ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1756/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Manufacturing standards for bicycle components

On Wednesday, 5 June 2002, the Belgian Federal Parliament failed to reach agreement on whether or not it should be obligatory for bicycles to be equipped with what is known as a horseshoe lock. Nevertheless, the Belgian Federal Government intends to commission alternative studies in order to encourage the use of bicycle locks. With a view to ensuring that bicycles are equipped more generally with reliable fittings, such as high-quality lights, Mrs Isabelle Durant, Federal Minister for Mobility and Transport, intends to call at European level for manufacturing standards to be laid down because she feels that manufacturers, frequently from Asian countries, cannot guarantee the requisite quality.

Has the Commission already received a request from Mrs Durant along these lines?

Does the Commission share the view that manufacturing standards need to be introduced for bicycles and accessories? If so, what are its grounds for so doing, and what steps is it taking to achieve the desired result? If not, why not?

Does the Commission share the view that products from Asia do not meet the quality requirements which, according to the Belgian Minister for Mobility and Transport, are essential for the manufacture of reliable bicycles?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 2002)

The Commission has not received any recent official request from the Belgian authorities regarding the harmonisation of standards for bicycles. The Commission has no information indicating that such harmonisation is necessary for ensuring the free movement of bicycles in the internal market.

With regard to the quality of Asian bicycles, neither has the Commission received any complaints about the reliability of such products sold on the European market.

More generally at Community level, since there is no specific legislation, bicycles as products intended for consumers are covered by Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety(1). This Directive requires manufacturers to place only safe products on the market. In the case in point, the Member States are required, even in the absence of harmonised technical specifications, to ensure that this obligation is met and thus to prevent unsafe bicycles being placed on the market.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0816/02

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

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Development in Galicia and the example of Ireland

The first progress report on cohesion, published in January 2002, points out that between 1988 and 2000 the per capita GDP in Ireland rose from 64 % to 119 % of the Community average, which means that it is now one of the richest countries in the Union, after being one of the poorest, an Objective 1 region and a country eligible for Cohesion Fund intervention. This situation cannot have happened by chance, but rather as the result of tangible actions and factors which should be borne in mind in other Union countries.

What conclusions does the Council draw from the Irish experience which might be applied to regions such as Galicia, which, despite having a per capita GDP in 1988 similar to that of Ireland, also being an Objective 1 region and belonging to a cohesion country, Spain, still registers only 65 % of the average per capita GDP for the EU?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

The Council would ask the Honourable Member to refer in part to the reply already made to him (in response to question E-0062/02), in which it explained the overall framework in which it intends to continue its consideration of this issue.

The Council shares the Honourable Member's positive view of the beneficial effect of the Community's structural intervention in Ireland, which has been achieved in combination with successful domestic macro and micro economic policies. This shows that for the effectiveness of the Structural and Cohesion Funds to be maximised, spending of these Funds needs to well co-ordinated with appropriate domestic policies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Nuclear waste management

In respect of the statement included in the Commission press release IP/02/872 on 17 June 2002 that, As far as nuclear waste management is concerned, each Member State will be in charge of its own strategy and build its own facilities, but the cooperation with the Commission will ensure a harmonised approach across Europe, and the pooling of world-class expertise, will the Commission state all of the bodies from which it intends to draw expertise?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1961/02, E-1962/02 and E-1963/02given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

The Euratom Research Framework Programme contributes to the establishment of the European Research Area in the nuclear sector, and thereby for the efficient pooling of expertise and co-ordination of existing research activities in the Member States. The programme is open to any legal entity, that is performing research in the areas covered by the Programme, and fulfils the Rules for Participation. All legal entities fulfilling these requirements, national waste management agencies, nuclear industry, universities and other research organisations will be invited.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0852/02

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Blind spot mirrors

1. Has the Commission noted the Dutch Government's intention, because of the large number of accidents, to make blind spot mirrors mandatory on goods vehicles before the end of the year?

2. Is the Commission prepared to accept that, in doing so, the Netherlands is going beyond the relevant European rules, which make this mandatory for new goods vehicles only?

3. Is the Commission willing to consider extending the European rules to all goods vehicles on the basis of the Netherlands' experience?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

1. The Commission has indeed noted the Dutch Government's intention to make blind spot mirrors mandatory on goods vehicles before the end of 2002.

2. The Commission has very recently submitted a proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council(1) which will introduce mandatory harmonised requirements for the type-approval of mirrors and systems for indirect vision for motor vehicles of categories M (vehicles for the carriage of passengers) and N (vehicles for the carriage of goods). This proposed Directive is already being examined by the Parliament in first reading and by the Council working party on motor vehicles. If

adopted, it will amend Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers(2) and will make it mandatory for all categories of vehicles instead of being voluntary within the type-approval system for light and heavy duty commercial vehicles. The Commission welcomes the initiative taken by the Netherlands to go even further and to introduce these mandatory harmonised requirements also for existing goods vehicles.

3. The Commission will indeed investigate the costs and benefits of equipping existing goods vehicles with such mirrors and vision enhancement systems and will, if justified, propose corresponding European legislation.

(1) COM(2001) 811 final.

(2) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970 as last amended OJ L 232, 23.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1959/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Nuclear proliferation potential

In respect of the statement included in the Commission press release IP/02/872 on 17 June 2002 that, It intended that ITER should demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy generation, will this demonstration also examine the nuclear proliferation potential, and ways to mitigate assistance to terrorists, of nuclear fusion?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

The potential of nuclear proliferation resulting from the diversion of materials in future fusion reactors and the consequences of a major accident caused by external events, such as those resulting from terrorist action, have been an integral part of the successive Euratom research and training activities that have led to the design basis for the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project.

The project ITER of research on fusion energy will have to satisfy the requirements of a rigorous licensing process, depending on the regulatory framework of the Host Country and involving a continuous technical dialog between the project and the nuclear safety authorities of the Host Country. The Safety Report, which will be submitted during the licensing procedure, will address in particular the management of radio-active materials and the damages caused by external events.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1507/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Ban on use of antibiotics in small doses

An EU decision banned the use of antibiotics in small doses for breeding animals, both for preventive purposes and as growth promoters (e.g. bacitracin). Could the Commission state whether there is a confirmed belief that this ban ended up facilitating checks on residues in food of animal origin or, whether, on the other hand, its effects included an increase in cases of illness among animals, a rise in treatment, excessive use of medicinal products etc.?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

The prohibition of the use of five antibiotic feed additives in 1997 and 1998 (Avoparcin, Bacitracin zinc, Spiramycin, Virginiamycin and Tylosin phosphate), which were authorised as growth promoters, was a risk management decision which was taken following the concerns raised by the international scientific community.

The scientific opinion showed that it was necessary to take into account that anti-microbial resistance can spread to other microbial populations and that some microbial agents of diseases have become resistant to standard anti-microbial treatment.

In 2001 the Scientific Steering Committee recommended that the use of antibiotics as growth promoting agents from classes that are or may be used in human or veterinary medicine should be phased out as soon as possible and ultimately abolished.

The measures only concerned the use of antibiotics as growth promoters, that is, additives given in feed to a group of animals irrespective of their health status with the aim of achieving an improvement in their performance. This policy led to the decrease in the total amount of antibiotics used as feed additives from 1600 tonnes in 1997 to 786 tonnes in 1999.

These measures did not interfere with authorisations and use of antibiotics for therapeutic or prophylactic applications in animals.

There is no obligation for Member States to communicate to the Commission the occurrence of the most significant bacterial diseases in farmed animals that are currently controlled by antibiotic treatment. The Commission is not aware of any evidence suggesting that its policy regarding the use of antibiotics as growth promoting feed additives led to a decrease in the health status of animals in the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1727/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: Elections to the first European Student Council

The first elections (sponsored by the Commission) to the European Student Council were held from 9 to 23 May.

Voters had a choice between four transnational student lists, all of which support the centralisation of powers and responsibilities within the Brussels institutions.

Bearing in mind inter alia the results of the recent elections held in various European countries, the fact that there is no Eurosceptic or populist list, nor one which closely reflects current realities, means that the elections to that Council will not be fully representative.

What is the exact value of the Commission's financial support for the student elections?

Does the Commission not think that, in future, this initiative should be more widely publicised (for example, by means of announcements placed in major national newspapers), so as to enable parties of all hues to take part in what constitutes a symbolic electoral contest?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

The European Union Student Vote (EUSV) is a private initiative that does not benefit support from the Commission.

In 2001 the EUSV organisers applied for financial support from the Commission (Directorates general (DGs) Education and Culture and Information Society). Both DGs had carefully evaluated the project and eventually rejected it.

Following the procedures, in April 2001 the organisers were regularly informed that their project had been rejected.

The Commission does not recognise the European Student Council elected through the EUSV. In the field of Higher Education, the Students Associations that constantly dialogue with the Commission are those which make up the groupe de liaison européen, i.e. the Erasmus Student Network (ESN), the European Student Information Bureau (ESIB), and the Association des Etats généraux des étudiants de l'Europe (AEGEE). For general matters related to the topic of youth, the Commission's referent is the European Youth Forum, a platform that gathers several European and national Associations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Seignorage revenue in 2001

1. Will the Commission estimate the seignorage revenue accruing to each Member State's central bank in 2001, being the last year of the issue of national currencies in the Euro-area?

2. Will it express this as a percentage of each country's GDP?

3. Will it further detail the transfers or dividends paid by each Member State's central bank to its fiscal authority during the year?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

1. The Commission currently does not have estimates of the monetary income that is accruing to the national central banks in the performance of the monetary policy function in 2001.

2. In accordance with the reply to the first question, the calculation of monetary income as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) is not feasible.

3. The Commission does not have detailed information about transfers or dividends paid by all the Member States' central banks to fiscal authorities during the year.

Given that the subject of these questions is monetary income (seigniorage), one should note that transfers between central banks and fiscal authorities are not entirely determined by monetary income. Central bank profits, which are the basis for transfers, usually differ from monetary income. Central bank profits depend on the asset structure of central banks (in particular on foreign assets, exchange rates, maturity of assets), on the return on central bank capital (foreign currency and gold), and on the costs of central banking. Thus, central bank profits can vary between countries and years even if monetary income has remained unchanged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: The Isla de Tabarca (Alicante) bolding project inquiry

In this reply to Question E-2800/01(1), the Commission acknowledged the enormous importance of the Isla de Tabarca SCI in environmental terms and the posidonia beds it shelters. In the wake of my criticisms of tourism-related building projects in the protected area, the Commission announced that it was opening an inquiry to find out whether the Spanish authorities were protecting the SCI properly, and whether Directive 92/43/EEC(2) (habitats) was being infringed.

Can the Commission tell me what stage this inquiry has reached, and tell me the contents of any reply received from the Spanish authorities?

What action is the Commission to protect the Isla de Tabarca SCI?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 161.

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

The Spanish authorities replied to the Commission's request for information, indicating that the Island of Tabarca has been protected since 1984 by a special plan which classifies the walled town as urban land and the isthmus as a service area, while completely protecting the countryside and prohibiting all types of building. At present, the municipality of Alicante is trying to alter the plan, but the Coastal Department of the Ministry of the Environment has not approved the alterations.

The Island of Tabarca was classified as a Site of Community Importance (SIC) by the Spanish authorities in 1997, owing to the presence of large posidonia beds, a priority habitat.

The Spanish authorities point out that the projects referred to in the written question involve the construction of two buildings for which authorisation was granted in 1996 and 1998 respectively, in accordance with the special plan in force. They also state that all necessary measures have been adopted to ensure compliance with the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of wild fauna and flora. They have indeed adopted management plans which meet the ecological requirements of natural habitats of Community importance, and preventive and corrective measures to prevent the deterioration of such habitats.

In conclusion, this is a project of limited scope which is not likely to have a significant impact on the site, given that it was classified because of the richness of its marine ecosystems. Moreover, the management plans and preventive and corrective measures adopted by the Spanish authorities should help to prevent the deterioration of the natural habitats present on the site. For these reasons, having examined the Spanish authorities' reply, the Commission concluded that Community environmental law was not being infringed in this particular case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1137/02

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Preservation of dugongs and international fisheries agreements

Is the Commission aware of the rapid depletion of stocks of the dugong, considered the inspiration for tales of mermaids, off the coast of Africa as a result, in part, of gill net fishing? If so, has the Commission undertaken any research into the impact on stocks of dugong of fishing undertaken by Community vessels as part of fisheries agreements concluded with certain African states? What remedial action has the Commission taken, or does it plan to take, where appropriate?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The dugong is listed as Vulnerable to extinction at a global scale by the World Conservation Union (IUCN: International Union for conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Red List of Threatened Species) based on the two following criteria: a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or

quality of habitat and its actual or potential levels of exploitation. The dugong lives in shallow waters of tropical seas. Major concentrations of dugong tend to occur in wide shallow protected waters (in which they graze on sea grass beds), but can also be observed in deeper water farther offshore in areas where the continental shelf is wide, shallow and protected.

Notwithstanding the habitat conservation being a highly critical issue, or the direct exploitation by local communities, accidental entangling in mesh nets in particular from coastal and traditional fisheries, is identified as a major concern in most of its distribution area. The Commission has no information on the extent of possible entanglements in gillnets, in particular off the coast of East Africa.

However, Community vessels operating in the framework of fisheries agreements concluded with East African States (Madagascar, Comoros, Seychelles) within the distribution range of this species do not use gillnets, nor are they allowed to operate in coastal waters. The vessels may only fish as from 10 to 12 nautical miles. The Commission has not undertaken research into a possible impact of those fisheries on dugong, and, in view of its biology characteristics and the type of fisheries concerned by these agreements, does not consider that Community fishing represents a threat to this species.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0991/02

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Waste management in Ireland

Under the Fifth Framework Programme, the EU has granted 3 million for a Biomass plant (Control Heat and Power) in North Monaghan, Ireland, to get it up and running.

What did the application consist of? Under what conditions was this money approved?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

Proposal NNE5/1999/20229 concerning a 28 megawatt of electricity (MWe) optimised biomass fired cogeneration plant in Monaghan was submitted in the framework of the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Part B: Energy Program, following the call published in the Official Journal with call identifier 1999/C 77/14(1).

The title of the application was: Optimised Biomass Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant for Monaghan integrating condensing economiser technology.

The plant will demonstrate a bubbling fluidized bed boiler with an innovative integrated condensing economiser fuelled with spent mushroom compost as the principal fuel. The heat to power ratio will be 1:1 and the electrical efficiency will be 26 % representing a significant increase on current state of the art (23,6 %). The total project cost was estimated at 43 081 000 and the proposers requested a Community contribution of 083 250 in their application. Other bio-fuels such as chicken litter and wood waste are also planned to be used as feedstock.

Four external experts evaluated the proposal which was placed in the shortlist of proposals to be considered for support. The result of the evaluation was confirmed by the Programme Committee composed of representatives of Member States and the Commission invited the consortium for contract negotiations on 5 October 2000. The total Community support is up to a maximum of 975 000. The contract was signed on 27 April 2001.

Insofar the incineration of waste is concerned, the consortium would have to fulfil the requirements of Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste(2). The financial support of the Commission is to be forwarded to the contractors on the basis of progress reports and incurred expenses.

The procedures and general information on applications and evaluation procedures can be found at: www.cordis.lu

(1) OJ C 77, 20.3.1999.

(2) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.