ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0407/01

by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Competitive disadvantages for ships with catalytic converters

Shipping companies which have fitted their ships with catalytic converters and use low-sulphur bunker oil have great difficulty in procuring that type of oil. The result of this situation is that companies wishing to invest in environment-friendly transport suffer a sharp increase in costs which, naturally, benefits their competitors.

Bunker oil with a 1 % sulphur content is produced only at Flushing and Brofjorden. One percent sulphur bunker oil is between USD 10 and 15 more expensive than oil with a 3 % sulphur content. In addition, there is a further charge of USD 10 for transporting the oil out to ships for loading. In total, it is USD 20-25 more expensive to use low-sulphur oil. With the current price of oil standing at USD 170 per ton, this signifies a 12 % higher cost margin. At an annual consumption of 25 000 tons of oil, that results in current conditions in an additional cost of

DKK 5 million, which amounts to distortion of competition to the detriment of environment-conscious companies. Does the Commission consider it reasonable that companies using catalytic converters on their ships to spare the environment should be punished in this way?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Equipment of vessels with catalytic converters and the use of low-sulphur bunker oil are decisions which at this stage are still left to the discretion of the ship owner. Distortion of competition can only be avoided when appropriate rules for the construction and equipment of ships and the use of low sulphur bunker oils will be put in place.

Harmonised technical rules for the prevention of air pollution from ships, including those related to bunker fuels, are laid down in Annex VI of the International Convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (Marpol) Convention. This Annex was adopted at a diplomatic Conference organised by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1997. Following Community action at the IMO both the Baltic Sea and the North Sea will be recognised as special Sulphur oxides (SOx) Emission Control Areas within this Convention. In these areas all ships, irrespective of flag, will be obliged to use bunker fuel with a low (1,5 %) sulphur content. This will ensure ships operating in the Baltic and North Sea are on an equal footing with regard to the supply of bunker fuel.

These rules will only enter into force when fifteen flag States representing 50 % of the world tonnage fleet have ratified Annex VI of Marpol. Today the number of ratifying States is still insufficient. However, the 1997 Conference, which adopted these rules, expected that the harmonised rules would effectively apply by 31 December 2002. If this is not the case the IMO has been invited to initiate a review of the rules to identify the impediments to entry into force and any measure to alleviate those impediments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1144/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(11 April 2001)

Subject: Application of ISO standards in EU Member States

The International Standards Organisation was set up in 1947 to set international standards for technical, physical and geographical quantities and units, including their symbols and spellings. ISO standards are the result of close international cooperation and are recognised world-wide.

During the 1950s, the SI-system was created for scientific and technical units (metres, kilograms, seconds, amperes). In 1974 all UN member countries and many entities (mostly islands) were given an official symbol or code. ISO-3166 establishes three codes for each country or entity, a three-figure code, a code consisting of three capital letters and one with two capital letters. If the structure of the State changes, and provided this is recognised by the UN, the symbols may be changed.

Although ISO standards are internationally recognised, they are often wrongly used. Classic examples can be found in the symbols used on cars and lorries, in international postal services, on traffic signs and in the indications for currencies.

Does the Council support the full and correct use of all ISO standards by EU Member States? If not, why does the Council not consider it necessary for the EU Member States to use all ISO standards correctly? If so, what steps will the Council take to ensure that all ISO standards are used fully and correctly by EU Member States?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

In its Resolution on the Role of Standardisation in Europe adopted 28 October 1999 the Council recognised the increasing importance of International Standards. The Council also emphasised the exemplary nature of the Vienna Agreement between ISO and CEN (the European Committee for Standardisation).

Concerning the correct use of ISO Standards referred to in EU-legislation, it is the competence of the Commission to supervise that these are correctly implemented in the Member States' legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0739/01

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2001)

Subject: Report on the future objectives of education systems

The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked the Council (Education) to undertake a general reflection on the concrete future objectives of education systems, focusing on common concerns and priorities while respecting national diversity, with a view to contributing to the Luxembourg and Cardiff processes and presenting a broader report to the European Council in the Spring of 2001. When will this report be presented?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2001)

In March 2000 the Lisbon European Council asked the Education Council to undertake a general reflection on the concrete future objectives of education systems

and to present a broader report to the European Council in the spring of 2001. On 12 February 2001 the Education Ministers meeting within the Education Council adopted a report describing the common concrete future objectives of European education systems for the coming years. This report was based on a draft presented by the Commission to Parliament.

In the context of inter-institutional cooperation, the report adopted by the Education Council was subsequently forwarded by the Council to Parliament.

This report was ratified by the Heads of State and Government at the Stockholm European Council on 23-24 March 2001. In following up the report, the Commission will take account of any ideas that Parliament would like to share with it in the course of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0557/01

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

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Economic and Monetary Affairs

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Economic and Monetary Affairs provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0296/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Implementation of regional policy in the Canary Islands

What were the results of the implementation of EU regional policy in the Canary Islands, an outermost region of the Union, in the period 1994-1999, broken down by sphere, subject matter and budgetary allocation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

During the last programming period 1994-1999 for the structural funds, and 1993-1999 for the Cohesion Fund, the Canary Islands benefited from a total of 1 585,4 million broken down as follows:

- European Regional Development Fund: 811,2 million

- European Social Fund: 192,6 million

- European Agricultural Fund (Guidance): 87,6 million

- Community initiatives: 230,8 million

- Cohesion Fund: 263,2 million

In addition, the Canary Islands benefited from an estimated 530 million in Community assistance under multiregional programmes run by the central ministries in Spain.

As demonstrated in the mid-term evaluation of the regional structural fund programmes, these significant financial transfers have had a beneficial impact on the Islands' economy and particularly on endowments regarding economic and social infrastructure.

The statistical evidence points to a general improvement in the economic situation.

Projects for which financial commitments were made during the period 1994-1999 are still being completed so that payments can be made. It is only when the payments regarding these projects have been made for which the deadline is the end of 2001 that the Commission services will be able to undertake a full impact evaluation. Accordingly, this work will begin in 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0313/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: European Union Center

Further to its reply to Written Question E-3046/00(1) of 8 December 2000, can the Commission indicate the nature of the funding which facilitated the establishment of the European Union Centers in the United States?

The literature offered by the one in California, bearing the European twelve-star flag, carries a panel indicating that it was established with the support of the European Commission.

What was the mission statement when that financial assistance was granted?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 47.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Following a recommendation by the European Parliament, the Commission launched in 1998 a call for tenders for the establishment of 10 European Centres in the United States. The Centres are devoted to promoting the New Transatlantic Agenda objectives, in particular concerning chapter IV building bridges across the Atlantic. The initiative is funded within the New Transatlantic Agenda framework.

This initiative is designed to:

- further the goals of the New Transatlantic Agenda through enhanced People-to-People Links among the citizens of the Union and the United States;

- promote greater understanding in the United States of the European Union as an evolving system of governance and as an international actor, and increased knowledge of Community policies; and

- increase awareness in the United States for the political, economic and cultural importance of the transatlantic relationship, especially the increasing scope of Community-United States relations.

More information about the European Union Centres in the United States can be found in the internet at: http://www.eucenters.org/.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1345/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Transit through EU Member States by workers from third countries who are legally resident in Switzerland

These days approximately 365 000 Yugoslav and Turkish citizens live and work legally in Switzerland and hold the requisite papers.

Many of those immigrants return annually to their country of origin (at holiday times or for other reasons) and do so over land, which requires them to cross certain EU Member States such as Germany, Austria and Italy.

Under current regulations, such workers are required to apply for a visa from the embassy of each transit country. This involves making preparations well in advance (each visa takes between three and eight weeks to be issued), which makes it impossible for them to travel at short notice, imposes additional costs and causes working days to be lost.

In September of last year the Syndicat Industrie & Bâtiment sent a petition to the Commission requesting cancellation of the requirement that such citizens in transit who are legally resident in Switzerland must hold a visa on the grounds that, since they have a job and a home in Switzerland, the EU Member States are not at any risk. Furthermore, citizens of a third country who have been legally resident in the EU since August 2000 do not require a visa in order to cross Switzerland.

What action does the Commission intend to take in this area in order to facilitate the crossing of certain Member States by people who are passing through on the way to their country of origin?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The Commission is aware of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member.

In law, all the Member States, which are bound by Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement(1), must make nationals of the third countries listed in Annex I subject to the visa requirement. Accordingly, nationals of those third countries who are legally resident in Switzerland must apply for a Schengen visa in order to transit via Member States. The Commission notes that none of the national derogations left to the discretion of the Member States under Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 allows for the exemption of foreign workers holding Swiss residence permits whose country of origin is listed in Annex 1 to the Regulation.

However, the Commission would point out that, where the individual situation of the persons referred to by the Honourable Member so warrants, Member States could issue multiple-entry Schengen visas which are valid for a longer period, thus making it easier for such persons to transit via Member States. This can be done without changing the current rules.

The Commission intends to look into the matter with the aim of weighing up all the institutional, legal and political aspects, with due account also to Switzerland's recent request to participate in Schengen.

(1) OJ L 81, 21.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0636/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 March 2001)

Subject: EU funding to Yasser Arafat

1. Could the Council please confirm whether any EU funding has been passed directly to Yasser Arafat in cash?

If so, could the Council confirm:

- what sums have been so paid;

- how much has been paid;

- what dates such payments were made;

- whether it is planned to continue to make payments in this way;

- from what budget line these payments came;

- what the specified purposes of the budget line in question were;

- what precautions the Council is taking to ensure that the funds are used for the specified purposes;

- whether payments in cash breach any rules, laws, regulations or principles of good management?

2. Specifically, could the Council confirm whether a decision has been taken to pay Mr Arafat between 20 and 30 million per month for as long as the emergency in the Middle East lasts?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

The Honorable Member's questions have been addressed also to the Commission, which is responsible for the management of EU support for the Palestinian Authority, regarding the disbursement of funds.

The Council at its session on 26 February 2001 stressed the need for the EU to play an important role in a concerted international effort to avoid economic and institutional collapse in the Palestinian territories. It emphasised that the necessary conditions for a functioning Palestinian economy must be assured.

To that end the Council decided that the EU should urge the Palestinian Authority to draw up, in close co-ordination with the IMF, a revised restrictive budget in order to provide the basis for international support and request the Authority to take effective measures against corruption and towards more democratic transparency.

The EU would further work with urgency for an international donor meeting and encourage other donors to pledge funding in support of the Palestinian budget. It would make full use of the funds available under the existing cash facility in favour of the Palestinian Authority - in a concerted effort with the international community - in the framework of a long-term approach

The approach adopted by the Council has been pursued by Presidency and Commission in subsequent contacts with the parties, notably during the visit of the President of the Council and the Commissioner for Foreign Relations to the region on 12/13 March.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1616/01

by James Provan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Cost of refurbishment of the Berlaymont building

Will the Commission indicate the cost of renovation of the Berlaymont, the original budgeted estimate, the expected date of completion, and the added costs of relocation of staff from the old building and to the renovated one?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

The latest estimate provided by S.A. Berlaymont 2000 of the cost of renovation of the Berlaymont building as at 31 March 2001 was BEF 15,714 million ( 390 million). However, this will

probably not be the final figure since no completion date is currently available because of delays resulting from legal disputes about the management of the site by S.A. Berlaymont 2000. The original budget estimate made in July 1997 was BEF 13,073 million ( 324 million).

The added cost of relocation of staff from the old building to the renovated building is not easy to quantify with precision because many moves from, or into, a building necessitate a number of complementary moves in or to other buildings. In 1991, when the Commission left the Berlaymont, about 3 000 people moved to substitution buildings, triggering roughly 6 000 complementary moves. It is likely that the reoccupation of the building would necessitate a similar number of moves. In 2001 the average per capita cost of a move, including furniture and informatics, ranges between 100 and 300 per person depending on the technical conditions and complexity of the works to be carried out. These relocation expenses constitute part of the global building and informatics expenditure foreseen in the Commission budget under Titles A-1 and A-5.

In this context, it is important to note that when the Commission vacated the Berlaymont in 1991, it was agreed that it would continue to pay rent for the building and that the Belgian state would in return cover the much higher rental cost of those buildings which the Commission has been obliged to use as temporary substitutes for the Berlaymont. In 2001, the Commission pays a rent of 14 140 135 for the Berlaymont whilst the Belgian State pays 32 382,92 for the substitution buildings. This arrangement will continue until reoccupation of the Berlaymont is satisfactorily completed.

For further information, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E-936/01 by Mr Sjöstedt(1) and E-1575/01 by Mrs van der Laan(2).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155.

(2) See p. 152.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0674/01

by Johan Van Hecke (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Guidelines for land use planning around EU airports

With reference to the Communication on Air Transport and Environment of 1 December 1999, in which the European Commission affirmed its intention to draw up guidelines for land use planning around EU airports and the Resolution on the Commission Communication on Air Transport and the Environment, adopted by the European Parliament on 7 September 2000, the Commission is asked:

Will an initiative be taken on drawing up guidelines for land use planning around EU airports?

What is the timetable?

When will the consultation process start?

Is it already known who will be involved in this consultation process?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2001)

The Commission wishes to confirm that it considers the existence of appropriate guidelines for the use of land around airports as an important element for a balanced strategy towards mitigating the impact of aircraft noise. It therefore considers development of recommended practices as a potentially useful instrument for achieving progress in this field.

Any such initiative, however, will have to take account of the allocation of responsibilities and the lack of direct Community competence on land-use decisions. For this reason the Commission believes that the ongoing work on this issue will have to recognise the existing institutional balance as well as the variety of interests involved covering also non-aviation interests.

From this background the Commission is working on the creation of a group of experts involving representatives of national authorities competent for decisions on land-use around airports and representatives of airports and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This group would have to undertake the necessary groundwork for recommended practices in this field. Information resulting from the implementation of other Community instruments, such as the proposed Directive relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise(1), may provide useful input to this group.

The Commission hopes that the group will be operational before the summer break of 2001. Consultation of interested parties will start once the Terms-of-Reference for this group will have been agreed.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.