ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3088/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Cat and dog fur

In a recent investigation by Bont voor Dieren in the Netherlands, DNA tests confirmed that there were items on sale in Dutch shops which were made from domestic dog fur. Items included hair ornaments dyed to look like fun fur, misleading labels and sleeping cat figurines that were actually made from real dogs.

Such types of fraud are knowingly perpetrated by Asian exporters to keep this business going.

What does the Commission plan to do about this consumer fraud which is now found on the markets of seven EU Member States?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2851/02 and E-3088/02given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2002)

Since a complete ban on the production, use, trade and import of cat and dog furs as intended by certain Member States and frequently demanded in the Union would apply, regardless of the conditions under which the animals are kept and killed, it is evident that such measures are not motivated by animal welfare concerns. The motivation is rather an ethical question, whether to use products derived from animals which are mainly regarded as companion animals. A measure, which aims mainly to protect public morality, could be seen as lying within the competence of the Member States.

The Commission has no proposals at present to inform European consumers on the way fur products are obtained and is not aware of any such proposals in the Member States. The situation will be kept under review.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/02

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Circumstances for withdrawing from GATS commitments

Under what circumstances are member countries of the WTO able to withdraw commitments made under GATS, either from individual GATS schedules or from the GATS agreement as a whole?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

Commitments made under individual General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) schedules may according to Article XXI of the GATS be withdrawn or modified after they have been in force for three years (Article XXI of the GATS). A Member shall notify its intent to modify or withdraw a commitment to the Council for Trade in Services no later than three months before the intended date of implementation

of the modification or withdrawal. On request, compensation may need to be negotiated with Members whose trade is affected. This does not mean monetary compensation, but the replacement of the withdrawn commitment by another of equivalent value. Any compensatory adjustments shall be made on a most-favoured-nation basis.

The GATS agreement is an integral part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement, and binding on all WTO Members (Article II of the WTO Agreement). It is therefore not possible for a Member to withdraw from the GATS as a whole without also withdrawing from the WTO. A Member wishing to withdraw from the WTO must, according to Article XV of the WTO Agreement, notify the Director-General of the WTO at least six months before the intended date of withdrawal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3474/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Strange conditions in notice of recruitment of officials in Greece

A notice has been published in Greece announcing the recruitment of agronomists and economists for an indefinite period by Opekepe, the organisation for payment and control of Community aid from the EAGGF, which comes under the Greek Ministry for Agriculture. Among the qualifications for recruitment, reference is made to the availability and use of a car for official journeys outside the place of employment. The posts concerned involve travelling to olive-producing regions in Greece at least three weeks a month. Moreover, Opekepe is a supervisory body working on behalf of the Greek Government and the European Union, which jointly finance the programmes for monitoring the use of Community aid.

What is the Commission's view of the above condition of recruitment? Does it not give rise to discrimination and distortion of competition among the candidates for the posts since those who can afford to own a car are given a fundamental advantage? Furthermore, it follows that those candidates who are recruited and who own a car will be required to use their vehicle for official journeys. How are they to be compensated if indeed they are to be compensated for the use of their cars and for related costs (wear and tear, spare parts, servicing, fuel, insurance etc.)? What action can the Commission take (given that it is a party to the joint funding of the programme for monitoring aid for olive oil) to remove this strange condition of employment referred to in the above notice of recruitment of new officials?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2003)

There is no Community legislation concerning the inclusion in job advertisements of the requirement that the candidate should have the availability and use of car for official journeys outside the place of employment. The issue at question falls within the competence of the Member States.

As for the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the recruited candidates owing to the use of their own car for official journeys, also this issue falls within the competence of the Member States, where the matter may be regulated by legislation, collective agreements or contracts of employment.

This state of affairs is not influenced by the fact that Commission is participating in the joint funding of the programme for monitoring aid for olive oil.

Since the issues in question fall within the jurisdiction of the national authorities, the Commission cannot intervene in this occasion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3405/02

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

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Activities posing a threat to the environment in Gibraltar

Activities are permitted in Gibraltar, a United Kingdom territory to the south of Andalusia, which pose a threat to ecosystems in the area and the way of life of hundreds of thousands of European citizens. Activities such as the transfer of crude oil from one vessel to another are standard practice in Gibraltar, giving rise to recurrent discharges into the Bay of Algeciras without any administration intervening.

The port of Gibraltar also allowed docking by single-hulled oil tankers such as the Prestige, which sank on 19 November 2002 when it was heading for Gibraltar, causing an unprecedented ecological disaster along the Galician coast.

Is the Commission aware of the above circumstances? If so, has it adopted or will it adopt any type of measure to put an end to these irregularities?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Regarding transhipments of oil in Gibraltar, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Oral Question H-0800/02 by Mr García Margallo y Marfil(1) at Parliament's December 2002 session.

As to port inspections and the measures the Commission has taken following the Prestige disaster, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-3484/02 by Mr Tannock(2).

(1) Oral answer of 17.12.2002.

(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 95.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3193/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2002)

Subject: Cooperation between the European Union and the PAHO

The recent election of Mirta Rodriguez Periago as Director of the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO), the oldest public health body in the world, has highlighted the invaluable work it carries out in the context of scientific programmes and emergency programmes to tackle natural disasters.

The fact that the organisation's main purpose is to promote solidarity in the Americas and worldwide and enhance the well-being of the most disadvantaged sections of the population means that the European Union's aim must be to collaborate in providing assistance.

Can the Commission say what the European Union's attitude has been as regards providing humanitarian assistance to the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO), and to what extent it might devise a special cooperation programme to coordinate European Union aid in the context of this organisation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

The Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and its task force Dipecho (disaster preparedness) collaborates with the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) in the field of disaster preparedness capacities and programmes. ECHO and PAHO recently held a joint seminar on this topic in Brussels.

From the development perspective in the Latin American Region, the Commission is shifting from project to programme and sector support approach. This approach is also pertinent in the situation where many Latin American countries are engaged in health sector reforms. This sector dialogue in the context of the health sector reform is already taking place, to different degrees, in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala and Barbados. The Commission holds discussions at country level with the PAHO, as a key player in the region supporting health sector reform.

The Commission is also involved in increasing the level of coordination of policies and programmes amongst the Commission and Member States at the partner country level. This will probably lead to a stronger common Union position in sector dialogue and support.

The Pan American Health Organisation has visited the Commission and expressed its interest in enhancing collaboration with the Union. The Commission acknowledges the PAHO's role in supporting health plans and reforms in the region and welcome this interest. It, therefore, looks forward to find closer and more concrete ways of collaboration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3037/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: VAT on repairs to war memorials

At present, VAT is charged on repairs to war memorials.

What plans does the Commission have to make this type of renovation work zero-rated for VAT, and thus make repair work to our nations' war monuments less costly?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2002)

Under Community VAT legislation, Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment)(1) lays down that Member States may apply a reduced VAT rate of no less than 5 % to supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex H of that Directive. As this Annex H does not cover repairs to war memorials, the standard VAT rate should apply to them.

In addition to this, in the course of negotiations of the Directive, or as part of their negotiations for joining the Community, certain Member States have retained separate rules in specific areas, an example in the United Kingdom being the zero rates. These rules set out in Article 28 of the Sixth VAT Directive are transitional, pending the adoption in Council, by unanimous decision, of a definitive VAT system under which far greater harmonisation is required. The Council has to date been reticent to adopt such changes.

Since the zero rates are specific derogations granted only to a few Member States, the Commission has no intention to propose their extension.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Directive as last amended by Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, OJ L 128, 15.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2644/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: Violation by Norway of the EEA Agreement in dispute regarding the export of non-Norwegian fish on Norwegian certificates of origin

In the Commission's long-running dispute concerning the purchase of fish from Norway by Danish fish importers, it has long been clear that the Danish importers were acting in good faith, since they accepted the certificates of origin from Norway, which appeared in every respect to be correct and valid.

The Danish Minister of Finance has now made it quite clear that the Danish Finance Ministry places the blame for this whole case fairly and squarely on the incorrect and superficial manner in which the Norwegian authorities handled the issuing of certificates of origin. The Danish minister has hitherto called in vain on the Norwegian authorities to acknowledge their mistakes, which consisted in particular of authorising Norwegian firms to issue certificates of origin without fulfilling even the most elementary requirements for issuing these certificates and without the necessary supervision being exercised by the Norwegian customs.

Since the Norwegian government has thus not complied with the EEA Agreement, still less acknowledged the mistakes that have occurred, will the Commission be taking any steps towards rescinding the EEA Agreement with Norway?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

The Commission refers to the replies it gave to oral question H-0453/02 during question time at Parliament's June 2002 session(1) and to Written Question P-2363/02(2), both of them by Mrs Riis-Jorgensen, in which it has already explained the measures taken under the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement concerning this matter. The Commission considers that, taking into account the actions having already taken place, rescinding the EEA Agreement would be a disproportionate reaction to this problem, and it is not being considered.

(1) Written reply, 11.6.2002.

(2) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 49.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3250/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Commission proposal for access to medicines for developing countries

The Commission's press release of 30 October, Commission clears plan to boost access to medicines for developing countries, announces a Council regulation enabling exporters to deliver essential medicines () while making sure the goods are not diverted back to the European Union and states: However, in practice it's clear that if poorer countries get the medicines they need under tiered pricing arrangement, they won't need to use compulsory licences.

This would be a serious development. There are a number of major problems with tiered pricing, notably the fact that this instrument ultimately depends on voluntary action by the pharmaceuticals industry.

I hope I am right in assuming that the Commission does not intend to propose tiered pricing as a substitute for the instruments within the TRIPS Agreement which were defended with great difficulty in the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health and which can make medicines cheaper?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

A country which has access to affordable medicines is not likely to issue a compulsory license. In doing so the patent holder will withdraw his products from the markets as the right holder is not going to compete with his own products. That is the case in developed country markets as well as in developing country markets.

Tiered priced products may not always be available at affordable prices for developing countries and, consequently, markets in those countries may remain under-supplied. Under certain conditions local production might be cheaper. Hence there could be a need to issue a compulsory license for that purpose or for the purpose of importing if the country issuing the compulsory license lacks sufficient production capacity to produce domestically.

The Commission is therefore not proposing tiered pricing as a substitute for the instrument regarding compulsory licenses presently under negotiation at the trade related intellectual property rights Council. However, given the Commission's commitment to alleviate the plight of countries presently suffering from human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases, tiered pricing should be encouraged. To improve access to medicines in developing country markets, discounted prices as well as other tools, including compulsory licensing, are means to achieve this objective.
I
(Information)
EUROPEANPARLIAMENT
WRITTENQUESTIONSWITHANSWER
(2004/C58E/001) WRITTENQUESTIONE-0281/02
byNicholasClegg(ELDR)totheCommission
(8February2002)
Subject:Customsandexcise
AremembersofthepublicandMembersoftheEuropeanParliamentallowedtoobtaincopies,fromthe
Commission, of the Letter of Formal Notice issued in late October to HM Treasury (UK) fromCommissioner Bolkestein, concerning Customs and Excise policies and possible infringements of the
freedomtomovegoodsacrossbordersresultingfromthosepolicies?Ifnot,whynot?
AnswergivenbyMrBolkesteinonbehalfoftheCommission
(20March2002)
TheCommissionconsidersthatdocumentsdraftedinconnectionwithproceedingsunderarticle226ofthe
ECTreatyfallunderthe‘inspectionsandinvestigations’exceptionofArticle4(2),3rdindentofRegulation(EC)No1049/2001oftheParliamentandoftheCouncilof30May2001regardingpublicaccesstoParliament,CouncilandCommissiondocuments(
1)whichappliestorequestsmadebymembersofthe
publicandbyindividualmembersofParliament.ThisincludesthelettertowhichtheHonourableMemberrefers.TheCourtoffirstinstancehasconfirmedthispositioninparticularinitsjudgementT-191/99of11December2001(DavidPetrievsCommission)(
2)whichconcernedthesameexceptionalreadyforeseen
inCommissionDecision94/90/ECSC,EC,Euratomof8February1994onpublicaccesstoCommissiondocuments(
3).
(1) OJL145,31.5.2001.
(2) Seealsojudgmentof5March1995incaseT-105/95:WWF-UKvCommissionLawgoverningtheinstitutionsand
Judgmentof14October1999incaseT-309/97:TheBavarianLagerCompanyvCommissionLawgoverningthe
institutions.
(3) OJL46,18.2.1994.
(2004/C58E/002) WRITTENQUESTIONE-0550/02
byErikMeijer(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(27February2002)
Subject:CarcinogenicSpanishpeppersinAustriaandreplacementofreactiveapproachtofoodsafetywith
apreventiveapproach
1. Can the Commission confirm that the carcinogen Pyrzophos, which has been banned in the
European Union since 2000 and which moreover affects the central nervous system and disruptshormonesinhumanbeings,hasrecentlybeenfoundinSpanishpepperswhichwereonsaleinAustriansupermarkets?6.3.2004EN C58E/1 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0361/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Democratisation in the Seychelles

The Seychelles remain a paradise for drug trafficking and money laundering, and the regime in place since 1976 is guilty of abuses of human rights.

What steps will the Commission take, under the auspices of the Cotonou Agreement and the EU's stated objectives on human rights and democracy, to support the process of democratisation in the Seychelles?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2002)

The Community's relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, as defined in the Cotonou Agreement, are based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. In formal terms, present-day Seychelles is a democratic country, even if it is true that the level of state control is high.

As an expression of the Community's commitment to democratic principles, co-operation with Seychelles under the 9th European Development Fund (EDF) will include support for the development and consolidation of non-state entities through a capacity-building programme for civil society.

The Commissioner in charge of Development, recently visited Seychelles, where he emphasised to Government representatives the importance attached to the development

of non-state entities, and of good governance in general, and made a point of meeting the Leader of the Opposition, the Reverend. Wavel Ramkalawan. This meeting not only provided a more rounded vision of the political and social reality of Seychelles, but also conveyed to Government the importance attached to opposition parties as guardians and monitors of good governance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/25

(2004/C 70 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3820/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Movement of the euro against other currencies

How closely has the Commission studied the movement of the euro against other major currencies on the world market?

Which currency has fluctuated most, the euro or the Swedish krona, against each of the three currencies, the US dollar, the Japanese yen and the pound sterling, since 1 January 1999?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The Commission is in charge of the multilateral surveillance and for this purpose the Commission monitors economic and financial developments in each Member State and in the Community as well. In this context the Commission monitors the euro's movements against other currencies and its impact on the euro area economy.

The foreign exchange rate is a relative price. Variations in the exchange rate between two countries can occur either by developments in the home country, or by developments in the foreign country. The experience with floating exchange rate regimes shows that exchange rate movements can be large. Standard measures of dispersion can be calculated as an indication of a currency's variation against other currencies, bearing in mind that currency variations depend on several factors that are not always anchored in changes in relative fundamental factors. If a change in a currency pair is the result of a change in relative fundamental factors, such a currency movement may be warranted. Conversely, if a change in a currency pair cannot be attributed to any change in relative fundamental factors, that movement could be considered unwarranted. Hence, exchange rate variation as such has little informative value on its own; the factors behind an exchange rate move must also be considered.

The table below displays some standard measures of dispersion, such as the standard deviation and variance, over the period 1 January 1999 to 19 December 2002. According to these measures, the relation between the Swedish krona and the US dollar (USD) have displayed a greater dispersion than the relation between the EUR and the USD. The same is true for the relation between the Swedish krona (SEK) and the Pound Sterling (GBP). The relation between the Swedish krona and the Japanese Yen (JPY) have displayed a somewhat smaller dispersion than the relation between the euro and the Japanese Yen.

EUR/USD SEK/USD EUR/JPY SEK/JPY EUR/GBP SEK/GBP EUR/SEK STDEV (1) 6,6 8,2 7,6 7,3 3,3 4,6 3,8 AVEDEV (2) 5,6 7,2 6,3 5,7 2,5 3,9 3,2 DEVSQ (3) 45 484,0 70 062,0 60 468,0 54 481,0 11 036,0 22 061,0 15 155,0 VAR (4) 44,0 67,8 58,5 52,7 10,7 21,3 14,7

(1) Standard deviation.

(2) Average of the absolute deviations of data points from their mean.

(3) Sum of squares of deviations of data points from their mean.

(4) Variance.