questions on the same subject from the Honourable Member (E-2675/02 and E-0009/03) the Commission's opinion on aquaculture, be it intensive fish farming, or extensive bivalve cultivation, is expressed by its Community strategy for sustainable development of European aquaculture (3). The strategy has been welcomed by both the Parliament and the Council, respectively on 16 and 28 January 2003.

The concerns expressed by the Honourable Member on the impact that aquaculture may have on the aquatic ecosystem are addressed in the strategy, together with the measures that, in the opinion of the Commission, are needed to allow for the establishment of an environmentally sound industry.

Concerning the specific case of the pollution generated by tourism on the shellfish waters, these are tackled in the framework of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters (4). The Directive asks the Member States to designate shellfish waters, and to establish programmes in order to reduce pollution in these waters.

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 167.

(2) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 40.

(3) COM(2002) 511 final.

(4) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/100

(2004/C 33 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1242/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Landfill Directive

What is the current percentage of waste being diverted to landfill in each Member State?

What are the current levels of landfill tax levied in each Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

According to the data submitted by Member States for the report on the implementation of Community Waste Legislation for the period 1995-1997 (1) landfilling is the main form of waste treatment in the Community for domestic waste, with an average of 60 % being landfilled. The percentage of waste going to landfills differs widely between Member States. Some Member States landfill only 15 % of their domestic waste, while others landfill up to 94 %. For other waste the data submitted was not sufficient to draw any conclusions.

The report shows the following percentages of domestic waste landfilled in the Member States:

— Belgium: 32;

— Denmark: 15;

— Germany: 46;

— Greece: 93;

— Spain: 83;

— France: 47;

— Ireland: 92;

— Italy: 94;

— Luxembourg: 37;

— Netherlands: 15;

— Austria: 43;

— Portugal: 88;

— Finland: 57;

— Sweden: 38;

— United Kingdom: 83.

The data submitted by Member States for the period 1998-2000 shows a decreasing tendency in landfilling, but a good number of Member States continue to rely heavily on landfill as means of disposing domestic waste. The Commission is about to adopt and publish the report for the period 1998-2000.

So far, there is no Community legislation or harmonisation of national fiscal provisions applied by the Member States in the area of landfill taxes. Therefore, the Commission does not dispose of comprehensive information on these taxes in the Member States. The following information can be found in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) database on environmental taxes (2):

(euro/tonne) Denmark 50,3 Netherlands 13 - 78,8 Austria 5,8 - 101,6 Finland 15,1 Sweden 31,1 United Kingdom 3,2 - 19,3

(1) COM(1999)752final.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enveco/database_env_taxation.htm.
2.

In line with recognised auditing standards, the Commission does not validate audit findings until they have been confirmed in discussion with the auditees. If, after completion of this procedure, the Commission considers that money has been improperly spent in the field of the structural funds, it can recover this money by imposing so-called ‘financial corrections’. These decisions are publicised. However, in many cases the Member State will take the necessary corrective action in response to the audit findings before the final stage is completed. Furthermore, the Commission publishes an annual report on the protection of the Community financial interests and the fight against fraud which contains, inter alia, statistics and analyses on irregularities concerning the Cohesion and structural funds and agricultural subsidies, as communicated by the Member States. The annual reports of the European Court of Auditors since 1994 have concluded that, except for certain observations largely on accrual matters, the accounts faithfully reflect the Communities' revenue and expenditure for the year and their financial position at the year end. The Court has, however, not given full assurance as to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, inter alia on the basis of findings concerning payments for the Structural Funds. Upon receipt of the Court of Auditor's annual report, the Commission informs the Member States immediately of the details of theat report which relate to managament of the funds for which they are responsible. They, in turn, are obliged to present their observations within 60 days. The Commission transmits then a synthesis of Member States's replies to the other institutions (Article 143 paragraph 6 of the Financial Regulation). The Commission is attempting to improve this situation within the limits imposed by the system of shared management whereby the Structural Fund monies are administered in the Member States while the Commission remains responsible for the overall implementation of the Community's budget. The Commission has markedly tightened up the requirements on Member States for sound financial management.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/109

(2004/C 65 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2003/03

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

(16 June 2003)

Subject: Free circulation of euro notes

Almost from the outset, the free circulation of euro notes has been hampered by an obstacle that, though expected, is none the less tiresome and worrying, namely the fact that some notes, particularly those above EUR 50, are not accepted by some traders.

Signs marked ‘notes above EUR 50 not accepted’ are a common sight in shops and other sales outlets.

Are there any provisions which allow traders to refuse to accept euro notes of whatever denomination and, if not, do prospective purchasers have any legal recourse against measures which restrict the circulation of specific denominations?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

According to Article 106 (1), 3rd sentence, of the EC Treaty and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (1) all denominations of euro banknotes have legal tender status. While this Regulation introduces a further limitation (see Article 11) on the maximum number of coins which any party is obliged to accept, no further rules are laid down in relation to banknotes. The different banknote denominations are specified in a decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) Governing Council. The concept of legal tender is undefined in Community law, and should therefore be interpreted against the background of national rules and practices.

There is no European legislation, which provides legal recourse against the restricted acceptance of certain banknotes. Different legal provisions may apply according to the monetary and civil laws of Member States.

(1) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998.
4.

It would seem that three possibilities should be distinguished: (a) The European in question is located on the territory of a Member State that he or she is a citizen of. Most Member States do not extradite their own citizens to the United States, and among those that do, to the Commission's knowledge, one only does so under the condition that the person be returned after sentencing, for enforcement of the penalty at home. In addition, where necessary, the penalty is adjusted to the standards of that Member State; (b) The European in question is located on the territory of a Member State that he or she is not a citizen of, or in a third country. In this case, there would be no obstacle to extradition to the United States on the basis of citizenship, but other grounds for refusal might apply, notably those provided for by the applicable bilateral extradition treaty. In the future, if the Union-United States agreement on extradition enters into force, the grounds for refusal provided for in this agreement would also have to be taken into consideration; (c) The European in question is located on the territory of the United States. In this case, it seems highly unlikely that he or she would be returned to the Member State he or she is a citizen of, in order to stand trial there.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/38

(2004/C 65 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Reception conditions for asylum-seekers

The English High Court ruled on 19 February 2002 that the application of section 55(1) of the UK Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. This provision allows the UK Government automatically to refuse food and shelter to an asylum-seeker who has not made their asylum claim ‘as soon as reasonably practical’. The court ruled that refusing food and shelter is a breach of the applicant's human rights and the ban on inhumane and degrading treatment if it poses a real risk of destitution and injury to the asylum- seeker's health.

Since the wording in the UK Act is the same as in Article 16(2) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers, the risk may be that other Member States might fall foul of the ECHR if they also impose an automatic denial of benefit on delayed claims. Given the interest in a uniform application of EU law, will the Commission ensure that all Member States follow the guidance that this English judgment offers so that asylum-seekers are not left destitute?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 Avril 2003)

Following a ruling by the English High Court, the Honourable Member has requested clarification from the Commission about the implementation of Article 16(2) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (2).

The Commission has no competence to intervene in matters for which Community legislation has not yet entered into force. The provisions of this Directive still need to be transposed by the Member States. The deadline for transposition is 6 February 2005.

The Honourable Member is undoubtedly aware of the fact that the Home Secretary appealed the decision of the High Court and that the Court of Appeals has rendered its judgement.

A preliminary reading would suggest that this ruling follows the same lines as the principles laid down in the Directive.

The Directive provides for the possibility to refuse conditions in cases where an asylum seeker has failed to demonstrate that the asylum claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in a Member State. It also requires that decisions to refuse conditions shall be taken individually, objectively and impartially and reasons shall be given. Moreover, the Directive provides that such decisions shall be based on the particular situation of the person concerned, especially with regard to certain categories of vulnerable persons and it ensures that such decisions may be the subject of an appeal.

(1) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/229

(2004/C 65 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2836/03

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject: HIV and Commission support for development of affordable microbicide

Given the alarming rise of HIV infection in women and girls and the clear need for female-controlled prevention, can the Commission provide an update on how much support it is giving, through different instruments, to support the development of a safe, effective and affordable microbicide?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Sixth Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) within Priority 1 on Life sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health has an action line dedicated to the major communicable diseases linked to poverty.

This action line through two different pillars supports research on microbicides.

Firstly, it supports projects selected through standard call procedures, using the two new instruments (networks of excellence and integrated projects). Two integrated projects on microbicides were evaluated in the first call for proposals and are now in the negotiation phase with the Commission. These projects should run for five years and should develop a second generation of microbicides. One project is designed to create a development pipeline to allow the selection of candidates from a wide range of potentially effective agents.

Another project has a directed approach to bring a specific new class of microbicides to phase 1 clinical trials.

European key players in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) microbicides field are assembled in these consortia. The integration and complementarity of these two approaches place Europe in a strong strategic position.

Secondly a joint programme with Member States and Norway, the'European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership' (EDCTP) has just been launchedto develop new clinical interventions against HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis through a long-term partnership between Europe and developing countries. In the future, clinical trials on HIV microbicides could be tested through EDCTP programme in Africa. Actions under the public health programme of the Community do not foresee, nor are they intended to support, the development of medicinal products.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/65

(2004/C 65 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1214/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Macerata

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Macerata, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Macerata has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/228

(2004/C 33 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2168/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Violation of safety conditions in the Olympic Stadium in Marousi, Greece

Preparations for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games are now under way. Construction work is taking place in Marousi, the town were the Olympic Stadium is located.

Is the Commission aware of the following serious breaches of Greek law:

— The ignoring of safety conditions because of time pressure. We are told that, to date, 10 people have died and many others have been seriously injured.

— The prolongation of working hours: The law provides for a maximum seven-hour working day for building work. In this instance, workers often work 9-10 hours per day and seven days a week without proper overtime pay.

— The infringement of workers' rights: Workers were pressurised into agreeing to give up the right to strike because of the major national importance of this edifice.

— Lower pay than that set out in the national agreement: Many foreign workers are forced to accept lower pay.

— The misappropriation of pension funds: That most frequently affects foreign workers. Exploiting the fact that those workers do not know their rights, the employers pay pension-fund contributions covering only 7-10 working days in respect of workers who worked 26 days in a month.

— Lack of control: Despite complaints, government controls are not properly carried out. Employers are informed in advance of the inspection visits, and they have the opportunity to cover up most of the infringements. Even those infringements that are proven are not punished. Because of the threat of a possible delay that might jeopardise the success of the Olympic Games, the government appears to ignore infringements.

What measures will the Commission take in order to put an end to these infringements relating to working conditions and to guarantee the employees' health and safety at work, given the fact that their work will be intensified as the date for the 2004 Olympic Games approaches?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Commission has not received any complaints concerning the breaches of Greek law pointed out by the Honourable Member, but shares her concerns over them. Thus, the Commission will invite the Greek Authorities to submit their observations on the safety conditions in the Olympic Stadium in Marousi.

In any event, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that it is up to the Member States to ensure that national legislation transposing Community Directives is complied with and properly enforced.

If this should not be the case, the Commission will not hesitate to initiate an infringement procedure under Article 226 of the EC Treaty against the Member State in question.
4.

The Commission will continue to use its investigative powers and its regular contacts with operators in the sector to monitor the situation pursuant to Article 11 of the Regulation after the transition period has expired on 1 October 2003. If and when abuses or practices that are out of line with the new rules are brought to its attention, the Commission will take appropriate action, where necessary in association with the parties concerned. The Commission would like to take this opportunity to underline that it has no plans to revoke Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, or indeed to disapply it, or withdraw the benefit of the exemption. The conditions for such withdrawal or disapplication are set out in Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation, and in the Commission's view these are not met. The Commission would moreover draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that if Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 were revoked, the general block exemption for vertical restraints, 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 (3), would automatically apply to motor vehicle distribution and repair. From a dealer or repairer's point of view, that regulation contains fewer safeguards than Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. In particular, it does not provide for minimum notice provisions for terminating dealer agreements, does not allow those dealers who so wish to sub-contract after-sales provision, would allow manufacturers to effectively prevent dealers from selling brands from competing suppliers, and does not provide for independent repairers to have access to the technical information they need to effectively and safely repair today's vehicles. In the event that neither Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 nor Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 were to apply to the motor vehicle sector, dealers, manufacturers and repairers would have far less legal certainty as regards the compatibility of their agreements with the competition rules. The Commission therefore believes that a block exemption represents the best option for this sector, and understands that this view is shared by the majority of those concerned.