ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/03

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding

Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002(1) of 27 June 2002 concerns a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding(2). For the purposes of that regulation, the relevant definitions listed in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98(3) apply. In addition, the regulation lays down further definitions.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 no contract-related operating aid to shipbuilding may be granted in respect of contracts agreed as from 1 January 2001. However, as an exceptional and temporary measure, and in order to assist Community shipyards in those segments that have suffered adverse effects in the form of material injury and serious prejudice caused by unfair Korean competition, a temporary defensive mechanism is authorised for limited market segments and for a short and limited period only.

Is the European Commission aware that the relevant definitions in Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 are worded in such a way that they may be interpreted differently from one Member State to another?

Is it aware that the wording of the regulation may be interpreted as meaning that subsidies may be granted for lost orders?

What measures does it plan to take to resolve this problem?

(1) OJ L 172, 2.7.2002, p. 1.

(2) This regulation was drawn up in the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding.

(3) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

In the Commission's view, the definitions provided in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 of 27 June 2002 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding (TDM) are sufficiently clear and precise. The definitions reflect those that are standard within the shipbuilding industry and are based largely on those used by Lloyd's Register.

Furthermore, it is clear from the TDM that aid may only be granted in relation to contracts awarded to Community yards, for which there has been competition from a Korean yard offering a lower price.

The Commission will ensure that, in the implementation of schemes and individual aid granted under the TDM, the requirements of the TDM are met.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2225/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Financing of eco-label scheme

The EU's eco-labelling scheme in common with several national schemes is in many cases a success. However, the EU scheme could be more widespread and, apparently, the financing model might possibly be better designed.

The fee or company contribution for the award and use of the EU eco-label is low, which is an incentive for businesses to try to take part in the scheme. However, in some cases, the firm's contribution does not cover the actual costs involved in the scheme. The EU scheme requires public schemes in the Member States to offer individual case management and other services, which may mean that some countries give lower priority to this work and therefore do not promote the interests of the environment, consumers or business.

Can the Commission therefore say whether analyses of alternative models of financing the eco-labelling scheme are envisaged or have been carried out, including higher business contributions, EU assistance for Member States' administration of the scheme or other initiatives which may encourage the Member States to promote the scheme? What is the Commission's assessment of developments in general in this area and what initiatives are expected to be taken in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The different stakeholders involved in promoting the eco-label (Member States, Commission, competent bodies and interest groups) place considerable emphasis on marketing and promotion and have set up a marketing management group to co-ordinate promotion activities. An awareness raising campaign planned for 2004 will contribute to the visibility of the scheme.

As already mentioned in the answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2241/02(1), views differ on the question of fees. The Commission had carried out a consultation with stakeholders in preparing the recent revision of the Decision establishing the Eco-label fees and proposed a structure consisting of an application and an annual fee. Test and verification costs are not included in those fees. The Commission does not intend to further revise this fee structure.

However, the Commission has started general discussions about the revision of the scheme within the policy group of the European Union Eco-labelling Board to further improve the instrument and the involvement of Member States. As this work is in its initial stage no decisions have been taken so far. The work of the policy group can be followed at the web site address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ecolabel/background/pm_managementgroups.htm

policy

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1756/03

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 May 2003)

Subject: Possible abuse of authority

There have been fresh incidents in recent days on the periphery of Portuguese waters following the incursion of Spanish fishing vessels. The Portuguese authorities respond to these misdemeanours, which regrettably occur on a fairly regular basis, with firearms and other violent means which are totally disproportionate, particularly between two neighbouring countries which both belong to the EU.

In the light of the above, and bearing in mind Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which refers to the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, does the Council consider the severity of the penalties to be disproportionate to the criminal offence? If so, how does the Council believe that such abuses of authority in the EU might be curbed?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

As the Honourable Parliamentarian is aware, the Council adopted at its December 2002 Council, within the Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), a new set of rules on control and enforcement. Those rules stipulate that Member States shall control activities carried out within the scope of the CFP on their territory or waters subject to their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

Concerning the incidents to which the Honourable Parliamentarian refers, between Spanish fishermen and the Portuguese authorities, the Council is not aware of such incidents. The application of Community and national law is not subject to review by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2156/03

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Satellite monitoring of fishing vessels under 24 metres in length

Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002(1) provides that a system for locating and identifying fishing vessels (satellite monitoring) must also be installed on board vessels exceeding 18 metres in length as from 1 January 2004 and on vessels exceeding 15 metres in length as from 1 January 2005. Up to now, this requirement has been restricted to fishing vessels exceeding 24 metres in length.

The previous Regulation provided derogations from this obligation for fishing vessels which either returned to harbour within 24 hours or fished exclusively within the 12-mile zone. This derogation has been abolished in the new Regulation.

1. Is the Commission prepared, within the framework of Article 22(3), to reinstate the current derogation for fishing vessels under 24 metres?

2. If so, by what date can such a decision be expected?

3. If not, does the Commission not take the view that, in the case of small fishing vessels operating exclusively within the 12-mile zone or returning to harbour within 24 hours, fulfilling these obligations would create a disproportionate burden () compared to the economic importance of the activity?

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2156/03 and P-2157/03given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

1. The extension of VMS to smaller vessels is part of the political agreement on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reached in December 2002. The aim of the extension is to improve the control and enforcement of the CFP.

It is believed that VMS is more acceptable to the fishing industry if this type of monitoring applies equally to all fishing vessels based on the length criteria, which has the advantage of being easily identifiable and transparent. This in turn constitutes an important factor in favour of the creation of a Community-wide level playing field for the fishing industry.

This approach is consistent with the Communication from the Commission on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (the so-called Road Map). Therein, the Commission announced the removal of existing exemptions and the extension of VMS to all fishing vessels exceeding 10 metres in length.

Against this background, the Commission does not have the intention to propose exemptions to the application of VMS for vessels over 15 metres.

2. In line with the answer given to the first question, no further decision is to be expected.

3. The Commission believes that VMS is a cost effective monitoring tool that significantly improves fisheries control and that its extension is justified.

In order to ease the burden for the fishermen, Member States have applied for a community financial contribution for satellite tracking devices. The Commission will grant aid under similar conditions as it did in the past for the vessels already subject to VMS, within the budgetary constraints.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1496/03

by Florence Kuntz (EDD) to the Council

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Safeguarding the Iraqi archaeological heritage

The bombs that have been raining down on Mesopotamia since 20 March and the destruction and looting of the Baghdad Archaeological Museum remind us that Iraq's archaeological heritage has since 1991 been in peril.

Apart from the destruction of archaeological sites during the Gulf War there has been the looting, the departure of foreign archaeological missions, the abandonment of digs and trafficking with the West in stolen property.

The American military campaign of the past three weeks has brought about the collapse of the Iraqi regime. In the absence of a government, one can only wonder who is now protecting the seven national museums and some 10 000 archaeological sites throughout the country.

How does the European Union wish to show its support for the Iraqi people and help them protect their exceptional heritage?

How does the European Union intend to mobilise the Member States against the illegal trade in stolen property?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council is strongly concerned about the tragic destruction of cultural goods, archaeological sites and monuments of irreplaceable historical value in Iraq, and the vandalism and looting of the museums and libraries of vital importance not only to Iraq but to the whole world.

The 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property and the 1995 Unidroit Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects provide a global legal basis for fighting the illicit transfer of cultural property. Interpol is centralising and distributing the relevant information and has set up a special website with recently stolen works of art.

The Council (Culture) at its meeting on 6 May agreed unanimously on a declaration in which it stressed in particular the need to protect in an efficient way the cultural goods of Iraq and to return the objects illegally removed from museums or archeaological sites, and in which it declared the European Union's active support of Unesco's related initiatives and actions.

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is through the Member States full cooperation within the Interpol framework that stolen works of Iraqi art, may be found and returned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2237/03

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE)and Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Order prohibiting heavy vehicles (over 7,5 tonnes) from travelling along the A 12 (Tyrol)

The Governor of the Tyrol has signed an order prohibiting heavy vehicles (over 7,5 tonnes) from travelling along the A 12 from Km 20,4 (Kundl) to 66,8 (Ampass). This decision clearly infringes Community rules, disregards the fundamental principles of free movement of goods and places an additional dangerous restriction on traffic.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to remedy this serious situation, which infringes the principle of the free movement of goods inside the European Union?

What measures has the Commission considered to ensure that such actions are not taken again in future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

On 23 July 2003, considering that the ban on heavy goods vehicles carrying certain types of goods on a section of the A 12 motorway, in effect as of 1 August 2003, infringed the rules on freedom to provide services and represented an obstacle to the free movement of goods within the European Union, the Commission decided to being a case against Austria before the Court of Justice. In view of the fact that, after the infringement proceedings were instituted by the Commission on 24 June 2003 and the reasoned opinion sent on 9 July 2003, the Austrian Government failed to provide sufficient information, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice, requesting that the measures at issue be suspended temporarily. On 30 July 2003, the President of the Court of Justice issued an order to the effect that Austria should cease to apply the legislation challenged by the Commission pending a ruling in the above proceedings.

As to the second question posed by the Honourable Members, the Commission would point out that, in 1998, it presented a proposal for a Directive on a transparent system of harmonised rules for driving restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads(1) on the trans-European transport network. An amended proposal was presented in 2000. This new proposal, currently before the Council and Parliament, provides for the harmonisation of heavy goods vehicle traffic restrictions and permits Member States to impose traffic restrictions only at specific times of day, albeit with a degree of leeway.

The framework proposed by the Commission will help the transport industry to operate more efficiently, benefiting all the sectors which rely on the carriage of goods by road.

(1) OJ C 198, 24.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2094/03

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 June 2003)

Subject: Domestic accidents and definition of the workplace

Domestic accidents have taken on more than alarming proportions not only in Italy, but across all the Member States. The statistical data at our disposal show that well over three million people have accidents at work each year, more than seven thousand of which are fatal. As the World Health Organisation has noted, these type of accidents, which affect all age groups, are the primary cause of child mortality in developed countries, even if housewives are the group most affected overall.

The causes of these accidents are multifarious. Some are due to a lack of attention, carelessness, a lack of awareness and/or failure to comply with safety standards, or to the presence of dangerous devices or chemical substances in the home but others, and perhaps the vast majority, are the result of the lack of an appropriate safety and prevention culture.

Bearing in mind that housewives fall into a category of workers which is often not afforded the level of protection which is its due, a vitally important solution might be to consider the home as a workplace, which is not the case with Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work(1).

In Italy, Law No 493 of 3 December 1999, which lays down rules for the protection of health in the home and the introduction of insurance against domestic accidents(2) considers the home to be a workplace.

What action does the Council intend to take in this area?

Would it consider introducing measures in favour of housewives based on the example provided in Italian law?

(1) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11.

(2) Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 303, 28.12.1999.

Reply

(13 October 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that Article 3(a) of the relevant framework Directive Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(1) defines a worker as any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants. The same definition applies to all individual directives within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Directive, including the Chemical Agents Directive, which is the fourteenth such directive.

As regards the possibility of extending the scope of these directives to housewives, the Council would point out that the right of initiative for all new legislation falls under the exclusive competence of the Commission. To date, the Council has not received any proposal along the lines sought by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2517/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Admissibility of the title Honorary Director of the European Commission

On the website of a German-language EU advisory agency in Brussels, an advisor is listed under the heading The team, with the title Honorary Director of the European Commission (Direktor h.c. der Europäischen Kommission.

As this advisor is thus using a relationship with the Commission for commercial advantage, the following questions arise:

- Is there actually such a title as Honorary Director (Direktor h.c.)?

- If so are there other, similar titles?

- Is there a list of people with these titles and is it publicly available?

- Is there any possibility of sanctions against holders of such titles if they act in a way that damages the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

1. As the Honourable Member is aware, the title Director h.c. indicates a rank conferred honoris causa, i.e. an honorary rank. Article 54 of the Staff Regulations provides that On termination of service an official may be given an honorary rank either in his career bracket or in the next higher career bracket, by decision of the appointing authority. No pecuniary benefits shall attach to such honorary rank.

2. In practice, honorary rank has conventionally been assigned to several officials who have occupied middle or senior management posts at Head of Unit, Director, Deputy Director General and Director-General level. The decision to grant honorary rank is taken after application by the official or by his or her Director-General and/or Commissioner by the Commissioner for Personnel and Administration, by delegation of the College of Commissioners and in explicit agreement with the Commissioner in whose Directorate-General the retiring official works and with the Secretary-General. The Advisory Committee on Appointments is also called upon to give its opinion beforehand.

3. As the Staff Regulations make clear, honorary ranks carry no pecuniary benefit and, consequently, the Commission does not formally keep a list of the persons holding them since the honorary status carries no financial implications or other obligations. By way of information, over the last year (July 2002-July 2003), after the completion of the required procedures, three persons have been awarded the title Honorary Head of Unit and four persons have been awarded the title Honorary Director or Director-General.

4. Officials who have ended their service remain subject to the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations, including Articles 16 and 17, which make the provision that former officials continue to be bound by the same obligations as current officials. Proven breach of those obligations would, of course, make a former official liable to the appropriate sanctions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0709/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Census of coca producers in Peru and reclassification of coca leaf

The first (and so far only) census of legal and authorised coca-leaf producers in Peru dates back to 1978 and the purchase of coca leaf (exclusively by the state-run ENACO) is now based perforce on arbitrary criteria employed for the purpose of selecting the producers from whom coca leaf is bought for legal use. Furthermore, the figures relating to the increase in the size of the areas set aside for coca-leaf cultivation are contradictory.

The UN classifies coca leaf in the same category as cocaine and heroin, despite the fact that independent studies and ones carried out by the World Health Organisation itself have demonstrated the medical and nutritional properties of the product which, in the Andes, has an essential role to play in local culture, tradition and religion.

In view of the above facts and the passage of 25 years, does the Council not think that it should call for and assist the drawing up of a new register of authorised producers on the basis of public, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, not least for the benefit of the alternative-development projects to be implemented in the areas concerned?

Does the Council not consider that, at the Ministerial-level segment of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs which is to be held in Vienna on 16/17 April 2003, it should propose the deletion of coca leaf from Table I in order to enable a legal coca-leaf market to emerge and thus a sustainable agricultural economy to develop in the Andean countries?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The question raised by the Honourable Member has not been examined by the Council's bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1341/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(9 April 2003)

Subject: Arrest of the Sudanese national Tawfiq Salih Abu Kadouk

On 16 March this year Tawfiq Salih Abu Kadouk, chairman of the Justice Party, was taken from his home by the Sudanese security forces, who did not offer any explanation at the time of the arrest. The Justice party is one of the legally recognised opposition parties which are, according to Sudanese law, authorised to engage in political activity.

Is the Council aware of the arrest?

What steps will it take to persuade the Sudanese authorities to release Tawfiq Salih Abu Kadouk immediately?

Does it not consider that implementation of the agreement signed with the government in Khartoum last December which envisages the use of initial funding for the technical preparation of cooperation programmes should be made subject to full respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, starting with those officially recognised by the law currently in force in that country?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council does not have information on the arrest of the chairman of the Justice Party, Mr Tawfiq Salih Abu Kadouk, which apparently had taken place on 16 March this year.

If this is confirmed the EU will have to consider what action it could take in this case.

The main interest of the EU in the relations with the Sudan is, at this conjuncture, the promotion of a comprehensive peace settlement and to pursue the linked issues of democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights as a pre-condition for normalisation of EU Sudanese relations including resumption of cooperation. The EU is confident that a peace agreement would facilitate further progress in these areas.