ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/354

(2004/C 84 E/0412)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0291/04

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Road accidents in European Union countries

On 12 January 2004 the French Prime Minister announced that there were 5 732 road deaths in France in 2003, compared with 7 242 in 2002, 8 437 in 1998, 10 289 in 1990 and 12 428 in 1981 and that in Italy too, partly because of the penalty-points licence, the number of victims fell in 2003. Can the Commission say whether it already has, or intends to obtain road death figures for all European Union countries? On what factors do any anomalies depend? Has there been a reduction in the number of victims everywhere? What public or private measures or initiatives have led to the reduction?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Pursuant to Council Decision of 30 November 1993 (1), the Commission receives information on road accidents and has since July 2002 published detailed statistics on the Europa website (2).

There is a great disparity between the Member States: those with the best results (the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom) record around 60 to 65 deaths per million inhabitants per year, in contrast to 160 to 180 deaths in the countries with the poorest results (Greece and Portugal). The average for the European Union (EU15) is around 105 deaths per million inhabitants per year.

Concerning the factors explaining these differences, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the recent European Action Programme for Road Safety, adopted by the Commission in 2003 (3). Generally speaking, the greatest scope for improvement lies in road-user behaviour, though the road infrastructure could also be greatly improved in several Member States.

Substantial improvements have been recorded in France (a 22 % reduction in the number of deaths in 2003 compared with 2002), Ireland (– 10 %), Italy (– 17 % (4)) and Portugal (– 11 % (5)). The reductions are mainly due to improved road-user behaviour, whether because of increased awareness or better enforcement of the rules (more controls, tougher penalties imposed more effectively). According to provisional, indicative figures, the number of deaths in EU15 in 2003 should be under 35 500 in contrast to 38 500 en 2002 and almost 40 000 in 2001.

(1) Council Decision of 30 November 1993 on the creation of a Community database on road accidents, OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/road/roadsafety/index_en.htm, heading road safety/CARE

(3) ‘Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility’, Commission communication, COM(2003)311 final.

(4) January-September 2003/January-September 2002.

(5) January-August 2003/January-August 2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/539

(2004/C 84 E/0616)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0129/04

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Invasive alien species

Under the Gothenburg Commitment the European Commission has an obligation to produce a policy on invasive alien species. The Sixth Environmental Action Programme states that invasive alien species are a high priority. When will the Commission produce its policy on invasive alien species?

In particular what action is the European Commission taking to deal with the grey squirrel, which has been identified by the IUCN as one of the 100 worst alien invasive species and is now prevalent not only in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland but also in Italy, where the principal colony is spreading into the foothills of the Alps?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission recognises the importance of the threat posed by invasive alien species (IAS) to biodiversity, and regards addressing this threat as one of the key priorities in meeting the Gothenburg commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The Commission notes with alarm the continuing loss of biodiversity, and believes that achieving the 2010 target will require substantially reinforced action. The Commission is currently engaged in a broad consultative process to review progress in the implementation of the Community biodiversity strategy and action plans, with the dual aim of identifying priority measures and building momentum towards the 2010 target. As part of this process, the Irish Presidency will convene a Conference on Biodiversity and the EU in Malahide, Ireland, 25 to 27 May 2004. This Conference will aim to produce an outline ‘2010 delivery plan’ which identifies priority measures, targets, indicators and lead actors as well as the resources required. Without prejudice to the outcome of the review, it is anticipated that the 2010 Delivery Plan will reconfirm IAS as a priority. The Commission recognises that IAS is a complex issue which touches on many economic sectors and requires a comprehensive policy response. Unfortunately, existing resources do not permit such a response. The Commission trusts that the current momentum-building exercise will result in the allocation of adequate resources to address all key measures required to meet the 2010 target, IAS included. In the meantime, the Commission is aware of and welcomes the work done by the Council of Europe to develop a pan-European strategy for IAS; this is a useful point of reference for the development of EU policy.

Regarding the grey squirrel, Member States have an obligation to maintain the favourable conservation status of habitats and species of European conservation interest; if and where the grey squirrel threatens this status, Member States are obliged to act accordingly. It is also relevant to note that a study is currently being completed under the LIFE-Nature programme on lessons learnt in LIFE-Nature projects which address IAS.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/484

(2004/C 88 E/0497)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0089/04

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject: Management of nuclear waste in Russia

Significant progress was made last year towards setting up a responsible system of management for nuclear waste in Russia, in particular waste from nuclear submarines in the north-west of the country. The Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership can call on considerable funding (over EUR 160 million available) and the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme for Russia, an agreement with Russia concerning liability and tax issues in connection with nuclear waste, has been signed, though not ratified. However, there is no plan of action for the handling and final storage of the waste; coordination between the various donors could also be improved. It also emerged at a seminar held on 26 November 2003 between the Russian Duma and the European Parliament that numerous issues relating to monitoring remain unresolved.

What measures has the Commission taken, or what measures is it aware of having been taken, to facilitate agreement on a plan of action by all parties participating in the clean-up and financing? What guarantees does the Commission have that nuclear waste clean-up operations result in a high level of safety and that spent fuel is not used for new military purposes?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission has always recognised the magnitude of the problem posed by nuclear waste in Russia and particularly in the North-West. It has actively promoted a common approach which would strengthen coordination between the various donors and Russia. The ratification of the MNEPR by the Duma on 28 November 2003 and by the Federation Council on 10 December 2003 opened the way for the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership to become effective in the field of nuclear waste management. The Commission will in 2003/2004, contribute to the Fund a total of EUR 50 million, of which EUR 40 million will be allocated to the nuclear sector.

The Commission has supported the creation of a Nuclear Operating Committee to ensure a strong coordination not only of the activities financed by the Fund, but also of the programmes of the many bilateral donors, almost all of which are represented on this Committee. The first meeting of this Committee was held on 2 February 2004. It agreed on a project to develop a strategic management plan for radioactive waste in Northwest Russia. This project will be carried out in the next months and will provide a sound basis for future coordination and selection of the projects to be supported.

The selection of the projects will have to be done according to criteria in which nuclear safety, security, cost effectiveness and environmental benefits will be of high importance. The NDEP will only finance activities aimed at ensuring safe management and storage of nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste) in Northwest Russia.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/918

(2004/C 84 E/1014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0931/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Standards on portable liquid oxygen devices

In its answer of 15 February 2002 to my question E-3462/01 (1), the Commission stated that standards for portable liquid oxygen devices, including connectors, were being developed by the European Committee on Standardisation (CEN), following a mandate given by the Commission on the basis of Directive 93/42/EEC (2). The adoption of these standards was expected for the second half of 2003.

1. Can the Commission indicate whether the CEN has fulfilled the mandate entrusted to it?

2. If so, when were these standards adopted?

3. Where can they be accessed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Standard for portable liquid oxygen devices, including connectors (EN ISO 18777), is now at public enquiry stage in the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). The enquiry was closed on 11 February 2004. CEN will review the comments received. The Standard will be put to formal vote before March 2005.

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 234.

(2) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/247

(2004/C 88 E/0250)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0916/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Ireland and maritime safety legislation

What reply if any has the Commission received from Ireland in response to the initiation of legal proceedings announced in July 2003 (press release IP/03/1116) regarding Ireland's failure to comply with Directive 2001/105/EC (1) on ship inspections and Directive 2001/106/EC (2) on port state control. What action has the Commission taken, or is proposing to take, with regard to this matter?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

In a letter dated 25 July 2003, Ireland sent the Commission the national measures (European Communities (Ship Inspection and Survey Organisations) Regulations 2003 – S.I. No 301) aimed at incorporating European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/105/EC of 19 December 2001 on ship inspections (3) into Irish law.

In a letter dated 1 July 2003, Ireland sent the Commission the national measures (European Communities Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 – S.I. No 243 of 2003) incorporating European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/106/EC of 19 December 2001 on Port State Control (3) into Irish law.

Consequently, on 15 October 2003, the Commission decided to terminate the infringement procedures initiated against Ireland for failure to communicate the national measures incorporating the abovemen-tioned directives into Irish law.

(1) OJ L 19, 22.1.2002, p. 9.

(2) OJ L 19, 22.1.2002, p. 17.

(3) OJ L 19, 22.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3754/98

by Marlies Mosiek-Urbahn (PPE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Repayment of French textile subsidies

Werner Langen's Written Question No E-2856/97(1) and Mr Van Miert's answer of 4 November 1997 on the Commission's behalf give rise to the following questions:

1. When will the social security contributions be paid? What payment terms (interest, payment period) have been agreed?

2. Why was the de minimis threshold (ECU 100 000) applied in the case of these unlawful subsidies? Will the fact that only social security contributions exceeding this amount are to be repaid not encourage other Member States to use the de minimis threshold as a loophole for the occasional subsidization of individual industries?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1999)

1. The new scheme for the reduction of social security contributions referred to in the answer to Mr Langen's Written Question No E-2856/97 was set up by the Law of 13 June 1998, which provides for financial incentives in the form of such reductions for enterprises shortening the working week to 35 hours before 1 January 2000.

The sooner enterprises introduce measures to that effect and the more they shorten the working week below 35 hours, the greater the reductions will be. The actual arrangements for shortening the working week and for exploiting the resulting potential for creating jobs are to be decided in negotiations between labour and management.

According to the information which the French authorities have provided to the Commission, this scheme is to be extended to the whole of the French economy.

As regards the arrangements for recovering aid granted under the textile plan and declared incompatible with the common market by the Commission decision of 9 April 1997, the French authorities are currently looking into ways in which this aid can be recovered in practice without creating insurmountable financial difficulties for the recipients. They therefore proposed to the Commission that recovery be staggered. The Commission has set out the circumstances in which it would be prepared to accept some limited staggering. In particular, interest would run from the time when the aid was granted until it was actually repaid.

2. In its notice on the de minimis rule(2), the Commission stated that this rule set a threshold figure below which Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty did not apply in so far as it did not threaten to distort trade between Member States to any perceptible degree.

The Commission does not believe that this rule encourages Member States to subsidise certain industries on an occasional basis, given that the public assistance to be taken into account when determining the ceiling of EUR 100 000 comprises all aid granted bypublic authorities at national, regional or local level over a three-year period. Any Community cofinancing should also be taken into account when applying the de minimis rule.

(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 82.

(2) OJ C 68, 6.3.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3929/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Code of Conduct on Business Taxation - Commissioner Monti's statement to the European Parliament on 7 December 1998

At his meeting with the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy in the European Parliament of 7 December 1998, Commissioner Monti stated that the Code of Conduct on Business Taxation was causing certain Member States to exercise "self-discipline" in that they had decided not to introduce certain tax measures which might have been in breach of the principles of the Code.

Can the Commissioner please specify to which tax measures in which Member States he was referring?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

It is not for the Commission to comment on tax considerations in individual Member States but, to the best of the knowledge of the Commission, since the adoption of the code of conduct for business taxation all Member States have refrained from introducing any new tax measures that are harmful within the meaning of the code.

Several proposed new tax measures have, however, been referred to the code of conduct group for future consideration, although the confidentiality of the group's work prohibits the Commission from specifying which measures they might be.

It should also be noted that proposals have already been made by national governments to withdraw or phase out certain measures that might fall within the scope of the code.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3806/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Delay by Italian Government in setting up a guarantee fund for SMEs

With reference to its less than exhaustive answer to my earlier question E-2946/98(1) can the Commission answer the following questions:

By decision 98/343/EC(2) the Ecofin Council of Ministers allocated ECU 420 million for 3 facilities for SMEs, one of which is a loan guarantee fund. So that SMEs can benefit from it, Member States must take a part in the financing irrespective of the intermediaries selected by the EIF.

The Italian Minister for Industry has never taken the legislative steps for the adoption of a decree creating a national guarantee fund to complement the European one so that Italian SMEs are not eligible for European aid.

Will the Commission make representations to the Italian Government so that it passes a legislative decree for the creation of the national guarantee fund?

If the Italian Government does not create the national guarantee fund to complement the European one, will Italian SMEs lose any possibility of benefiting from the loan guarantee fund decided on by Ecofin on 19 May 1998?

Does the Commission intend to adopt measures on behalf of SMEs penalised by national governments that do not adopt legislation enabling them to benefit from European aid?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

One of the three facilities made available to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) following Council Decision 98/347/EC of 19 May 1998 on measures of financial assistance for innovative and job-creating small and medium-sized enterprises - the growth and employment initiative(3) is the SME guarantee facility. There is no requirement for a national guarantee scheme in order for a Member State to benefit from this facility. The facility is open to all appropriate public or private sector guarantee schemes operating in the Member States including mutual guarantee schemes. In order to ensure appropriate co-operation with Member States, the European Investment Fund (EIF), which manages the facility, will contact national authorities before implementing the facility.

In the case of Italy such contacts have already been taken. As Italy does not have a national scheme, the EIF plans to launch a national call for expressions of interest in order to select eligible regional guarantee institutions as intermediaries.

(1) See page 15.

(2) OJ L 155, 29.5.1998.

(3) OJ L 155, 29.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1652/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council. 2008 Olympic Games.



Official Journal 040 E , 14/02/2002 P. 0074 - 0074



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1652/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council (12 June 2001) Subject: 2008 Olympic Games What is the Council's opinion on China's offer to host the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing? Will the Council encourage Member State governments to seek assurances on major improvements in China's record on human rights and press freedom, etc. before supporting such a proposal? Reply (8 October 2001) The Council has not discussed China's or other countries' candidature to host the Olympic Games in 2008. The Council has, however, in the framework of its political dialogue and human rights dialogue with China, expressed its concern about ongoing human rights violations and has urged the Chinese authorities to take positive measures to improve the situation on the ground.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3381/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Pilotage in shipping: incorporating preventive security

The terror attacks of 11 September 2001 and, more particularly, the attack on the French supertanker Limburg, clearly demonstrate the threat also posed by terrorists to international shipping. That applies in equal measure to international and to territorial waters. It puts not only maritime safety, intended to prevent shipping accidents and the resultant environmental damage, on the agenda, but also maritime security, in terms of preventive efforts to combat terrorism.

I put the following questions to the Commission:

1. What options are open to the Commission for taking maritime security into account at European level in the future?

2. Is there the option of incorporating aspects of maritime security into the current negotiations on the port-package?

3. Does the Commission share the view that great importance attaches to the availability of a public pilotage service in this connection, since it can assume the function of discharging sovereign responsibilities?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

Maritime security has been one of the Commission's concerns since well before 11 September 2001, as may be seen from the Transport White Paper, which already referred to the need to step up the security of passengers embarking on ships offering European cruises.

The Commission backs an approach involving an overall response to the problem of maritime security through the adoption of international instruments. An International Ship and Port Facility Security Code was adopted at the International Maritime Organisation's Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Security on 13 December 2002. The Commission will shortly be presenting a communication including a proposal for legislation to incorporate these provisions into Community law to ensure they are applied uniformly and effectively throughout the Community.

Meanwhile, in 2002 the Commission carried out a study on tightening up the security of cruise passengers in the Union's Mediterranean ports. Its findings, together with those due from a broader study of the whole problem of security in ports and its financial consequences, will, together with consultation of the Member States, allow the necessary additional measures to be identified to improve security in all EU ports.

Since the proposal for a Directive on Market Access to Port Services deals with services exclusively within port areas, it would not appear to be appropriate to include detailed security aspects in this directive. However, the question of security-related conditions for service providers in ports is being examined by the Council and the Parliament in the framework of the legislative procedure on this proposal.

The Commission does not believe that the diversity of the ports, their local specificities and requirements, the variety of shipping services, experience in Member States together with the application of the subsidiarity principle warrant the introduction of general rules on public service obligations for pilots.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/593

(2004/C 78 E/0626)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject: Refund of budgetary resources

In a communication dated 29 October 2003, the Commission has proposed that unused budgetary resources from the 2003 Community budget amounting to EUR 5 billion be refunded to the Member States.

From which actions funded by the budget are these unused resources derived?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Honourable Member is referring to the proposal made by the Commission in the Preliminary Draft Amending Budget No7 to hand back to the Member States EUR 5 billion in surplus payment appropriations in heading 2 of the Budget. The surplus appropriations were on the budget lines for the completion of the pre-2000 Structural Funds programmes.

The Commission's proposal has now been adopted, as an Amending Budget No 6, by the Budgetary Authority.