ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3493/01

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: European Parliament resolution of 11 December 1990 on Catalan

In the European Parliament's resolution of 11 December 1990 on languages in the Community and the situation of Catalan (A3-0169/90)(1) the Commission was asked to take action to achieve the following objectives:

1. the publication in Catalan of the Community's treaties and basic texts;

2. the use of Catalan for disseminating public information concerning the European institutions in all the media;

3. the inclusion of Catalan in the programmes set up by the Commission for learning European languages;

4. the use of Catalan by the Commission's offices in its written and oral dealings with the public in the autonomous communities in question.

Furthermore, it is mentioned in the resolution that, under the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice, Catalan may already be used at the Court by witnesses and experts if they are unable adequately to express themselves in one or the procedural languages of the court.

According to what Parliament's and the Commission's offices in Barcelona have to say regarding item 4 above, Catalan is used as a matter of routine in everyday work, in communications and information aimed at the general public, in activities which they organise on their own initiative, etc.

However, only some of the literature and information published by the European Parliament at its Madrid office has been issued in Catalan. Parliament and the Commission have tried to ensure that more of their publications are brought out in Catalan, but this has been hindered by inadequate funding and the lack of clearer rules. Most promotional literature and information material has been, and continues to be, issued in Spanish.

What view does the Commission take regarding the achievement of the objectives laid down in the abovementioned European Parliament resolution? Is it intending to take any specific action in order to solve the problems concerning the inadequate funding and the lack of clearer rules on the use of Catalan within the EU institutions? Will the Commission say whether or not Catalan has been used at the Court of Justice?

(1) OJ C 19, 28.1.1991, p. 42.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

At this juncture, the Commission can give the following answers:

- it has not yet made an overall evaluation of the implementation of the resolution in question;

- the Commission's office in Barcelona provides the public with information in Catalan, as the Honourable Member himself states. The Commission is not planning to take additional measures with regard to the issue of information material;

- it will contact the Court of Justice and will give the Honourable Member a supplementary answer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3499/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Consequences of the failure to conclude a fisheries agreement with Morocco

In March 2001, the negotiations on a fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco were broken off. The European Union responded by providing support for Spanish fishermen. The southern Spanish village of Barbate symbolised their plight, being home to no fewer than 4 000 fishermen who were affected. Until the end of 2001, they will receive 900 in aid from the EU. It has been suggested that investing in tourism could be one solution. Press reports refer to an increase in racism directed against Moroccan fellow-citizens in the region. At the same time, many ex-fishermen are now said to be using their boats to smuggle drugs.

1. How many of the 4 000 fishermen affected have since found new jobs?

2. Has the Commission also invested structurally in tourism?

3. Is the Commission aware of an increase in racism in the region?

4. Is the Commission aware of an increase in drugs transactions in the region? Are unemployed fishermen involved?

5. Will the Commission resume talks with Morocco with the aim of improving the situation in southern Spain?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The Commission's information is that the number of fishermen from Barbate affected by non-renewal of the fishery agreement with Morocco is not 4 000 but 649. It is unable at present to say how many of these have found another job.

Knowing that many fishermen would be unable to find fresh employment at sea, the Commission proposed specific conversion measures additional to the aid already offered under the Community rules in force. Adopted by the Council on 18 December 2001, these substantially increase the premiums for fishermen converting to other activities. Further, coastal zones dependent on fisheries such as Barbate benefit from Community financial assistance for socio-economic diversification through the Structural Fund Objective 1 programmes.

On structural investment in tourism, the Commission must point out that under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 on general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) selection of the individual projects part-financed under each programme is an exclusive responsibility of the Member State.

The Commission has not been informed of any increase in racism in the region nor is it aware of any rise in drug trafficking or involvement of unemployed fishermen in this.

On resumption of discussions with Morocco, the Commission must point out that the Council concluded on 24 April 2001 that it was impossible as matters stood to reach a mutually beneficial fishery agreement between the Community and Morocco.

Since then the Commission has received no formal or indeed any proposal from the Moroccan authorities on the future of our fishery relations. If any approach is made the Commission will carefully examine the proposal and if appropriate seek a mandate from the Council to reopen negotiations.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2179/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Discrimination against two-wheel motor vehicles in Greece

In Greece the Highway Code fails to distinguish between the various categories of vehicle although they should be treated differently depending on their technical characteristics, namely size and weight.

An example of the ensuing discrimination is the latest increase in taxation which is approximately 10 % for cars but 30 % for two-wheel motor vehicles. Furthermore, the road use taxes for two-wheel motor vehicles are the same as for cars which weigh five times more, while protective gear such as helmets is subject to 18 % VAT. Will the Commission say whether, as part of tax harmonisation in the EU, it will take measures to address the unfair treatment of two-wheel motor vehicles?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

As the Honourable Member is aware, with the exception of common rules applying on annual taxes and charges for heavy goods vehicles, there is little Community legislation, or harmonisation of national fiscal provisions, applied by the Member States in the area of vehicle taxation, including two wheel motor vehicles.

The standard VAT rates provided for by Community legislation are currently applied in Greece on both passenger cars, and two wheel motor vehicles. Therefore, there is no discrimination or any need for further tax harmonisation in this area as both means of transport are subject to the same rate of 18 %.

As regards registration and annual circulation taxes charged on two wheel motor vehicles in Greece, and their relation to the level of the same taxes imposed to passenger cars, the Commission should point out that at present there is no Community legislation, or harmonisation of national fiscal provisions in application by the Member States. It is for each Member State to establish and apply national legislation provided that they respect the general provisions of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2694/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from Fisheries DG

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects which, in 2000 and 2001, were submitted by the Italian Regions of Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta for financing from the funds administered by the Fisheries Directorate-General, and the names of those which were subsequently approved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Member States are responsible for managing structural programmes, including the scrutiny and choice of projects. The Commission is informed of the projects chosen for funding after their selection through programme progress reports submitted to it before 30 April each year, in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 366/2001 of 22 February 2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing the measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999(1).

The progress reports for 2000 submitted to the Commission in April 2001 reveal that Italy has not selected or approved any projects.

The progress reports for 2001 will be submitted only in April 2002.

(1) OJ L 55, 24.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3534/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council. Signing of the Euratom Treaty.



Official Journal 160 E , 04/07/2002 P. 0136 - 0136



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3534/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council (8 January 2002) Subject: Signing of the Euratom Treaty Does the Council consider that, by signing the Euratom Treaty, a Member State recognises the legitimacy of civil nuclear establishments in other Member States, provided that they have complied with the provisions of that Treaty? Reply (25/26 March 2002) The Council would like to draw the attention of the honourable MEP to the fact that it is not the Council but the Intergovernmental Conference, which is negotiating and concluding the Treaties. The Council can therefore not take a position on the possible interpretation nor the significance, except from the procedural point of view as it results of the Treaties themselves, which a Member State may give to its signing of a Treaty. The Commission is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3076/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Subject: The case concerning State aid for the Terra Mítica theme park (Alicante) loans granted

The report published by the audit office of the Valencian regional government concerning the company Parque Temático de Alicante SA (SPTA) specifies the details of the loan of ESP 8 million combined with the Valencian Government's bank guarantee at the variable MIBOR (Madrid Interbank Offered Rate) plus 0,75 points. The loan is being used to finance the loan of the same amount which SPTA is in turn granting to Terra Mítica SA at the variable MIBOR plus 1,50 points. This loan is subject to a syndicated loan of ESP 18 500 million arranged by Terra Mítica with various financial institutions. The conditions are that Terra Mítica SA will meet the commitments deriving from the loan granted by SPTA only if all the obligations deriving from the syndicated loan have been met first.

Does the Commission consider that in this case the regional government (directly and via the public company SPTA) is acting in accordance with the private investor principle?

Does it consider that the benefit of 0,75 points is enough to justify the risk the operation entails?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2002)

In its decision initiating proceedings under Article 88(2) (former Article 93(2)) of the EC Treaty with regard to suspected aid for the Terra Mitica Park at Benidorm, Alicante(1), the Commission expresses doubts about the terms of the aid to which the Honourable Member refers(2). Accordingly, no answer can be given to the two questions put by the Honourable Member (see E-3077/01) until a final decision has been taken.

(1) OJ C 300, 26.10.2001.

(2) See point 58 of the Decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1102/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: UK derogations

Could the Commission provide details of the UK derogations from Community law that will expire during the current parliamentary term and the EU directives that will become law during the next year?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2001)

The Commission lists below, for the intention of the Honourable Member, the legal acts under which derogations were granted to the United Kingdom:

- Commission Decision 98/377/EC of 18 May 1998 adapting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 in view of the organisation of the Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings(1).

- Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of 31 October 1994 on the system of the European Communities' own resources(2) and Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities' own resources(3).

- Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways(4), and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification(9).

- Council Decision 2000/435/EC(5) of 29 June 2000 amending Council Decision 97/375/EC of 9 June 1997 authorising the United Kingdom to apply an optional measure derogating from Article 17 of the sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes(6) and Council Decision 98/23/EC of 19 December 1997 authorising the United Kingdom to extend application of a measure derogating from Article 28e(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes(7).

- Council Decision 2000/747/EC of 27 November 2000 amending Article 3 of Decision 98/198/EC authorising the United Kingdom to extend application of a measure derogating from Articles 6 and 17 of the sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes(8).

With regard to the second part of the question, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that 81 Directives must be transposed between 1 April 2001 and 31 December 2002. This information is given in an annex which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 168, 13.6.1998.

(2) OJ L 293, 12.11.1994.

(3) OJ L 253, 7.10.2000.

(4) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(5) OJ L 172, 12.7.2000.

(6) OJ L 158, 17.6.1991.

(7) OJ L 8, 14.1.1998.

(8) OJ L 302, 1.12.2000.

(9) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3015/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Referendums in the applicant countries

In which of the applicant countries is it planned to hold referendums on accession to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2001)

In the framework of their future ratification of the Accession Treaty, a number of candidate countries may hold referendums on accession, in line with the constitutional and legal requirements and practice in each country. According to the information currently available to the Commission, there is a constitutional obligation to hold a referendum in Romania and Slovakia before the Accession Treaty can be ratified. In a number of other candidate countries where there is no constitutional obligation, there is a declared political will to organise a referendum, although no formal decision has as yet been taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2652/01

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: European arrest warrant

For some time, there has been much speculation within the European Union concerning the introduction of a European arrest warrant. The recent attacks in the United States and the possible involvement of accomplices residing within the EU particularly in Hamburg make this very topical.

Does the Commission believe it would be possible and desirable to have a European arrest warrant introduced via Europol in the near future?

If so, and in view of the urgency of the matter, how soon is this likely to be possible?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2651/01 and E-2652/01given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The Commission has presented its Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures(1) between the Member States of 19 September 2001.

The legal basis of that proposal is Article 31 b and Article 34(2) b of the Treaty on the European Union. The Commission also recalls that the 1999 Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council refers to the principle of mutual recognition and the abolition of the formal extradition procedure between the Member States.

The Commission's intention with the proposal is to replace the current extradition system by an entirely judicial procedure for surrender.

The Commission's proposal does not foresee a role for Europol in that procedure.

(1) COM(2001) 522 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3317/01

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: Mestre loop road

According to recent reports in Il Sole-24 Ore(1), the Italian Government intends to award the franchise for constructing and operating the Mestre Dolo-Quarto D'Altino loop road and the tunnel under the by-pass direct to a consortium comprising Autostrade, Padova-Venezia and Autovie Veneto (the three companies which already operate the motorways in the Venice area).

On the grounds that the Mestre Dolo-Quarto D'Altino loop road is to be regarded as an addition to an existing motorway, such a step would enable an EU tender procedure to be avoided.

This would eliminate any possibility of an international project-financing tender based on the specifications issued by the promoter in this case a consortium led by Autostrada Brescia-Padova. It should be noted that Italy's state highway authority once before (in March 1999) directly awarded a franchise to Autostrade SpA. This prompted intervention by the Commission, which halted the administrative proceedings by means of an as-yet unfinished infringement procedure and which pointed out that the project could not be exempted from the tender procedure since it constituted a new stretch of motorway.

Does the Commission not think that directly awarding a franchise for the construction of the Mestre Dolo-Quarto D'Altino loop road would infringe EU laws on public procurement, such as Directive 92/50/EEC(2), Directive 93/36/EEC(3) and Directive 93/37/EEC(4)?

(1) Sole-24 Ore, 17 October 2001: No EU tender for Mestre loop road; 25 October 2001: Preparatory work begins on Mestre loop road construction site.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

The Commission has examined the potential direct award of the franchise for constructing and operating the Mestre motorway loop road and tunnel to a consortium comprising three motorway operating companies linking Mestre to the rest of Venice, from the point of view of its compatibility with Community legislation on public contracts and, in particular, with Directive 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts.

In addition, following the presentation of a petition to the European Parliament, the Commission has, on several occasions, expressed its doubts to the Italian authorities concerning the potential award of the franchise concerned to the three above-mentioned companies without first putting it up for tender at Community level.

It will be for the Commission to reach a final assessment on whether the award of the franchise in question can take place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2758/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Phasing out of import quotas for clothing

According to the international free trade agreement signed by the EU import quotas on clothing are to be phased out by 2005. However by the end of 1997

the EU had phased out quotas only on products such as knitted men's suits, dolls' clothing and woven hosiery; not exactly high volume products. On what clothing products have import quotas been phased out since the end of 1997, when the situation was as described above?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) provides for the integration of the textiles and clothing sector into General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 by a staged process of integration, namely a minimum of 16 % of the volume of 1 190 imports on 1 January 1995, 17 % on 1 January 1998, 18 % on 1 January 2002 and the remainder on 1 January 2005. Any quotas maintained on products that are integrated must be removed and thus, by 1 January 2005, the whole sector will fall under GATT rules and disciplines and all quotas will have been removed. The ATC does not affect quotas maintained in respect of non-WTO Members.

To date the Community has removed quotas on 12 categories of product affecting five WTO Members, being those products included in the second stage of integration to which the Honourable Member refers. The products covered included: handkerchiefs, wool, narrow woven fabrics, crocheted clothing accessories, tights, swimwear, women's crocheted suits, ski suits, corsets, tents, coated fabrics and camping goods.

In addition, from 1 January 2002, as part of its third stage integration programme under the ATC, the Community will remove quotas on a further 11 product categories affecting nine WTO Members. These quotas cover gloves, underwear, anoraks, pyjamas and night-dresses, skirts, woven pile fabrics, woven synthetic fabrics and fibres of various kinds, baby clothes and tracksuits.

Further, as a result of the accession of China and Taiwan to the WTO, a further 32 quotas applied to China and 15 applied to Taiwan will be removed.

The Community is also committed to improved market access by way of bilateral negotiations under negotiating directives given by the Council of Ministers to the Commission on 9 November 2000. To date the Community agreed a Memorandum of Understanding on market access with Sri Lanka and is in the process of finalising a similar agreement with Pakistan.