ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2102/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for European oil, gas and coal producers

Between 1975 and 1998, the Commission gave 747,72 million in subsidies to European oil, gas and coal producers.

How much was granted in subsidies in:

(a) 1999,

(b) 2000 and

(c) 2001?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

The amount of support allocated within the Energie Programme to innovative oil and gas technology was as follows:

- 1999: 11 million

- 2000: 36 million

As far as coal is concerned funding was allocated through the Energie Programme but also through the European Steel and Coal Community Programme (ECSC) as follows:

>TABLE>

It should be noted that such amounts are not subsidies but financial support for the promotion of innovative energy technology. In particular for the ECSC the financing originates from a fund created by a levy on the coal and steel industry.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Pension Fund Manager commissions

Will the Commission estimate the average or typical cost paid to managers of pension funds in each Member State as a proportion of the funds under management? Will it describe whether there are limits on such commissions in any Member States - either on all funds or a sub-set - and, if so, what they are and which Member States are concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 2001)

The Commission is aware that the administration of pension funds and the corresponding costs could have a significant impact on the efficiency and affordability of a certain pension fund in terms of return on investment of the relevant assets.

Nevertheless, the Commission has no information on the average or typical costs paid to managers of pension funds for the following reasons.

On the one hand, the Commission believes that competition and not regulation should lead to pensions funds getting the best value from their fund managers. The Commission proposal(1) will lead to greater choice in this respect. In addition, any limitation of the costs could have a negative impact on the quality of the services provided and reduce the overall efficiency of the fund.

On the other hand, the great variety of the pension schemes in the Community leads to different levels of administrative costs (for example a defined benefit scheme covering biometric risk would normally have higher charges than a defined contribution scheme). The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the influence of various factors on the administrative costs would question the value of any study dealing with the average or typical costs paid to managers of pension funds.

(1) See proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the activities of institutions for occupational retirement provision (COM(2000) 507).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2070/01

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Cooperation to promote sustainable urban development - call for proposals in OJ C 122, 25.4.2001

The documentation for the above programme is available only in English and French. This is a flagrant breach of the principle of equal status for the various languages. The result is that interested municipalities and towns from other language areas are de facto excluded from taking part in the call for proposals. Small municipalities in particular cannot be expected to possess advanced linguistic skills.

When will the Commission translate the above documentation into German?

Will the Commission re-open the call for proposals once the necessary translations are available?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The call for the submission of proposals under a Community framework for co-operation to promote sustainable urban development, published in the Official Journal(1), is addressed to networks of local authorities originating from at least four Member States and possibly also of cities and towns of Central and Eastern European Countries, Cyprus and Malta as well as of other countries which have association agreement with the Community. The participation of small towns is not excluded since they may belong to one of these networks.

The availability of the application documents in two official languages only - French and English - has to be understood against this background as well as by the time limits set for considering funding proposal still in 2001.

(1) OJ C 122, 25.4.2001, p 11.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Inappropriate use of botulin

It is apparently becoming increasingly common to treat wrinkles by injecting botulin into the skin. This substance is known to be highly toxic and can cause irreversible injury to facial muscles. It is banned in some Member States and other countries for precisely these reasons.

1. Is the Commission aware of the above practice?

2. What steps, if any, will it take to protect the health of citizens as consumers against such methods, which damage health as well as impairing physical appearance?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of the fact that botulin is a potentially dangerous substance.

This substance is defined as a medicinal product. No medicinal product can be put on the market without having obtained a marketing authorisation. To obtain this, the applicant is required to carry out tests which demonstrate the quality, safety and effectiveness of the medicinal product. Once the competent authorities have conducted the evaluation, the marketing authorisation can be granted if the risk/benefit ratio is favourable. Marketing authorisations are thus granted by the Member States for serious therapeutic purposes such as the treatment of blepharospasms, facial hemispasms or spasmodic torticollis. These medicinal products must be medically prescribed and should be used in specialist units.

Given that the substance mentioned by the Honourable Member - botulin - is a medicinal product, it is subject to Community regulations concerning the marketing, use, testing and advertising of such products, particularly Directive 65/65/EC(1).

The Commission is aware of the fact that this substance is used for non-therapeutic purposes, such as the treatment of wrinkles.

The Commission does not have detailed information on the specific position adopted by each of the Member States regarding this use of botulin.

In view of the above remarks, the Commission would, however, like to stress that whenever a doctor prescribes and uses a medicinal product for purposes other than those approved under the marketing authorisation procedure, the said doctor assumes full responsibility for the prudent use of the substance and for providing information to the patient.

(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ B 22, 9.2.1965).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/01

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Single European Sky

What steps is the Commission taking to prevent the status of Gibraltar from delaying the implementation of Single European Sky?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2064/01, E-2065/01 and E-2066/01given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission has explained the background of its Single Sky initiative in its replies to Written Questions P-312/011(1) and P-2062/012(2) of the Honourable Member.

Conscious of the need to propose measures quickly in order to alleviate delays and address the problems of the current air traffic management organisation, the Commission started work even before the completion of the High Level Group report referred to in its previous replies, in order to prepare the technical background for any legislative proposals.

In this context, several studies were commissioned, the results of which are published on http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/air/english/single_eur_sky_en.html and which were discussed at a public workshop late May 2001.

The Commission now expects to bring forward legislative proposals shortly after the summer.

Therefore the Commission is not of the opinion that there has up to now been any delay in the preparation of the Single Sky proposals.

In view of its general experience in the field of air transport, where several of its proposals have been held up in the Council because of difficulties concerning their application to Gibraltar airport, the Commission hopes that the United Kingdom and Spain can give it assurances that these difficulties will not arise in connection with the single sky proposals.

The Commission notes that contacts are under way between the relevant Member States on this question, expressing the hope that these contacts will produce early agreement. However, since the Commission is not party to these discussions, it is not in a position to inform the Honourable Member as to their progress and contents.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(2) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 237.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2378/01

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 August 2001)

Subject: Purification of fish products

Following the speech by Commissioner Byrne to the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament on 10 July, could the Commission outline precisely what possibilities exist for purifying fish meal and fish oil with the aim of reducing dioxin levels? Furthermore, is the Commission able to offer any indication of the likely costs involved in employing such methods?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Refining and hydrogenation of fish oil result in a considerable decrease in the content of dioxins and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). However these processes also eliminate the valuable 3-omega polyunsaturated fatty acids which nutritionists consider indispensable in feed. Refined fish oils can therefore be used for the manufacture of margarine and cooking fats but are not suitable for animal feed.

Another very promising technique is the purification of fish oils with active carbon. The first large-scale purification plants based on this technique have been put in place. Contrary to hydrogenation, the 3-omega polyunsaturated fatty acids are not removed by this technique; the decontaminated fish oil remains suitable for the production of animal feed. The cost of this technique is estimated at present at 35-40 per tonne of fish oil; the current world market price of fish oil is approximately 250 per tonne.

For the time being, no suitable industrial techniques exist for the removal of dioxins from fishmeal. In order to remove dioxin from fishmeal, the 6-12 % oil present in the fishmeal has to be removed by petrol extraction. This process considerably lowers the quality of the fishmeal. The Commission is aware that industry is carrying out trials in order to develop a suitable method of reducing dioxin in fishmeal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1307/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE),Willy De Clercq (ELDR), Robert Goebbels (PSE), Den Dover (PPE-DE),Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Sector-specific burden upon vending machine operators on the introduction of the euro

According to various studies from the Dutch research institute NEI and European Vending Association (EVA), the introduction of the euro creates a disproportionate sector-specific burden upon vending machine operators, which are mostly SMUs. Whilst the retail trade claims that it will have to bear costs amounting to 1-2 % of annual turnover, according to EVA the vending industry will be facing costs of at least 10 % of annual turnover. Furthermore, the logistical and technical aspects of switching the 2,2 million food and drink machines to the euro will also create inevitable turnover losses during the DCP, as not all machines can be switched overnight. According to a preliminary legal memorandum drawn up by Van Wijmen Nouwen, there is a legal basis for claiming compensation for sector-specific costs in at least seven euro-area countries: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Ireland.

Does the Council believe that the EVA figures relating to the sector-specific burden upon vending machine operators are valid?

Does it agree that, in at least seven euro-area countries, a legal basis exists for claiming compensation for sector-specific costs?

What measures does it think will be appropriate to support and/or compensate the vending industry, especially SMUs?

Have any measures been planned to date?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

Concerning the first and third questions, the Council has not received any proposal from the Commission.

As regards the second question, the attention of the Honourable MEP is drawn to the fact that it is not up to the Council to comment or to evaluate, in general or on specific points, the legal system of Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1172/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Double murder in Tetovo, Macedonia

The whole world witnessed the killing of two utterly defenceless men in front of the television cameras by Macedonian army soldiers.

Is the Council going to stand by and take no action, when such acts of barbarism, which have already caused thousands of deaths in the Balkans, are taking place all over again in the face of the failure of the European Union's Member States to take action?

Reply

(21 November 2001)

The Council is seriously concerned about the level of tension and violence which the EU has repeatedly condemned in the firmest terms in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Incidents like the one to which the Honourable Member refers are the unfortunate result of acts of provocation from Albanian extremists aimed at drawing the government of FYROM into the spiral of a full-scale conflict.

To interrupt the spiral of violence, the EU High Representative, Javier Solana, through his strong personal commitment and numerous visits to the country since the beginning of the crisis, has been instrumental in getting a political process through interethnic dialogue

under way. On 13 May a government of national unity, including main ethnic Albanian political parties, was finally formed, which was warmly welcomed by the Council as an important step towards closer cooperation between different ethnic communities in the country.

The signature of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with FYROM on 9 April has been a powerful lever in the hands of the EU, and the agreement will remain an important instrument for engaging the FYROM government.

The EU has clearly stressed the need for the new government to produce quickly concrete and substantial results, particularly on issues related to the situation of minorities (i.e. new TV channel in the Albanian language, progress on the Albanian-language South East Europe University in Tetovo, early reconstruction of buildings damaged by armed clashes etc). The European Union will support FYROM's efforts to this end. The EU feels that the delivery of early, concrete results is vital in order to keep the political process going, to isolate extremists and to bring FYROM closer to Europe. The Council emphasises its view that only through political means can this crisis be resolved and a viable solution found.

The EU message was clearly spelled out by the EU Ministerial Troika, which visited Skopje on 16 May 2001, to all its interlocutors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Aid received by the Canary islands in the period 1991-2001. Outermost regions.



Official Journal 081 E , 04/04/2002 P. 0213 - 0213



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission (12 November 2001) Subject: Aid received by the Canary islands in the period 1991-2001. Outermost regions 2001 marks the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1911/91(1) of 26 June 1991 on the application of the provisions of Community law to the Canary Islands. With a view to assessing the impact of Community policies and aid in this outermost region, can the Commission state the total and separate amounts of aid received by the Canaries in the period 1991-2001 from the ERDF, the ESF, the FIFG and the EAGGF Guidance Section, as well as the total amounts under the EAGGF Guarantee Section? What impact did such financial aid have on GDP and increased employment in the Canaries? (1) OJ L 171, 29.6.1991, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (28 November 2001) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Delay in approval of new BSE tests

From 1 July 2001 each Member State, with the exception of the United Kingdom, Austria, Sweden and Finland, must test all slaughtered cattle aged 30 months or more for BSE.

The BSE tests must undergo trials by DG Sanco at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Geel in order to receive approval. At present the market is divided among three manufacturers whose tests have been approved since 1999. Other manufacturers have submitted new tests for approval since then. At the beginning of 2001 the approval of these new tests was scheduled for April/May this year, which would have meant early access to this large market for the new manufacturers. However, this approval is now not expected until the end of August 2001.

1. Can the Commission explain the cause for this long delay?

2. Is the Commission aware that, owing to this delay, the current manufacturers are occupying a monopoly position with their tests, particularly taking into account that, if a laboratory uses a specific test once, it continues to use it for a long period? What is the Commission's opinion on this?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1326/2001 of 29 June 2001(2), lists three rapid tests which are approved for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) monitoring. The tests were selected based on an evaluation carried out by the Commission in 1999.

A second evaluation started in December 2000. As in the first evaluation, the tests to be evaluated were selected by a panel of experts following a worldwide call for expressions of interest.

The second evaluation has been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom lead to a delay in the delivery of positive samples from the national reference laboratory in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, there were unexpected problems using the available frozen test samples and a new series had to be prepared. Clearly, it would be unacceptable to accelerate the approval of tests without ensuring that the necessary scientific evaluation is rigorously and properly carried out. Public health considerations must take precedence over commercial considerations in this respect.

The Commission does not consider the present situation a monopoly, as the three approved tests are manufactured and marketed by different companies. The Commission is however following the situation carefully.

(1) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2) OJ L 177, 30.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1475/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Public access to EU documents

May I draw the Council's attention to the fact that answer P-3572/00(1) (23 April 2001) throws no light on the questions asked. According to the Belgian Foreign Affairs Ministry, Decision 2000/527/EC(2) was reached in reaction to a specific request by a member of the public with which the Council did not wish to comply (P-11 meeting of Wednesday 18 October 2000).

I consequently would still like to have an answer to the questions raised in Written Question P-3572/00:

1. When was the request concerned submitted to the Council?

2. Who submitted that request?

3. To which documents did the request relate?

4. Why did the Council not wish to comply with the request?

5. To what extent did that request and the Council's refusal induce the Council to resort to an emergency procedure in order to restrict public access to European documents?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 212, 23.8.2000, p. 9.

Reply

(20 November 2001)

In reply to the question of the Honourable Member of Parliament, the Council underlines that the reasons which led it to adopt Decision 2000/527/EC are set out in detail in the recitals of that decision. It does not wish to comment on the opinion allegedly expressed by a ministry of a Member State on the background of this decision.

As the Honourable Member of Parliament may be aware, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(1) provides that sensitive documents as defined in Article 9(1) of the Regulation shall be subject to special treatment in accordance with that Article. As already pointed out in its reply his Written Question E-2846/00 of 11 September 2000, the Council will review its Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public access to documents, as last amended by Decision 2000/527/EC, in the light of the new rules provided for in the said Regulation.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council. Intimidation of human rights defenders in Ethiopia.



Official Journal 081 E , 04/04/2002 P. 0066 - 0066



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council (27 June 2001) Subject: Intimidation of human rights defenders in Ethiopia Is the Council aware of the routine intimidation of human rights defenders in Ethiopia, which has most recently manifested itself in the arrests and subsequent denial of bail of Prof. Mesfin Woldemariam, the founder and first chairman of Ethiopia's Human Rights Council (EHRCO), and Dr Berhanu Nega, an academic and human rights activist? In addition to the arrests, which may violate Ethiopia's constitutional guarantee of freedom of assembly, the denial of bail is a common method used by the Ethiopian Government to silence outspoken human rights critics by incarcerating them while long, intentionally slow investigations are carried out. Will the Council demand that the Ethiopian Government respect these men's fundamental rights and that the chronic harassment of human rights defenders be brought to an end? Reply (26 November 2001) The Council, which is closely following the situation in Ethiopia, remains concerned about the development of the political situation and the human rights violations in that country. Following events in Addis Ababa in mid-April this year, the local EU troika approached the Ethiopian authorities on two occasions (April and August 2001) to express the EU's concern about the ways in which the disturbances were quelled and about the subsequent imprisonment of students and opposition leaders.