ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/02

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Beef and live cattle exports to the Middle East and North Africa

Would the Commission let me know what proportion of the Community's exports of cattle to the Middle East and North Africa are in the form of meat and what proportion are exported as live animals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

In the table below are listed the quantities (expressed in carcass weight equivalent) of live cattle and beef exported by the Community to the Middle East and North Africa in the three most recent calendar years.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 May 2002)

Subject: A1 and A2 posts

On 24 April 2002 the Commission announced that the mobility rule would also be applied to the Commission's highest-level posts.

Can the Commission state how many posts at A1-level (Director-General and Deputy Director-General) and A2-level (Director) are currently held by Greek nationals? Also, how many such posts exist at the moment in the European Union organisations?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

There are currently (May 2002) 62 A1 posts occupied at the Commission, of which two (3,2 %) are held by Greek nationals. 208 A2 posts are currently occupied at the Commission, of which 11 (5,3 %) are held by Greek nationals.

The Commission does not have the information requested about the other European Institutions and therefore invites the Honourable Member to address his question directly to them.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1700/02

by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Implementation in Greece of the Community scheme for production aid for cotton in the 2001-2002 marketing year in accordance with Regulation 1051/2001

Some cotton producers have ignored or infringed Community regulations on cotton production, thereby compromising and jeopardising producers who comply with the regulations.

Furthermore, the reform of the Community regulatory framework governing the cotton aid scheme was completed much later than the production period and, in any case, after the fields had been prepared and the cotton seed sown.

The Commission's proposal for a regulation also differed in many substantive respects from the text finally adopted by the Council Regulation (EC) 1051/2001(1) causing confusion and problems for producers.

In view of the above, what measures will the Commission take to protect law-abiding producers from the damage they may suffer as a result of the conduct of producers who do not comply with the rules or try to commit fraud?

How will it ensure that the legitimate expectations of producers are not cruelly frustrated by the late publication of the reformed regulatory framework for the cotton aid scheme?

Will the Commission take measures either of a corrective nature (changes to those points in the regulations which are unclear) or of a transitional nature (adoption of transitional arrangements for the 2001 harvest where the late publication of the regulations caused problems for producers)?

(1) OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

Under Community rules it is for Member States to decide what penalties to impose on growers who infringe regulatory provisions and to take all necessary action for their application.

The proposal for changes in the cotton aid scheme was published on 13 December 1999(1). Its provisions, notably the higher percentage reduction in the guide price if the guaranteed national quantity is exceeded and the possibility afforded to Member States of restricting the areas eligible for aid in line with environmental criteria, were therefore known many months before the normal sowing date for the 2001/2002 marketing year. Growers were therefore aware, although the exact terms of the new provisions adopted by the Council were known only in May 2001, that they had to expect changes in the aid scheme.

The Commission considers that the Community rules on cotton are sufficiently clear. It may however propose changes or make changes itself if events in the life of the aid scheme so dictate.

(1) COM(1999) 492 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1480/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Intervention against trade union blockade

At the beginning of the year, the Commission intervened on behalf of an Estonian shipping company against two Finnish trade unions. The background was that the trade unions, in full compliance with Finnish law, had blockaded an Estonian ship. The trade unions were demanding that the Estonian Shipping Company (Esco) should respect Finnish agreements.

How does the Commission justify its intervention and on what legal basis did it act? Does the Commission consider that it has the right to intervene in legal trade union disputes?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

On 31 January 2002, the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Finland because of its failure to take any measure to prevent/reduce the effects of several boycott actions undertaken by the Finnish Unions against the ships of an Estonian shipowner. Prior to taking this action, the Commission had repeatedly encouraged Finnish and Estonian authorities to resolve this issue bilaterally.

The present infringement procedure is based on the Europe Agreement between Estonia and the Union of 1997. Under that agreement the parties took the commitment of ensuring shipowners established in their territories freedom to provide maritime services. The Europe Agreement is part of the acquis communautaire and is therefore binding on all Member States.

The infringement procedure regards the behaviour of a Member State and not the relations between individuals or organisations.

The monitoring of application of Community law is a mission attributed to the Commission by the Treaties (Article 211 of the EC Treaty). At present, the Commission is analysing the reply from the Finnish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Felling of the Bosque de Niebla in the Alcornocales National Park

Under Directive 92/43/EEC(1), the Alcornocales Natural Park, which is located in the province of Cádiz (Andalusia, Spain), is considered by the EU to be a Special Area of Conservation.

Situated within the park is the Bosque de Niebla, which the Spanish Ministry of Defence wishes to fell so that it can install an electromagnetic wave detection and analysis centre. This would jeopardise an area which, on account of the rarity of its flora and fauna in Mediterranean latitudes, is one of the most ecologically valuable in Europe, since quite apart from the planned felling, the area's fragile ecosystem would be irremediably affected by the activity in, and the flow of traffic through, the park.

The problem lies not with the actual erection of the antenna, but with the location selected by the Spanish Ministry of Defence. Some other site could be chosen where the environmental impact would be minimal.

Is the Commission aware of what the Ministry intends to do?

What action is the Commission planning to take in order to protect the area (which qualifies as a Special Area of Conservation under Directive 92/43/EEC) and to safeguard the area's ecosystem, fauna and flora?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1001/02 and E-1288/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, having requested information on the planned centre while investigating a complaint (No 2000/4315) about plans to construct various types of infrastructure within the special protection area known as Los Alcornocales bird sanctuary.

The Spanish authorities replied that planning decisions were dictated by national defence considerations and the various alternative sites considered had been dismissed as offering worse conditions for electromagnetic wave detection and analysis quality.

They also pointed out that plans to construct an access road, likely to have an impact on the area, had been shelved.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary action to ensure compliance with Community legislation in the case in point.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1153/02

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Replanting vines in Sicily

Many wine-growers in Sicily are replanting vines in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1325/90(1) et seq. set to expire in the 2002/2002 marketing year.

These wine-growers are currently experiencing serious difficulties owing to an extremely severe and long-lasting period of drought.

In addition to the possible loss of their vines, these growers are also faced with the fact that it is legally impossible for them to provide for the coming year.

Given the fact that the likely failure of the replanting operations is due solely to exceptionally harsh weather conditions, would the Commission consider granting an extension with a view to preventing Sicilian wine-growers and producers from sustaining enormous losses and thousands of jobs from being lost in the sector?

(1) OJ L 132, 23.5.1990, p. 19.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The regulatory provisions to which the Honourable Member refers no longer apply. They were repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on common organisation of the market in wine(1).

The provisions now in force are the above Council Regulation supplemented by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 setting detailed rules of application for Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards production potential(2).

Action on the problems encountered by the wine-growers concerned over using replanting rights must accord with these.

The duration of such rights is set by the Council Regulation, amendment of which would require Parliament's opinion.

Under the present provisions replanting rights that expire are transferred to reserves run by the Member States at national or regional level. Thus they are still available for use and can be assigned in line with rules set by the competent authorities that respect the Community provisions.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(2) OJ L 143, 16.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1691/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Application of the directive on the recognition of diplomas

Further to the Greek Education Minister's letter to the Commission stating that Greece is not obliged to recognise educational qualifications awarded by foreign institutions, can the Commission say what it proposes to do to enforce the application of Directive 89/48/EEC(1)?

Commissioner Bolkestein has in fact sent a letter of formal notice to Greece requesting it to take all necessary measures to implement the directive concerned and leaving open the possibility of proceedings in the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

As Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration(1) was not transposed by Greece within the specified time, the Court of Justice ruled on the failure to comply in a judgment of 23 March 1995 (case C-365/93 Commission versus Greece). When Greece failed to comply with this judgment by informing the Commission of the measures for transposing the Directive, the latter initiated new infringement proceedings on the basis of Article 228 of the EC Treaty with a request for the fixing of penalty payments. After a Court hearing on the matter, Greece gave notification of Presidential Decree No 165 of 23 June 2000 transposing Directive 89/48/EEC. Since Greece had thus responded to the complaint about failure to transpose the Directive, the Commission was prompted to stop the Court proceedings.

The Commission's examination of Presidential Decree No 165 of 23 June 2000, together with the complaints which it had received, nevertheless showed that the directive had not been correctly transposed and that it had not been properly applied. New infringement proceediings against Greece were thus opened, this time for non-compliance of Presidential Decree No 165/2000 with Directive 89/48/EEC and for wrong application of the latter.

Greece was given notification of a letter of formal notice on 27 July 2001, and this was followed on 21 December 2001 by a supplementary letter of formal notice in the light of further information from complainants.

The Greek authorities gave their comments to the Commission in letters on 12 October 2001, 13 March 2002 and 17 April 2002. The last two letters contained draft versions of texts which would apparently remedy certain complaints in connection with the non-compliance of Greek law with Directive 89/48/EEC. However, inasmuch as these texts have not been adopted and since there still remain some important complaints with regard in particular to the wrong application of the Directive, the Commission decided on 26 June 2002 to send Greece a reasoned opinion.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0927/02

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Commission-funded information programmes on the euro and the EU for Member States and non-EU Member States

Can the Commission please tell me how much money has been spent on information and/or promotion of the European Single Currency in:

1. Eurozone Member States.

2. Non-Eurozone EU Member States.

3. Applicant States.

Can the Commission also tell me how much money has been spent on information and/or promotion in relation to Malta's forthcoming referendum on membership of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Between 1996 and 31 December 2001, the Commission has spent through the Information Programme for the European Citizen (Prince) a total of EUR 185 million on information on the single currency. A large proportion of this amount has helped finance the National euro information campaigns of the 12 euro area countries (EUR 110 million). However, as many projects have been transnational in nature involving three or more Member States it is impossible to give an exact breakdown of the figure between the Eurozone countries and the three non-Eurozone countries.

However the figures below are a fairly accurate picture of the situation:

1. Eurozone Member States: EUR 175 million;

2. Non Eurozone States: EUR 7,3 million of which EUR 1,5 million has gone to Sweden for its National Information Campaign;

3. Third countries: EUR 2,7 million of which a maximum of EUR 0,5 million have been spent in the candidate countries which included a seminar in Budapest in September 2001.

Apart from providing information on the Union and on the Enlargement process in general, as part of its Communication strategy on Enlargement, the Commission does not spent money specifically on information and/or promotion in relation to Malta's forthcoming referendum on membership of the Union. These activities are the responsibility of the Maltase government in the first place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0804/02

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: Blood alcohol limits

In January 2001 the European Commission adopted a recommendation on the maximum permitted blood alcohol content for drivers of motorised vehicles (2001/115/EC(1)). What has been the impact of this recommendation on the policies of the EU Member States and the EEA countries? Has the recommendation had an impact in the accession countries?

Can the Commission give details of rules on maximum blood alcohol content for drivers currently in force in each of:

1. The EU Member States;

2. The EEA countries;

3. The accession countries?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

In accordance with the Commission's recommendation of 17 January 2001 on the maximum permitted blood alcohol content for drivers(1), several Member States are considering reducing the alcohol limit for certain categories of drivers, in particular inexperienced drivers, in the near future. It is therefore premature to assess the impact of the recommendation. The Commission intends to draw up a report on the measures taken, but at a later stage. This report will also cover the countries of the European Economic Area and the EU accession candidate countries.

It should be pointed out that the recommendation concerns not only the alcohol limit for drivers but all aspects of combating drink-driving, in particular arrangements for controls and the equipment used by police forces, information and awareness-raising campaigns, collection of statistics on the incidence of alcohol in accidents and support for the search for and spread of best practices.

Following this recommendation and in accordance with the White Paper entitled European Transport Policy until 2010: Time to decide(2), the Commission has participated in several awareness-raising, training and research schemes, giving priority to the protection of young drivers.

With regard to the general alcohol limits in force in the Member States, the Honourable Member should consult the summary table in the chapter of the White Paper devoted to road safety issues.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.2001.

(2) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0631/02

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

(6 March 2002)

Subject: The Commission's position on the US President's attitude to the emission of gases into the atmosphere

What is the Commission's position, in the context of the Kyoto Agreeements upheld by the EU, on the recent proposals made by the US President, George Bush, to reduce his country's emission of gases into the atmosphere?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2002)

The plan for a climate change policy put forward by President Bush is purely of a domestic nature. It may represent a first step in the right direction, where economic operators in the United States are asked to contribute to emission control. It is not seen as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol to which the Union and other Parties remain fully committed. The Protocol is the only effective international framework for combating global warming and the Commission urges the United States to return to the Kyoto process.

The Commission has carefully analysed the details of President Bush's proposals, in particular the unilateral greenhouse gas intensity target. Its concern is that they will not lead to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions but allow a significant increase of some 30 % above the 1990 level in 2012. As a consequence, the United States will not meet the objective of the Framework Convention on Climate Change that it has ratified for developed country parties to stabilise their greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels. Achieving this would only be a first step towards stabilising global greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent further global warming. This is the ultimate objective of the Convention to which the United States has subscribed.

Avoiding global warming requires reductions in emissions. Even the targets in the Kyoto Protocol are only a first step to prevent the consequences that climate change could have. The challenge of sustainable development is to protect the environment, while ensuring economic growth.

Global warming is a worldwide problem and should therefore be tackled internationally, on the basis of the very important work carried out by the international community. The United States, as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, should live up to their responsibility under the Convention and make reduction efforts comparable to those undertaken in other parts of the world in the context of the Kyoto Protocol. The Union has already reduced its emissions below 1990 levels and is committed to meet the Kyoto target of an 8 % reduction by 2008-2012.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1255/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Free movement of goods, services and people

Is the Commission aware of the enormous damage done to the economy of Alderney by the arbitrary decision of the French Government to impose a no-fly zone around the Cap de la Hague nuclear plant?

Does the Commission endorse this decision? If so, does it feel that such no-fly zones should be imposed around similar or all nuclear plants in the EU? What compensation is available to those whose livelihoods are affected by such decisions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2002)

After the tragic events in the United States on 11 September 2001, the French government has taken air safety measures resulting in various air access prohibitions and air access restrictions above large cities and above specific sites.

In this respect, the control of the airspace above the nuclear site of La Hague has been delegated to the military air defence and this airspace has been organised in two different areas, according to the vicinity to the site.

In order to help airspace users based on aerodromes located close to the concerned sites, these restrictions have been alleviated since 13 April 2002 and aeronautical information has been updated accordingly.

For the time being, according to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Convention signed in Chicago in 1944, airspace and safety management is under the responsibility of the different States which organise themselves at a national level.

This may lead to some difficulties when measures are taken close to the national borders. That is one of the reasons why the Commission has presented a package of proposals on air traffic management designed to create a single European sky by 31 December 2004 in order to move toward a more efficient and safer airspace that will be managed at the Community level.

Nevertheless, this regulation will not prevent Member States from adopting or applying measures warranted by serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out obligations they have accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.