ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3660/01

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Waste Management Regulation Ireland (Environmental Levy)

Could the Commission please comment on whether it finds the Irish Draft Waste Management regulations acceptable. If adopted in their current form they would have the net effect of restricting the imports of biodegradable packaging and would contravene Directive 94/62/EC(1) and Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty.

This assessment is based on the requirements contained in the Directive and the EC Treaty as interpreted by the European Commission and recently confirmed in the opinion of the Advocate General Mr Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in C-246/99 Commission v Denmark.

The draft regulations as they stand do not draw any destination between biodegradable and non-biodegradable packaging, specifically in relation to the imposition of a flat levy on both, and this policy if adopted would have the effect of imposing a burden on biodegradable plastic bags which must contradict the aim of the regulation viz. to reduce waste.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2002)

The Irish Draft Waste Management (Environmental Levy) (Plastic Bags) Regulations were notified to the Commission in September 2001 under the auspices of Directive 94/62/EC(1) and Directive 98/34/EC(2). The draft regulations propose, as a means of reducing the generation of waste arising from plastic bag consumption, a tax of 15 cent (c) be levied on certain types of plastic bags at point of sale. A number of bags are to be exempted from the proposed tax, including those plastic bags designed for reuse, used to contain goods and which are sold for a sum not less than 70c.

The Commission completed the assessment of the draft fiscal measure in November 2001. On current information and analysis, the Commission has not found any reason to conclude that the provisions of the Draft Regulations contravene Community law, specifically either Directive 94/62/EC or Article 90 (ex Article 95) of the EC Treaty. Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to undertake measures designed to prevent the formation of packaging waste. Article 15 of the Directive enables Member States to adopt economic instruments in accordance with principles governing the Community environmental policy to implement the objectives of the Directive, which include aiming to prevent and reduce environmental impact

arising through packaging and packaging waste. Given that the proposed measure is a fiscal and not a quantitative-type measure, Articles 28-30 (ex Article 30-36) of the EC Treaty are not relevant for the purpose of examining its compatibility with Community law.

(1) Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) Parliament and Council Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3269/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Controls on anthrax laboratories in Europe

In the United States Iowa State University has destroyed its stocks of anthrax. According to the World Federation for Culture Collections, a number of European countries apart from the UK, Germany, France and Italy possess anthrax, namely Turkey, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Switzerland.

In view of the above and bearing in mind the problems caused by the cases of anthrax that have occurred, will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend, in co-operation with the Member States, to register the laboratories (military, university, veterinary and pharmaceutical) on the territory of the 15 where bacteria of anthrax and other diseases, such as smallpox, plague, cholera, diphtheria, tuberculosis, typhus, leprosy, polio, etc. are kept?

2. What measures does it intend to take to restrict stocks of anthrax in these laboratories and establish strict controls to protect them?

3. Does it also intend to take the same measures in respect of the EU applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

As indicated in its communication to the Council and to the Parliament(1) in response to the European Council request at Ghent on 19 October 2001, the Commission intends to create a Union-wide capability for the timely detection and identification of biological and chemical agents that might be used in attacks and for the rapid and reliable determination and diagnosis of relevant cases. A review of the capacity of laboratories in the Member States to respond to these challenges will be part of this action, which will be extended to the Union applicant countries in due course.

(1) COM(2001) 707 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Animal testing

Is the Commission taking steps to introduce new non-animal tests into Annex V of the Dangerous Substances Directive in preparation for implementation of the chemicals policy?

What steps are being taken to ensure that the current process of validation and acceptance of new non-animal tests is speeded up so that existing animal tests can be replaced in time for implementation of the chemicals policy?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2002)

The Commission supports the development and validation of non-animal tests, in particular through the work of the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), a part of the Joint Research Centre. Once such methods have been validated, they are then included into Annex V of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(1). This effort will continue both during the preparation of the new chemicals legislation and after it comes into force. Work is also continuing on the revision of existing animal test methods in Annex V to reduce, where possible, the number of animals used.

The progress on the validation of new non-animal test methods is under review, in order to establish which methods will be available on the timescales referred to in the White Paper on a Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy(2).

(1) OJ P 196, 16.8.1967.

(2) COM(2001) 88 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3438/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Compliance with?essential requirements' with regard to packaging

One of the few essential requirements laid down in the Packaging Directive stipulates that the use of heavy metals in packaging materials must be restricted to the minimum adequate amount. However, in the Netherlands, the Environmental Hygiene Inspectorate does not monitor compliance with that requirement, which is not seen as a priority. The upshot is that packaging materials with an excessively high chromium content are on the market in the Netherlands.

Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs? If so, will it call the Netherlands Government to account over its failure to ensure compliance with the essential requirements?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Article 9 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1) requires Member States to ensure that from 31 December 1997, packaging may be placed only on the market if it complies with all essential requirements defined by the Directive, including Annex II. One of these requirements is for packaging to be manufactured in such a way that the presence of noxious and other hazardous substances and materials as constituents of the packaging material or of any of the packaging components is minimised with regard to their presence in emissions, ash or leachate when packaging or residues from management operations or packaging waste are incinerated or landfilled. In addition, Article 11 of the Directive places an obligation on Member States to ensure that the sum of concentration levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium present in packaging or packaging components does not exceed 100ppm (from 30 June 2001).

The Commission is currently not aware of cases of non-compliance to these requirements. However, the Commission will question the Dutch authorities regarding their obligations under Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 94/62/EC.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3551/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2001)

Subject: Situation of the European shipbuilding industry

On 5 December the Council of Industry Ministers failed to agree a common position on the temporary aid to be granted to the European shipbuilding industry in order to enable it to withstand the unfair competition being practised by South Korea. Such competition has a detrimental effect on the industry, which, unless the situation changes, is likely to see many of its constituent companies go out of business.

Will the Commission say why it has not complained (and, apparently, is not going to complain) to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) about South Korea's unfair practices? Will the Commission provide information regarding its latest plans (following the rejection of temporary aid by the Council of Ministers) to tackle the situation in which the European shipbuilding industry currently finds itself, since that industry cannot continue passively accepting the damage done to it by unfair South Korean competition?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Commission took note that the Council of 5 December 2001 was not ready to endorse the Commission's proposal for a temporary defence mechanism. On the other hand, as the Honourable Member certainly knows, the Commission has received and accepted an industry request to update the Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR) investigation to cover the period from December 2000 to November 2001. An update of the report is currently being prepared by the Commission.

Any complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) must await the outcome of the further investigation. The updating of the injury part of the TBR report indeed appears appropriate; it would allow the Commission to rely on more recent and accurate injury data at the time of WTO action.

In conclusion, the Commission will consider the situation in particular in the light both of the results of its further TBR investigation and of its twin-track strategy. The Commission has no intention to change its strategy vis-à-vis Korea, as set out in its reply to written question E-2142/01(1).

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 68.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3482/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: The Commissioner's Special Advisers

According to the Code of Conduct for Commissioners, Commissioners can call on the services of paid or unpaid special advisers, the list of advisors being adopted by the Commission within a strict budget allocation and on the basis of a transparent procedure. They must be acknowledged experts in their field' and they are not Commission staff.

Can the Commission provide a list of all special advisors appointed by each Commissioner since the beginning of Commission President Prodi's and the new Commission's term of office in 1999, the length of time which they served or have served, the areas in which they are acknowledged experts and the amount which they have been paid?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission is bound by the data protection provisions of Directive 2001/45/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 amending Council Directive 89/655/EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)(1) and is consequently not in a position to release details of individual Special Advisor's contracts or remuneration to the Honourable Member.

However, the Commission can confirm that since the beginning of its mandate in 1999, it has called on the services of 48 Special Advisors. An alphabetical list of their names is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the European Parliament's secretariat, together with a list indicating which Members of the Commission called upon this special advice at some time.

Of the 48 advisors, 17 are retired senior Commission officials with significant experience and recognised expertise in their fields. These Special Advisors are unpaid.

A number of the 31 paid Special Advisors are academics who receive a daily honorarium of 260, 315 or 375 for each day worked in the service of the Commission. The total amount paid to Special Advisors was 15 200 for 76 days in 1999, 93 855 for 289 days in 2000 and 96 415 for 295 days in 2001.

(1) OJ L 195, 19.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2986/01

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from PHARE appropriations of the publication Panorama Latvii

Is there any substance to reports in the Latvian press that the Commission is using PHARE appropriations to fund the publication Panorama Latvii (formally Sovjetskaja Latvija) under its Democracy Programme?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that Panorama Latvii is published by Alfreds Rubiks, previously First Secretary of the Latvian Communist Party and one of the perpetrators of the August 1991 putsch?

Is it Commission policy to support publications which foster nostalgia for the Soviet Union and Stalinism in the applicant countries?

What steps does it plan to take to rule out such a situation recurring in the future?

Which official was responsible for the granting of funding?

Why did the political supervision of the programme fail?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (budget line B7-700), the Commission has provided financial support to the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Latvian Human Rights Committee for a micro-project entitled Informative Service on Migration Issues. The total budget of this project was estimated at 4 300 Euro, with a maximum Community funding of 3 850 Euro.

The NGO Latvian Human Rights Committee aims at defending the interests of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia with a special focus on citizenship issues. The purpose of the project referred to above was to provide information and legal advice on migration legislation in order to reduce the number of persons living in Latvia without any legal status or without any valid personal documents.

To achieve this objective, various activities were carried out, including the publication of articles in newspapers that the Latvian Human Rights Committee assumed to be read by the target group. One of these was the publication Panorama Latvii. It should be noted Mr Alfreds Rubiks does not hold any publishing functions in this newspaper, although the newspaper has at some occasions supported his views.

The project was carried out in close cooperation with the Department of Citizenship and Migration Affairs of the Latvian Ministry of Interior.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3413/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan refugees

Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations have concluded that the situation of the Afghan refugees abroad and those trapped within the country, who are primarily fleeing the bombing, is bordering on a human tragedy.

What measures will the Commission take to persuade those countries which support the military intervention to take greater responsibility for the care of the refugees who are leaving Afghanistan in droves? Will corridors be opened to channel humanitarian aid into Afghanistan? Will all those who reach other countries be granted refugee status, and will suitable refugee camps be set up at a safe distance from the combat zone?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

Fortunately the humanitarian catastrophe widely predicted last autumn for Afghanistan did not materialise. The ousting of the Taliban and the scaling down of the bombing made it possible to resume large-scale humanitarian aid operations and reach those most in need. The number of refugees that fled Afghanistan in the wake of 11 September was ultimately fairly modest compared to the numbers that had already left the country.

The Commission is continuing to provide financial support, both in the form of emergency humanitarian aid via ECHO, the European Community Humanitarian Office, and under its budget line for aid to uprooted people in Asian countries, to the UNHCR (Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) and a number of non-governmental organisations working with Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran. As the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations recently stated at the Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan, the Commission is now embarking on the long-term process of reconstruction. This should make it easier for Afghan refugees or displaced persons to return to their home areas as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3350/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: Taiwan's entry into the WTO

Following Taiwan's entry into the WTO, the importance of EU contacts with the world's 14th largest trading economy has increased. For how many more years will the Commission delay the long-promised opening of a representative office in Taipei?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2002)

The Commission has been carrying out an overall review of its External Service, reassessing the priorities for the extension of the Commission's network of external representations against the background of scarce resources and other factors, notably the deconcentration of the management of Community external assistance programmes. This review culminated in the Commission's Communication to the Parliament and to the Council on the development of the External Service(1). This Communication proposes a number of openings of Commission external representations in those regions where it is still underrepresented. In this context, the Communication indicates that consideration will be given to opening a trade representation office in Taiwan.

Given the budgetary constraints under which the Commission's External Service operates, the resources needed for the new openings will be found essentially through redeployments and reallocations within the existing External Service.

Further changes in the network beyond the present programme are likely to become necessary, as a function of changing circumstances and new priorities in the Union's external relations. The Commission will continue to analyse the long-term development requirements of the External Service, including the resource implications.

(1) COM(2001) 381 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3311/01

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

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Russian membership of the WTO

The occasion of the most recent Davos World Economic Forum, which was, for the first time ever, held in Moscow, was used by the Russian President to intensify Russia's campaign for integration into the global economy.

Russian membership of the WTO is one of the priorities of the present government's economic modernisation policy, and the Russian President visibly showed a certain impatience on the subject at the World Economic Forum.

Can the Commission explain the EU's position on the matter? Does the Commission consider that Russia's aspiration to become a WTO member is likely to be satisfied in the foreseeable future, recalling that the Russian President has complained that his country is being asked to fulfil conditions which have not been applied to other countries?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

The Union fully supports the objective of Russian membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on commercially-viable terms. Negotiations for Russia's accession have been taking place for some years, but the Russian Government's current programme of economic reform and other legislative changes have certainly given new impetus to the process. Following the Union/Russia Summit on 3 October 2001, the Commission has taken further concrete initiatives to support an acceleration of negotiations. Accordingly, the Union has undertaken to present Russia with a comprehensive set of requests by the end of 2001. These will provide a basis for further intensive bilateral negotiations and they will also feed into the preparation in Geneva of a first draft of the report of the WTO Working Party that is considering Russia's accession request.

The Commission considers that any deadline for the completion of the WTO accession process would be inherently arbitrary; what is more important is that the Union remains fully engaged in the process, including through the provision of technical assistance that will help Russia achieve the capacity to implement and enforce the obligations of WTO membership. The terms of Russia's accession to the WTO will be determined by negotiations in the WTO Working Party. The outcome of these negotiations cannot be predicted with accuracy at this time.

The Member of the Commission in charge with Trade had the opportunity to explain a number of these points to the Russian Minister for Trade, Mr German Gref, during his visit to Moscow on 5 December 2001. The Commission looks forward to maintaining the current impetus towards Russian accession: it is strongly supportive of Russian efforts.