ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1958/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Definition of sustainable nuclear power

In respect of the statement included in the Commission press release IP/02/872 on 17 June 2002 which said: The just adopted Euratom Research Framework Programme sets new guidelines for European nuclear research for the 2002-2006 period. With a total budget of EUR 1 230 billion, the programme addresses all key issues to promote sustainable nuclear power in Europe, will the Commission set out its definition of sustainable nuclear power; and in light of the fact that the responsibility for long term management of radioactive waste created under the present generation is passed on to future generations, will the Commission explain how this is compatible with the principle of intergenerational equity within sustainable development?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1958/02 and E-1960/02given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

The sustainability of nuclear power is related to both long term availability of fuel at an affordable cost and to use of the technology without deleterious effects on the environment and on society.

The research in the Euratom Framework Programme will contribute to the development of nuclear fusion and to ensuring the continued safe utilisation of nuclear fission.

Nuclear energy, like most industrial activities, generates waste. In the case of nuclear energy this waste is radioactive and must be handled properly. Some of the waste contains very long-lived radioactivity and will need to be kept in a safe way for tens of thousands of years. The volumes of this waste is, however, small and can be handled in such a way as to fully isolate it from man and the environment, while preserving the economy of nuclear energy. One basic principle for the waste management is that the generation, which has had the benefit of the nuclear energy, should also take care of the waste. The main management route foreseen for the more dangerous forms of radioactive waste is its disposal in a tightly encapsulated form at great depth in geological formations. However, research is also continuing into different ways to reduce the content of long-lived radionuclides before disposal. Both research on disposal and methods to reduce the toxicity of the waste are part of the Euratom Framework Programme. Good progress is being made in the Member States.

The liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges from the nuclear installations must meet the Basic Safety Standards as required in Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Continuation of the disciplinary case against Linda Steneberg

On 21 January 2002 Chief Public Prosecutor Christen van der Kwast decided not to charge the former head of the Commission's Stockholm Information Office, L.S., with any offence. Two of her colleagues have, however, been charged.

What progress is being made in the Commission's internal disciplinary inquiry concerning L.S. and her former colleagues? When is the investigation expected to be completed?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Three disciplinary proceedings were launched as a result of OLAF's report relating to the Commission's representation office in Stockholm. The Disciplinary Boards have now delivered their opinions on all 3 cases with the opinion on the third case being delivered to the Appointing Authority on 10 April 2002.

As the Disciplinary Board's opinions have been received in all three related cases the Appointing Authority will be taking its final decisions in the near future.

As the Honourable Member will know, this process would change if the Swedish authorities were to confirm in writing their intention to launch criminal proceedings against one of the officials, because Article 88 § 5 of the Staff Regulations would then have to apply and the Appointing Authority would not be able to take a final decision until the national court has reached a final verdict.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1266/02

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Protection of European eel stocks and catching of elvers

The river eel (Anguilla anguilla) is an important element in Europe's aquatic fauna and significant on economic grounds in the fishing industries of many EU Member States. However, for some decades stocks have been declining rapidly, to such an extent that the eel must now be regarded as an endangered species.

As artificial reproduction of eels is not yet possible, eel stocks can be maintained in inland waters only by means of elvers spontaneously swimming upstream or being caught near the coast and moved to inland waters. However, many elvers caught near Europe's coasts are used not to restock inland waters in Europe but for direct human consumption or export to Asia for use in fish farming there.

Is the Commission aware of this problem? What has the Commission done in the past to protect European eel stocks? What measures is it planning to take in the future? Is consideration being given to banning the catching of elvers for direct human consumption or for export to Asia?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2002)

The Commission is fully aware of the value of European eel both as a fishery resource and as part of Europe's natural heritage and is preoccupied by the current status of conservation of European eel populations. Although the reasons for the decline in the eel population is not fully understood there is enough evidence to suggest that both excessive fishing pressure as well as habitat degradation have contributed. Action in at least these two areas seem therefore necessary to ensure the conservation and sustainable exploitation of this species.

The Commission has been asked to propose conservation measures for European eels. In this context, the Commission is working on a action plan which will be presented to the Council and the Parliament in autumn 2002. This action plan will analyse the biological and legal complexity of the management of European eel, and will explore possibilities for its adequate management. The Commission intends to debate the ideas of this action plan with Council and Parliament, and to make specific proposals for management action following such debate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1134/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Administrative costs of agricultural aid

The administration of EAGGF aid paid to Greek farmers (collection and submission of documentation etc.) is carried out by cooperative organisations and producer groups.

Since the administration of the payment of agricultural aid involves a certain cost, will the Commission say:

1. Whether the expenses incurred in paying the aid through the Integrated Administration and Control System or other common organisations of the market qualify for funding and whether such funding has been granted to date and to which bodies, and

2. Whether the paying agency (Opekepe) receives funding for the cost of administering the aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

1. As concerns aids paid under schemes covered by the Integrated Administration and Control system, there is no Community provision to finance those administrative costs referred to by the Honourable Member. However, some other market schemes do indeed provide expressly for a fixed rate or percentage reduction to cover administrative costs in the way suggested. For example, Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(1) provides for the withholding of 0,8 % of production aid for olive oil to cover administrative costs involved in its disbursement.

2. The Greek paying agency (Opekepe) does not receive Community funding for the cost of administering aid.

(1) OJ P 172, 30.9.1966.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0692/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Audit reports concerning renovation of the Berlaymont Building

In Written Question P-0571/01(1), I asked the Commission to forward the confidential audit reports drawn up by Ernst & Young concerning the renovation of the Berlaymont Building.

In his answer of 3 April 2001, the President of the Commission informed me that the reports had already been sent to the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control in connection with the 1999 discharge procedure.

The reports had indeed been forwarded by Vice-President Kinnock and Commissioner Schreyer to the chairman of the Budgetary Control Committee on 9 February 2001, though with the proviso that only the rapporteur for the 1999 discharge procedure was to have access to them.

Is the Commission now prepared to remove this condition, imposed pursuant to the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission, so that all members of the Budgetary Control Committee may have access to the documents, in accordance with Annex VII to Parliament's Rules of Procedure?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 226.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The Commission considers that the reasons for which the reports were provided on a strictly confidential basis only to the President of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Rapporteur for the 1999 discharge are still valid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1065/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Retaliatory measures against the USA

Is the European Council convinced that, in the interest of improved security, it is necessary to include on travel documents biometric data such as fingerprints, retinal patterns, etc?

If so, what steps are being taken to incorporate such data into EU passports?

If not, what retaliatory measures does it plan to take against the US authorities for their proposed abandonment of the US visa waiver programme for countries whose passports do not meet the above requirements, as it will prove to be a non-tariff barrier impeding free movement of EU citizens to the United States when no similar restrictions will apply to the movement of US citizens into the EU?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

Efforts are being made by the Member States' authorities responsible for combating document fraud inter alia to improve travel documents in order to combat fraud based on resemblance and to facilitate automatic controls at frontiers by adding biometric features to such documents.

The Council has not yet received any initiative from the Commission along the lines suggested by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Civilian mobilisation

A few days ago the Greek Government announced civilian mobilisation for sailors in a move to quell strike action by them.

Civilian mobilisation:

- infringes the essence of the right to personal freedom (Article 5 of the Constitution),

- contradicts Article 22(4) of the Constitution, which prohibits any kind of forced labour,

- violates the European Convention on Human Rights,

- contravenes International Labour Convention No 105, which was ratified by Greece in 1961,

- is permitted, under the Constitution, only in cases where the country must be defended or where there is an urgent necessity caused by natural disasters or public health dangers; strike action does not fall into these categories,

- fundamentally contravenes certain articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically:

- Article 5 No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;

- Article 6 Everyone has the right to liberty;

- Article 12 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in particular in political and trade union matters.

Greek governments have in fact made use of the practice of civilian mobilisation more than ten times since 1981, and always for the same purpose. In view of the above, could the Commission examine how far the use of civilian mobilisation to quell strikes complies with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the various Community statements and proclamations on the rights of workers and social dialogue?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2002)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to oral question H-0596/02 by Mr Alyssandrakis during question time at Parliament's September I 2002 session(1).

(1) Written answer on 3.9.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0476/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Greater powers for local authorities

The need for Community local authorities to have greater powers so as to provide better public services has prompted a number of national, regional and local authorities to propose that an agreement be concluded at European Union level to review the organisational structure local authorities need to provide in order to improve the quality of life of European citizens.

However incomprehensible it may seem, there has been prolonged and substantial neglect on the part of the Member States and the European Union of the efforts required to overcome the crisis affecting local authorities and which are necessary if citizens are to feel fully involved in all the local, regional national and Community bodies which govern their lives.

Will the Commission promote a study concerning the current situation of Community local authorities, as a platform for gearing the organisational structure of these authorities to the new requirements of European citizens in general?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

The Honourable Member's question is very pertinent at a time when European citizens throughout the Union are voicing new expectations of the various institutions which govern their lives at local, regional, national and Community level.

The European Convention has already decided to take full account of these expectations in its deliberations, giving particular attention to the principle of subsidiarity. Whilst the Commission is interested in a study on the current situation of the Union's local authorities and in the comparative analysis of the methods and means which they deploy to meet such expectations, it cannot commit itself to putting forward a proposal at Community level, and it does not intend to conduct a study on the subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1186/02

by Jacques Poos (PSE) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Destruction of Palestinian infrastructure financed by the EU

Following the mass destruction and numerous acts of vandalism perpetrated by the Israeli army as part of its recent campaign to reoccupy the Palestinian autonomous territories, can the Commission reassess the damage caused to infrastructure financed by the EU and its Member States?

Given that basic legal principles call for reparation to be paid for the damage, what does the Commission intend to do to obtain the appropriate compensation from Mr Sharon's government?

Will the Commission undertake to assist the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to obtain fair reparations by all means available to it by law?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2002)

In the wake of the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli offensive (Operation Defensive Shield) into the West Bank, the international donor community is in the process of assessing the damage which has been inflicted on cities, villages and refugee camps of the West Bank. This work has only just begun and it is expected to take some weeks before having an exact assessment of the damage. It is reasonable to presume, nonetheless, that the overall cost of reconstruction shall run into the hundreds of millions.

The Commission shall, in parallel, and in close coordination with Member States, assess the damage which has been inflicted on Community-financed infrastructure and update the list which it had presented to the General Affairs Council of 28 January 2002.

The General Affairs Council reserved the right to take appropriate action vis-à-vis Israel and to claim reparation in the appropriate fora.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1254/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Attendance at Council Meetings

Would the Council please clarify what precedents there have been for attendance by Parliamentarians or NGO's at Council meetings?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

Under Article 5(1) of the Council's Rules of Procedure(1): Meetings of the Council shall not be public except in cases referred to in Article 8 which relates to public debates. Under paragraph 2 of this Article: The Commission shall be invited to take part in meetings of the Council. The same applies to the European Central Bank in cases where it exercises its right of initiative. The Council may, however, decide to deliberate without the presence of the Commission or of the European Central Bank. Under paragraph 3 The members of the Council and of the Commission may be accompanied by officials who assist them ().

There are no instances where a Member of the European Parliament or a representative of an NGO has been invited to attend a meeting of the Council. As to members of national parliaments, the Council has not been informed that there would have been a member of a national parliament as part of the delegation of a member of the Council.

This should not be confused with informal meetings between Ministers and Members of the European Parliament which occasionally take place in the margins of meetings of the Council.

(1) OJ L 149, 23.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1952/02

by Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: EU flag

According to reports in the press, the Commission is planning to scrap the time-tested EU flag which was introduced on a proposal from the European Parliament, namely twelve gold stars on a blue background, and replace it with a new design, for instance by the architect Rem Koolhaas. Is this true, or can the Commission give an assurance that the time-tested and recognised flag of Europe will be retained?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2002)

In contrast to what has been widely reported in the press, the Commission has no plans to propose the replacement of the existing European emblem.

The Prime Minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, and the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, were patrons in 2001 of a project on Brussels, capital of Europe and asked a group of intellectuals to discuss the needs and functions of the European capital and how Brussels could best express them.

The group proposed a number of ideas. One of the recommendations contained in the final report is that the communication about Europe should be improved and made more attractive in order to be understood and shared by citizens. The barcode design, reproduced in some media, is the work of a distinguished Dutch architect and designer, Rem Koolhaas, and was intended to be one example of how this could be realised. It was not, however, proposed to replace the Union flag.

The project Brussels, capital of Europe did not have any formal Community status and the Commission has no intention to propose a new emblem.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2176/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Directives deadlines transposition into national legislation situation in Belgium

More and more national legislation is being enacted by Europe. In the case of directives, the Member States are required to transpose the provisions into their national legislation by certain deadlines.

My question relates specifically to the situation in Belgium.

- Does Belgium transpose European directives by the stipulated deadlines?

- If not, how often (percentage) does Belgium fail to meet the deadline?

- What are the directives concerned?

- How does Belgium score compared with other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2002)

The 19th report on monitoring the application of Community law (2001)(1), which was adopted on 28 June 2002 and a provisional version of which has been sent to Parliament, answers the questions raised by the Honourable Member on compliance by Belgium with deadlines for transposing directives.

It has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) COM(2002) 324, 28 June 2002.http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm

infractions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1992/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: New EU flag

1. Does the Commission have any plans to change the current EU flag, i.e., the 12 gold stars on the blue background?

2. If yes, why does the Commission feel it is necessary to change?

3. Which alternative designs is the Commission considering? Is the Commission considering a design by Mr Rem Koolhaas?

4. Has the Commission calculated how much it would cost to change the current flag, on all the things it currently features, for example registration plates, stationery, all EU-funded projects?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1676/02 and E-1992/02given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question P-1952/02 by Mr Posselt(1).

(1) See page 179.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1379/02

by Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Execution of appropriations between 1994 and 1999 in Catalonia

Can the Commission supply data on the execution, in the financial years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, of the commitment and payment appropriations corresponding to the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the Community initiatives in Catalonia?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2002)

The Honourable Member will find in the table below(1) the commitment and payment appropriations, expressed as millions of euro, implemented in Catalonia in the years 1994 to 1999 under the Structural Funds and Community Initiatives (CIs).

>TABLE>

The Commission does not have regionalised data on multi-regional programmes and initiatives and projects part-financed by the Cohesion Fund.

The final date for eligible expenditure in respect of the programming period in question was set at 31 December 2001. The Member States have six months, i.e. until 30 June 2002, to submit their final expenditure declarations and the final programme progress reports, and any appeals against disputed findings must be completed by 31 March 2003. In the absence of valid reasons to act otherwise, the Commission must decommit any remaining commitment balances on that date.

(1) Sources: Annual reports of the Structural Funds for the years 1994 to 1999.