ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0124/03

by Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Special tax designated areas and the west of Ireland

Will the Commission state what its position is on the designation of new special tax areas in general and, in particular, taking into account the very positive advantages that have been experienced in such specially designated tax areas in urban locations, will the Commission state if it will support the designation of new special tax areas in remote rural areas such as the west of Ireland with a view to helping such communities to develop their economies and create important employment opportunities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Special tax areas are likely to involve State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. In the case of fiscal advantages not linked to the creation of jobs or to investment or to other purposes recognised as presenting a Community interest, it would involve operating aid, which is in principle incompatible with the common market and is only exceptionally considered compatible under very strict conditions in some specific areas eligible for assistance under Article 87(1)(a) or 87(1)(c)(1). Where such a link does exist, the Commission does not exclude the possibility that such a new policy measure, as outlined by the Honourable Member, could be considered to be compatible with the common market, or might even be exempted from notification pursuant to one of the Commission Exemption Regulations(2). However, on the basis of the information provided, and in the absence of a formal notification pursuant to Article 88, paragraph 3 of the EC Treaty, or of a formal information pursuant to the transparency requirements included in the above-mentioned exemption regulations, the Commission is unable to pronounce itself.

As to Ireland, the Regional Aid Map for the period 2000-2006 for Ireland provides that the Border, Midlands and Western (BMW) region qualifies entirely for assistance under the Article 87(3)(a) derogation and the rest of Ireland: South-East, Mid-West, South-West, Mid-East and Dublin qualifies for assistance under Article 87(3)(c). Any notified regional scheme for the West of Ireland would be examined by the Commission according to the Regional Aid Map for Ireland and the regions under the derogation, as well as to the ceilings on the intensity of aid for initial investment or the aid for job creation approved for each region.

(1) See Guidelines on national regional aid OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, and its amendments OJ C 258, 9.9.2000.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment OJ L 337, 13.12.2002. Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0629/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(26 February 2003)

Subject: UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq and the use of force

The Conclusions of the European Council of 17 February 2003 declare, inter alia, that Baghdad must disarm and co-operate immediately and fully, that the Union's objective for Iraq remains full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions, in particular resolution 1441, and that the Council pledges its full support to the (UN Security) Council in discharging its responsibilities.

Resolution 1441 makes reference to a number of previous UNSC. resolutions pertaining to Iraq including 678 (1990) and 687 (1991). Although principally concerned with the liberation of Kuwait, Paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 reads as follows:

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area'.

Paragraph 3 of the same resolution continues:

Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 above.

U. N. Security Council Resolution 687, whilst reaffirming the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions, required Iraq to unconditionally accept the destruction or removal of all biological and chemical weapons as well as research and manufacturing facilities and to accept immediate on-site inspections of its chemical, biological and missile capabilities by Unscom.

Does the Council accept that Iraq's longstanding failure to co-operate with the UN in accounting fully for its weapons of mass destruction and the continued threat to regional security which this presents mean that international peace and security have not yet been restored to the area? If so, does the Council accept that resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 provide an adequate legal basis for armed intervention in the event that Iraq continues to fail to co-operate with the UN in accounting for its stocks of biological and chemical weapons?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

As the Honourable Parliamentarian is aware, Security Council Members have different opinions on the legal basis for military action against Iraq. The Council has not debated the matter and has hence not pronounced itself on this question.

For further information on the EU position on Iraq the Honourable Parliamentarian is invited to refer to the Conclusions of the Presidency on the European Council meeting held in Brussels on 20/21 March 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0825/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Sovereign rights of the EU

Can the Council confirm that the sovereign rights of the European Union are derived from the sovereign rights transferred to the EU by the Member States?

Are there any EU sovereign rights which are not derived from its Member States?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that the European Union acts under the powers conferred on it in the Treaty negotiated, concluded and ratified by the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1125/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by the municipality of Terni

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 Terni, urgently need to use European funds to regenerate areas in industrial decline and to reduce imbalances in social and economic development,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the ERDF?

2. whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

Terni municipality is partly eligible for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Umbria SPD (single programming document) for 2000-2006.

The Umbria SPD has been approved by Commission decision(1) and provides for ERDF financing of EUR 150,5 million for total public expenditure of EUR 221,7 million.

Since the Umbria SPD is a programme with decentralised management, the authority responsible for carrying out operations is the Umbria region which has laid down project selection criteria in the programming supplement and is responsible for appraising applications. The Honourable Member could therefore appropriately ask that authority for detailed information on the projects presented and financed for Terni municipality.

(1) COM(2001) 2119 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0735/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE)and Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Ebro water transfer and Structural Funds Regulation

According to the definition given in the Structural Funds Regulation (Article 25 of EC Regulation 1260/1999(1)), the SNHP's Ebro river water transfer is a major project. It comprises an indivisible series of works fulfilling a precise technical function and its total cost exceeds EUR 50 million. The Ebro transfer was considered as a major project in the letter from the European Commission's Directorate-General for the Environment (19 December 2002) to the Spanish Ambassador, and in the reply by the Spanish Authorities (8 January 2003).

Article 26.2 of Regulation 1260/1999 indicates the conditions for approval and implementation of major projects.

These include the obligation for the Member States to provide in advance to the Commission information inter alia on:

- analysis of the costs and socio-economic benefits of the project (in the case of investment in infrastructure);

- evaluation of the environmental impact and implementation of the precautionary principle.

Scientific socio-economic and environmental analysis, including the controversial Cartagena study(2), show that the Ebro transfer is far from complying with these conditions.

Can the Commission confirm that the Ebro transfer will be dealt with as a major project and that the necessary requirement will be met before any decision about co-funding is taken by the Commission services?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2) A. Horne & others, A technical review of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (Ebro river out-of-basin diversion), Fundación Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, 7 January 2003. See also Arrojo Agudo P. & others, Análisis y valoración socioeconómica de los trasvases del Ebro, WWF European Policy Office, September 2002.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Under the Spanish Law on the National Hydrological Plan, the Ebro river transfer is made up of several hundred interventions.

Among these interventions, there may well be some projects for which the cost exceeds the EUR 50 million threshold laid down in Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1). Were any of such projects to be submitted by the Spanish authorities for co-financing by the Structural Funds, they would, consequently, be appraised by the Commission as major projects. Any such project will have to comply with all the requirements requested for major projects and in particular, Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, as well as with any other relevant applicable Community legislation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1545/03

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Dioxin content of hydrolysates

Directive 2001/102/EC(1) on the undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition states that animal feedstuffs may only be put into circulation if they are sound, genuine and of merchantable quality. The Directive lays down the maximum dioxin level for such feedstuffs.

Dioxin occurs naturally in fish, where it accumulates in the fat cells. In the case of the fish meal referred to in the Annex to the Directive, the dioxin level must be lower than 1,25 picograms/gr. and, in the case of fish oil, lower than 6 picograms/gr. The difference in the dioxin levels is due to the presence of greater or smaller quantities of fat.

The problem is the same when it comes to fish hydrolysate. The process of solubilising fish waste by hydrolysis is employed to produce proteins used to feed young mammals and for aquaculture fish rearing. It contains a high level of fat, and hence of dioxin. However, the product is not specifically listed in the Directive: it is neither a fish meal nor mixed feed, and classifying it as fishfood would restrict its sale to the aquaculture sector.

Could the Commission envisage amending the Directive to create a new category and to give specific classification to this hydrolysate product?

(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.2002, p. 45.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2003)

Council Directive 1999/29/EC of 22 April 1999 on the undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition(1), as amended by Council Directive 2001/102/EC of 27 November 2001, establishes maximum levels for dioxins in various feed materials and feedingstuffs. Directive 2002/32/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed(2) repeals and replaces Directive 1999/29/EC with effect from 1 August 2003. A maximum level for dioxins of six nanograms per kilogram (ng)/kg has been set for fish oil and 1,25 ng /kg for products and by-products of fish with the exception of fish oil but including fishmeal and fish protein hydrolysates.

Fishmeal contains typically 8 to 12 % fat, while fish protein hydrolysates contain more than 20 % fat. This issue has only recently been brought to the attention of the Commission. Recognising the fact that dioxins are accumulating in the fat and taking into account the specific nature of this product in particular its high fat content, the Commission has recently established a separate level for dioxins of 2,25 ng/kg in fish protein hydrolysates containing more than 20 % fat by Commission Directive 2003/57/EC of 17 June 2003 amending Directive 2002/32/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed(3).

(1) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999.

(2) OJ L 140, 30.5.2002.

(3) OJ L 151, 19.6.2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1174/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Nuclear safety at military sites in the UK and other Member States

The UK has implemented Euratom Basic Safety Standards (BSS) Directive (96/29/Euratom(1)) with the Radiological Emergency Public Preparedness Information Regulations (Reppir).

Can the Commission confirm that the Euratom Basic Safety Standards (BSS) Directive (96/29/Euratom) covers all licensed and unlicensed nuclear sites in case of a nuclear accident, including military sites?

Is the Commission aware that the UK's military sites do not comply with the Euratom Basic Safety Standards (BSS) Directive (96/29/Euratom), as the Ministry of Defence has refused to disclose the required data on which to base a safety plan?

Does EU law allow for an opt-out for military sites, including for visiting forces (as defined by the UK's Visiting Forces Act 1952) and, given the large number of military sites that contain nuclear material both in the UK and in other Member States, what are the Commission's plans to ensure that nuclear safety legislation applies to all sites?

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

1. Under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation, this Directive applies to all practices which involve a risk from ionizing radiation emanating from an artificial source or from a natural radiation source in cases where natural radionuclides are or have been processed in view of their radioactive fissile or fertile properties.

2. The Commission considers that the protection of the health and the safety of the public in the field of radiation protection is an indivisible objective and extends to all dangers arising from ionising radiation, irrespective of their source.

3. No provision of Directive 96/29/Euratom obliges Member States to disclose the required data on which to base a safety plan, the provision of such information being not necessary for the purpose of implementing an emergency plan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1195/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Sport for the Disabled programme 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 for the integration of disabled people through sport,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the Sport for the Disabled programme?

2. whether the municipality of Macerata has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0860/03, E-0885/03, E-1191/03, E-1192/03,E-1193/03, E-1194/03, E-1195/03, E-1196/03, E-1197/03, E-1198/03,E-1199/03, E-1200/03, E-1201/03, E-1202/03 and E-1203/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission does not doubt the importance of integrating disabled persons through sport, but has no specific programme in this field.

As regards the possible part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the Italian cities listed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would invite her to refer to its replies to her Written Questions E-0834/03(1), E-1118/03(2), E-1119/03(3) to E-1124/03 and E-1125/03(4).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 96.

(2) See page 160.

(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 172.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/03

by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Danger of landslides on the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed track

A report by the Delegation of the Association of Geologists in Aragon recommended that the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed train should bypass an area near Zaragoza which had experienced subsidence in 2000 and 2001. It would seem that the recommendations made by these geologists were disregarded. A gaping hole of fifty cubic metres has now appeared on a section of the conventional line and the high-speed line near Zaragoza. According to newspaper reports the rails on the line circling the south of Zaragoza, which run parallel to the high-speed tracks, were left hanging in thin air just an hour after a good trains had passed.

Similarly, the Delegation of the Association of Geologists in Catalunya has pointed to the susceptible geological characteristics of some sections of the Lerida-Barcelona line (presence of water-expandable gypsums and clays) which call for a second phase of problem identification, for which it would seem there is no budget. The Catalonian Association of Engineers has also deplored what it calls a breakdown in project implementation culture on the Madrid-Barcelona line, saying there was poor monitoring of the work done by contractors and a lack of quality control, and has publicly announced that the geological surveys were disregarded.

Have the Spanish authorities provided a proper explanation for what has happened and for the criticisms levelled by these associations of geologists and engineers?

Can the Commission provide assurances that all the requisite geological surveys aimed at averting risks and problems were carried out for the construction of the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed line, and especially the Lerida-Barcelona section of track, and that new funding is available for the identification and/or resolution of those problems?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that any requirement to carry out geological surveys prior to infrastructure construction is a matter of national legislation, there being no such obligation in the Community legislation. Thus the Commission has no authority to judge whether the surveys he refers to were adequate or not.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0269/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Loss of jobs on the borders with CEECs

The accession of the Central and Eastern European Countries, scheduled for May 2004, will inevitably result in the loss of hundreds of jobs in the border services that have until now handled customs operations, transport and related services.

On certain borders, such as Italy's eastern border with Slovenia, unemployment will hit over 90 % of those at present employed in the forwarding sector and services relating to it, and will also have a range of knock-on effects.

Added to the tangible problem of the loss of jobs and the crises likely to ensue in many families will be the economic damage occasioned by the loss of the skills of entire categories of worker, which will result in the dissipation of a human and cultural heritage developed through years of work and tradition.

In the light of the above, could the Commission indicate:

1. what type of measures are envisaged for categories of worker hard hit by the momentous event which is enlargement;

2. whether it does not consider it appropriate to bring forward a proposal for a directive promoting the retraining of all those workers who will lose their jobs on what are today's external borders;

3. whether on the same basis a compensation scheme might be envisaged, by way of derogation from the rules on State aid, for companies that will have to cease operating;

4. what sort of contribution countries who are set to join the EU might be asked to make to these compensation measures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

As the Commission has already indicated in its answer to Written Question E-2488/02 from Mr Lisi(1), it does not intend to propose any specific measures - such as a directive or a compensation plan - for workers whose jobs in customs, transport and related services will disappear following enlargement. The Member States have the possibility of applying for assistance under the Structural Funds or securing approval of State aid under the relevant guidelines laid down by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 179.