ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0286/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Counterfeiting of euro currency

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that when the euro currency is introduced shopkeepers and traders have very clear guidance as to the nature of the new notes so as to avoid the possibility of counterfeiting? Is the Commission cooperating with the Member States in a programme to control the availability and exchange of black-market cash during the transition from national currencies to the euro?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The European Central Bank (ECB), the national central banks, the Commission and the Member States are currently conducting communication campaigns with respect to the euro designed for the general public as much as for specific groups.

Particularly as of September 2001 the campaigns will focus on the characteristics of euro banknotes and coins, allowing users to recognise them correctly and avoid counterfeits.

For the overall protection of the euro banknotes and coins from counterfeiting, a high level of protection has been achieved. Security features correspond to the highest technical standards. Furthermore, the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting(1), on which a political agreement was reached in Council on 12 February 2001, aims at establishing, in particular, procedures for exchanging information on counterfeits and counterfeiting and for cooperation involving the Member States, the Commission, the ECB and Europol.

In addition, the Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a training and assistance multi-annual programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting and legislative mesures for supervising cross-border transportation of cash -inter alia- in order to control availability and exchange of black-market cash. This proposal would aim, in particular, at strengthening legislation on controls and allowing the exchange of information.

Furthermore, the Commission proposed(2) an initiative to amend Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991, on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering(3), on which a common position was reached in Council on 30 November 2000. Most importantly, it will extend the obligations of the Directive, in particular customer identification and reporting of suspicions of money laundering, after its formal adoption by the Parliament and Council.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.

(2) OJ C 177 E, 27.6.2000.

(3) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0463/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 February 2001)

Subject: EU-Turkey partnership

The French National Assembly recently adopted a resolution recognising the genocide of the Armenians. Turkey responded with retaliatory measures of a mainly economic nature, cancelling a number of contracts with French companies. On 13 December 1999, the European Council meeting in Helsinki decided to recognise Turkey as a candidate country for accession to the EU, and to draw up an accession partnership and a single financial framework to assist Turkey towards accession.

Does the Council consider that Turkey's economic retaliation against France, and its unilateral termination of contracts are politically and legally compatible with the EU-Turkey customs union or that such conduct is consistent with the criteria laid down by the European Council in Copenhagen?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The retaliatory measures taken against France after the adoption of the law concerning official recognition of the Armenian genocide were aimed at projects of a bilateral nature. Nevertheless, the Commission has responsibility for ensuring the proper application of the Association Agreement and the Customs Union with Turkey and is following the situation closely. It has pointed out that the retaliatory measures can only be counter-productive at a time when Turkey is being invited to enter into an accession partnership and has recently adopted a national programme for the taking over of the Community acquis.

The European Union will consider whether any measures need to be taken in the context of the existing EU-Turkey agreements and the pre-accession process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1774/01

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: German packaging regulation - discrimination against drinks containers

The current German packaging regulation provides for a compulsory deposit on containers for certain drinks, which becomes effective if the percentage of refillable containers used for a particular drink falls below 72 %. A far lower threshold of 20 % is applied to milk. Despite the longstanding misgivings about the German provisions, Germany announced an amended regulation, introducing the hitherto threatened compulsory deposit, irrespective of the refillable container quota. The exceptions are refillable containers, plasticised cardboard cartons and polythene plastic bags for milk, which are regarded as environmentally acceptable. Milk and wine are exempt from the deposit de jure, regardless of whether they are sold in (allegedly) environmentally unacceptable or acceptable containers. The message from the legislator to the consumer, therefore, is that wine in glass bottles is good whereas fruit juice in glass bottles is bad.

Under what circumstances, does the Commission consider the exceptions (different refillable container quotas; compulsory deposit only for certain drinks) to be non-discriminatory?

Does the Commission consider refillable container quotas and compulsory deposits on drinks containers to be discriminatory under certain circumstances compared with other waste packaging, particularly in view of the fact that drinks containers make up only a small percentage of waste packaging as a whole and of residual waste?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1774/01, E-1775/01, E-1776/01, E-1777/01 and P-1823/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The draft second amendment to the German regulation on packaging - notification of which was given in connection with Directives 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1) and 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(2) - was examined by the Commission in the light of the relevant provisions of Community law.

The points mentioned by the honourable Member were also considered by the relevant departments of the Commission.

In view of the fact that at its meeting of 13 July 2001 the Bundesrat accepted a proposal for a resolution put forward jointly by several Länder and did not vote in favour of the draft as notified to the Commission, the issue of the proposed draft's compatibility with Community law no longer arises.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0471/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Plan Colombia

Since 1990 more than 35 000 people, the majority of them civilians, have died in armed clashes in Colombia. Since last September there has been an additional element in the peace process in the form of the so-called Plan Colombia, launched by the country's president, Andrés Pastrana, and costing USD 7 billion for the period 2000-2006. The Commission plans to provide 105 million in economic aid to Colombia over the same period. The EU will be contributing 300 million in all.

Far from describing the conflict in Colombia as armed and militarist, the European Parliament stated in its resolutions of 18 January 2001 that the European Union should pursue its own, non-military strategy; that, in addition to their military dimension, the prevailing situation and conflict in Colombia have a social and political dimension; and that, given the economic exclusion in Colombia, the EU should finance primarily those projects geared towards assisting and modernising the civil sector.

How would the Commission define the Community's cooperation strategy? To what extent do certain aspects of Plan Colombia conflict with that strategy? On what areas does the Commission intend to focus its economic assistance, and what specific projects will it be supporting in the fields of education, agriculture, fisheries, health, legal reform and respect for human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2001)

As stated in the Communication entitled Mulitannual Support Programme for Colombia adopted in October 2000, the Commission is well aware of the concerns that the military component of Plan Colombia has created both in Colombia and in Europe. This same document states that the Commission does not intend to take part in any initiative with a military dimension in Colombia.

The Commission is considering funding projects in two main areas:

- 105 million of programmable aid over the period 2000-2006, to be spent on the following sectors: social and economic development and combating poverty ( 40 million); alternative development ( 30 million); support for the reform of the judiciary sector ( 25 million); support and promotion of Human Rights ( 10 million).

- Additionally, the Commission intends to support a series of projects in the fields of emergency aid, to be carried out via European Community's Humanitarian Office (ECHO) (especially to assist the internally displaced people), non-governmental organisation (NGO)-co-financing, protection of the environment and tropical forests.

The identification of specific projects falling into these categories is underway, with the support of independent experts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0048/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Aid for Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures

In her answer to written question E-1041/00(1), Mrs de Palacio says that since 1990 the Commission has provided Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures with total aid amounting to 49 455 924. As a result, the latter has received ca. 62 % of EU aid for the French oil industry.

1. Who submitted successive requests for subsidies on behalf of the Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures to the Commission?

2. When was the first request for a subsidy submitted by it to the Commission?

3. Who carries out checks on the Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures (shareholders, holdings in other undertakings, composition of the board of management)?

4. What projects did the Groupement Européen de Recherches Technologiques sur les Hydrocarbures carry out in the period 1990-1998?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 110.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

1. The list of companies submitting the different requests for subsidies to the Commission on behalf of the Groupement européen de recherches technologiques sur les hydrocarbures is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

2. The first request for subsidy for the Groupement européen de recherches technologiques sur les hydrocarbures (GERTH) was submitted in 1975.

3. GERTH can be defined as the following:

GERTH is an economic interest grouping (GIE) governed by the order of 23 September 1967 (statutory order promulgated by the French authorities authorising the creation of an economic interest grouping).

Created in 1974, le Groupe de recherches technologiques sur les hydrocarbures is made up of the following members:

- ELF Aquitaine, Tour Elf 2, Place la Coupole, La Défense 6, F-92400 Courbevoie (No RCS Nanterre B555120784);

- Totalfina SA, 2, Place la Coupole, La Défense F-92400 Courbevoie (No RCS Nanterre B542051180);

- Institut Français du Pétrole (IFP) 1-4, Avenue de Bois Préau F-92500 Rueil-Malmaison.

The list of its administrators, the name of its management auditor and of its board of management are being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

GERTH operates as follows: the grouping co-ordinate administrative and financial queries on projects of a scientific nature.

GERTH is involved in the preparation of projects and in the dissemination of results.

4. Lists of the projects carried out by GERTH between 1990 and 1998 are being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1599/01

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Condemnation of Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights

In its judgment of 10 May 2001 the European Court of Human Rights condemned Turkey for continuing large-scale violations of human rights in Cyprus since 1974 and ruled in favour of the application by the Republic of Cyprus.

As the Turkish Government hastened to announce that it would ignore this judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, whose jurisdiction it has by the way formally recognised since 1990,

and as in the past it ignored a similar judgment by the same court condemning it in the Loizidou case of 1996:

- What direct action does it intend to take to ensure respect for the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights by Turkey?

- What will be the consequences of Turkey's behaviour in violating its commitments to the European Institutions in respect of its prospects of accession to the European Union, and what specific will these consequences take in the European Union's political and economic relations with Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the recent judgement by the European Court of Human Rights to which the Honourable Member refers.

As a candidate country Turkey needs to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria, inter alia on human rights.

This is among the subjects included in the Accession Partnership and the enhanced political dialogue with Turkey. The Commission will give its assessment of the performance of all candidates under the Copenhagen criteria in the regular reports on progress in preparation for membership, to be adopted in November 2001.

It may also be recalled to the Honourable Member that mention was made of the case of Loizidou against Turkey in the last regular report, published in November 2000(1).

(1) COM(2000) 713 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1676/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Shipbuilding industry

On 8 May 2001 the Commission at last proposed, in view of the unfair competition which has been practised for years now by South Korea, as described in its fourth report on the industry, that the matter should be brought before the WTO on 30 June.

Also proposed is the immediate adoption of aid for this long-suffering industry, to a maximum of 14 % for the affected sections. Aid had been suspended on 31 December 2000.

What compensation will be granted to enterprises in this sector for the damage suffered between 31 December 2000 and the present, given that almost no orders have been registered and the Union's industry has been left totally at the mercy of South Korea's unfair competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member in his question, there has been a low ordering activity for ships the first months of this year in the Community. However, this can to a large extent be explained by a very large ordering activity at the end of last year linked to the abolition of operating aid. The Commission cannot see any need for compensating the yards for this effect on the timing of orders. Furthermore, the reduced ordering activity in 2001 has not only been noted in the Community but also elsewhere. E.g. South Korean yards are reported to have registered a 32,6 % drop in orders the first quarter of 2001 compared to the same period last year.

The Commission is actively pursuing all possible means to reach a normal situation in the world shipbuilding market. The Commission is thus negotiating with the South Korean government in order to reach a stable solution, which should ensure normal prices on the world market. The Commission is in parallel preparing a World Trade Organisation (WTO) action against illegal Korean subsidies and a temporary defensive mechanism for Community yards. The WTO action against Korea will be launched, and the temporary defensive mechanism will be proposed to the Council and Parliament if the negotiations with Korea fail.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Workers' health and safety

The Commission's reply to my Question No E-0339/00(1) on adequate controls by the Member States in compliance with Article 4(2) of framework Directive 89/391/EEC(2) on the improvement of the safety and health of workers states that: If specific data should reach the Commission, showing that national administrations have failed in their obligations in this respect, the Commission would take appropriate action, notably by opening infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, if required by the results of the investigation of the specific case.

Since the problem is still acute, controls are still deficient and the Commission, according to its reply, has been collecting information on the matter since 20 March 2000 and has also received specific complaints, in the form of the complaint from the General Confederation of Greek Workers with reference number 00/4404, SAG2000 A/382828/2 and my Question No E-0014/00(3):

1. When does the Commission intend to forward the information it has collected?

2. Why has it not opened infringement proceedings under Article 226 with the information on which the complaints are based or which it has collected itself?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 178.

(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

(3) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 158.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission would point out that an issue as complex as the adequacy of the controls and supervision carried out by the Member States pursuant to Article 4(2) of framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work cannot be assessed without full, detailed information on the alleged dysfunction in the system of control and supervision.

As far as the specific situation in Greece is concerned, the Commission requested further information from the plaintiff following the complaint made by the General Confederation of Greek Workers. After receiving this information, the Commission also sent a letter to the Greek Government requesting information on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. Although a reminder letter on this matter has been sent to the Greek authorities, they have not yet provided the information requested by the Commission.

The information collected following the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0339/00(1) will be sent separately to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat of the Parliament directly.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1465/01

by Bruno Gollnisch (TDI) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Time-share holiday swindles

The number of abuses and swindles perpetrated by time-share holiday professionals has been growing for several years now.

Hundreds of people have fallen and are still falling prey to these mafiosi of the tourist trade, who sell or resell annual stays in non-existent flats and then disappear into thin air once they have collected the money.

Such behaviour has in some cases seriously damaged the tourist industry's reputation in several parts of Spain (particularly Tenerife and Denia), in south and south-west France (particularly Canet-Plage) and in French overseas departments (Guadeloupe).

Does the Council intend to carry out in-depth investigations into what already appears to be a serious problem?

Does it intend to take action against the agencies, companies and even banks that are knowingly involved in such cross-border swindles?

Does current European legislation on tourism and consumer protection provide for any specific measures on time sharing?

Were it to be established that, owing to the laxity of their public authorities, some States were failing to show the proper diligence in combating such activities, would the Council consider calling upon them to take action? If so, what procedure would it follow?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Honourable Member should note that purchase of the right to use one or more immovable properties on a timeshare basis is governed by Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis(1). The purpose of that Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating directly or indirectly to the purchase of the right to use one or more immovable properties on a timeshare basis.

The abuses and swindles in time-sharing mentioned by the Honourable Member are not, however, specifically suppressed by a European Union legal instrument.

However, many legal instruments adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union aim at considerably improving cooperation between the authorities responsible for combating international fraud.

Should Member States' national legislation fail to provide a satisfactory answer to this problem, it would be incumbent on a Member State or the Commission to make use of its right of initiative by proposing that such activities be suppressed in a harmonised manner at European level.

(1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.