ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3911/02

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Application of Directive 2000/14/EC to cooling equipment in trucks

The revision of the European regulation governing social provisions in the road haulage sector has once again made the compulsory rest periods which lorry drivers must take a topical issue. In practice, drivers would not seem to be able to take this much-needed rest whenever they want, because cooling equipment fitted to trucks causes noise pollution when such trucks are parked overnight so that the driver can sleep. Directive 2000/14/EC(1) on noise emission by equipment for use outdoors stipulates only that such cooling equipment must carry an official mark and sets no noise emission limit.

Can the Commission state why no noise emission limit has been imposed on cooling equipment and whether it agrees that the directive should perhaps be revised so that lorry drivers are no longer faced with noise pollution of this kind?

(1) OJ L 162, 3.7.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

When the Commission made its proposal for Directive 2000/14/EC(1) on noise emission by equipment for use outdoors, insufficient data was available to set noise emission limit values for cooling equipment on vehicles. Such equipment was therefore included under the scope of Article 13 of the Directive which requires the guaranteed sound power level of equipment to be subject to noise marking only.

The noise requirements under the Directive are set so as to protect citizen's health and the environment, but do not specifically target protection against noise in the workplace, including the noise experienced by drivers of trucks equipped with cooling equipment.

Article 20 of the Directive foresees a review process with regular reports from 2005 and onwards from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on its experience in the implementation and administration of the Directive, including an assessment of whether any equipment falling under the scope Article 13 could be moved to Article 12 which requires compliance with limit values.

In the context of this review process, the Commission will assess whether the available data, including that collected under the Directive, suggest that it could be revised by introducing noise limit values on cooling equipment on vehicles.

(1) Directive 2000/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors, OJ L 162, 3.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2824/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 2002)

Subject: Tropical forests and other forests in developing countries conservation and sustainable management

On 7 November 2000 Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2494/2000(1) on measures to promote the conservation and sustainable management of tropical and other forests in developing countries. This regulation provides for significant financial resources to support initiatives to conserve and sustainably manage forests in developing countries undertaken not only by the States concerned but also by international organisations, regions and regional bodies, decentralised departments, public agencies, private operators and industries, cooperatives, local communities, non-governmental organisations and associations representing local people, in particular forest-dependent people.

This financial instrument, which enables the EU to contribute to achieving sustainable development in the South, entered into force almost two years ago. How does the Commission explain that the Development DG's webpage Funding opportunities under the tropical Forests and environment budget lines makes no mention of this instrument and still gives outdated information saying that the Commission cannot provide financial support for new projects in this area until the European Parliament and the Council have adopted a new regulation?

According to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2494/2000, every second year the Commission is required to establish strategic guidelines and priorities for the activities to be carried out in the following years and to inform Parliament of them. Have these strategic guidelines and priorities already been established? If so, when will Parliament be informed? If not, why not?

(1) OJ L 288, 15.11.2000, p. 6.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The Commission regrets that the web page referred to by the Honourable Member was out of date. This is truly embarrassing. This information has now been updated to reflect the adoption of the new Regulation and the fact that implementation has taken place.

The strategic guidelines and priorities for the activities to be carried out under the provision of Regulation (EC) No 2494/2000(1) will be decided by the Commission shortly. They will then be sent to Parliament for information.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2494/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 November 2000 on measures to promote the conservation and sustainable management of tropical forests and other forests in developing countries, OJ L 288, 15.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3495/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Construction of a golf course in O Grove (Galicia) in a Natara Network area

The construction of a new golf course on the Sirandela hills (O Grove) in Galicia could have a serious ecological impact. Various animal species living there are protected under the Natura 2000 programme, which also covers the area's flora. The future golfing complex respects neither the area's biodiversity nor the existence of the O Vao sandy isthmus nor the sand dunes of Umia-Grove, which means that the ecological damage caused could be very extensive.

Has the Commission thought of asking the Junta da Galiza and the Spanish Environment Ministry to provide the information needed to clarify the issue? Is this scheme receiving Community funding?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Honourable Member has expressed his concern in relation to the implementation of a project to build a new golf course in O Grove, Galicia.

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the golf course will be constructed close to Sirandela hills. With this data, it has not been possible to identify the exact location of the golf course but it seems that the project could be carried out outside of the Natura 2000 site Complexo Ons-O Grove, ES1140004, but close to it.

The construction of golf courses neither included in Annex I nor in Annex II of Council Directive 85/337/EEC(1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC(2).

According to available information it is not possible to prove that the project to build a golf course could have a significant effect on the Natura 2000 site.

Only in the event that the project could have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, provisions of article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC(3) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora apply.

As far as the request for possible Community funding through the European Regional Development Fund is concerned, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that it has no information on the individual projects selected by Member States.

In conclusion, the Commission has no information regarding this project. Given that it has not been possible to identify the exact location foreseen for this leisure infrastructure, the Commission will request further information from the Spanish authorities especially in relation to the effect that the project could have on the Natura 2000 site as well as concerning its possible Community funding.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(28 August 2002)

Subject: Report by the Contraloría de la República on the Plan Colombia

In view of the fact that the Contraloría General de la República Colombiana (Office of the Comptroller General of Colombia) has stated in its third assessment report on the Plan Colombia that:

- the anti-drugs Plan Colombia contains administrative irregularities;

- eradication by force has failed to strike a blow at drug traffickers, so much so that today 163 000 hectares are still under illegal cultivation across the country and cultivation of the crop has outstripped its destruction, since 152 000 hectares were burned between 2000 and 2002, and despite this coca is now being grown in areas previously dedicated to coffee production;

- the Plan Colombia is unsatisfactory from an environmental standpoint;

and since the European Union is contributing USD 31 million to the Plan:

- Does the Commission intend to take action to suspend cooperation with this Colombian anti-drugs Plan?

- If not, what reforms will it propose to prevent even more European taxpayers' money from being wasted?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

While supporting the efforts of the Colombian government to put an end to the violence that affects this country, the Union is not contributing to the so-called Plan Colombia. The Union has put forward its own support package, made public in Bogotá on 24 October 2000. At the third meeting of the Support Group for the peace process in Colombia, on 30 April 2001 in Brussels, the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations confirmed a Community contribution of EUR 140 million (EUR 105 million in programmable aid and EUR 35 million in non-programmable aid).

As described in the Commission's Country Strategy Paper(1), Community assistance is focused on:

- the support of ongoing Colombian activities in the search for peace;

- targeting the roots and causes of the conflict;

- providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict.

As to whether the Union package will be kept separate from Plan Colombia, the Commission would like to reiterate its position: the Union's reservations about some aspects of the Plan Colombia are well known to the Colombian government; furthermore, the Commission does not intend, in the framework of its aid package, to take part in any initiative with a military dimension.

(1) Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/colombia/csp/index.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Myanmar

Is the Commission aware of reports of alleged human rights violations by government troops in Myanmar?

London constituents have contacted me with details of rape, beatings and murders in February 2002 in Saai Khaao village in Kun Hing township and in May 2002 in Mukwa village. Both incidents were allegedly perpetrated by Burmese Infantry troops.

Does the Commission have any information on these incidents and the human rights situation in Myanmar generally?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2002)

The Commission is aware of reports of alleged human rights violations by government troops in Burma/Myanmar and has on several occasions voiced its concern for the human rights situation in the country, particularly in ethnic minority areas. During the recent Union Troika visit to Burma/Myanmar these concerns were, once again, expressed to the Burmese government.

The Commission continuously receives reports published by different human rights groups as well as reports by the Special Rapporteur of the United Nation Commission of Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. As regards alleged human right violations in Shan State, the Commission has carefully considered the recently published report, Licence to Rape, by the Shan Women's Actions Network and the Shan Human Rights Foundation and has asked the Commission's Delegation in Bangkok to make further enquiries into the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3233/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Coffee trade

Does the Commission consider it fair that, according to The Economist, coffee companies in Europe are making up to 40 % profit on coffee, whilst the coffee producers on which they depend fall further into poverty?

Does the Commission intend to raise the issue of corporate social responsibility with the four coffee giants in Europe: Nestlé, Sara Lee, Kraft and Tchibo?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

The Commission is clearly not in a position to judge the profit levels of individual companies although it must be said that these figures are approximately double those quoted by Oxfam in their recent report on the coffee crisis. However, the Commission would be the first to accept that volatility in the coffee market is indeed a major problem for producers and is well aware of the development implications of the fall in coffee prices and the very real problems which coffee farmers are facing. With a view to help alleviate the immediate crisis, the Commission is currently working within the International Coffee Organisation on how best to support their quality scheme, which should help to improve world prices. It is also supporting a number of projects to encourage the development of markets for fair trade to help poor producers gain a greater share of the international market.

The question of what further measures the Commission may take on coffee in the immediate future is being considered by an inter service working group in consultation with non-governmental organisations, including Oxfam and large coffee roasters. Parliament will be kept informed of any progress.

Over the longer term, diversification of the economy is a key element of a coherent development strategy aimed at the eradication of poverty and integration of developing countries into the world economy. Diversification requires a comprehensive approach to trade and development(1). With the Everything But Arms Initiative as well as its commitment to a successful trade round, the Commission is helping to create greater market opportunities for developing countries to diversify. It is also providing the development support to help turn opportunity into reality.

The Commission has discussed the current crisis with several corporate actors, who are also concerned about the long term implications for their supply chain. This dialogue will continue in the coming months. Clearly private sector action would be part of any long term strategy to balance supply and demand.

In relation to the broader issue of Corporate Social Responsibility, the overall aim of the Commission is to foster Corporate Social Responsibility by promoting innovation, transparency and innovation of CSR practices and instruments. The newly created European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on CSR will indeed address Development aspects of CSR with the aim of establishing common guiding principles for businesses and stakeholders to co-operate to address social or environmental challenges.

(1) COM(2002) 513 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3179/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Persecution of Christians in Vietnam

Is the Commission concerned at reports of systematic persecution of Christians in Vietnam? Does the Commission have any information regarding beatings and imprisonment of Christians on the basis of Decree No 26 (1999) designed to outlaw superstitious activities or a campaign of oppression against several hundred thousand Christians in the central highlands which has driven hundreds of them to Cambodia or to the forests of Vietnam in order to escape?

If so, has the Commission raised its concerns with the Vietnamese government?

What is the level of economic assistance provided by the European Union to Vietnam and is this money dependent in any way on respect for religious belief or more general adherence to human rights norms?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its replies to Written Question s P-1502/02 by Mr Dell'Alba(1) and E-2845/02 by Mr Panella(2).

The Community-Vietnam bilateral co-operation programme is based on the Country Strategy agreed with the Government of Vietnam for the period 2002-2006, which aims to facilitate and accelerate the reduction of poverty in a sustainable manner.

Under this Strategy, the Community-Vietnam co-operation will focus on two priority focal points:

- enhancement of human development, in particular through integrated rural development targeting some of the poorest provinces, and through support in the education sector;

- integration of Vietnam into the international economy, by assisting further economic reform and integration into international and regional economic structures.

Crosscutting themes include disaster preparedness, environmental protection, culture and education, gender equality, and the promotion of human rights, and good governance. In the framework of the agreed National Indicative Programme for 2002-2004, an indicative Community grant of EUR 101 million has been earmarked to implement specified proposals meeting the objectives of the Vietnam Country Strategy.

The Union's policy towards Vietnam, as it is to all countries, is to encourage and support continued progress on human rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where any abuses or a deterioration in the situation is observed.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 18.

(2) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 81.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3360/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Use of languages on the Commission's website on enlargement

Given that the level of knowledge of, and interest in, the enlargement of the Union among the European population cannot be said to be exceptional, or even especially high, the Commission rightly devotes a great deal of attention to this subject on its website at www.europa.eu.int. It is very strange, however, that all of the links from the page in Dutch (www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/index_nl.html) lead almost exclusively to documents in English.

What are the grounds for the Commission's having decided to communicate through its public website solely in English on a subject which is nothing more nor less than a milestone in the development of Europe?

Does the Commission recognise the existence of 11 official languages within the Union? Does the Commission therefore also intend to provide information in the other 10 official Union languages? If so, when does it plan to do so? If not, why is it limiting itself almost exclusively to English, apart from the occasional exception in French?

Why is English given preference over, for example, German, French or Dutch?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The web site of the Directorate-General (DG) for Enlargement has been improved constantly during this last year with the launching in early October 2002 of its new version. The introduction of a complete set of web pages with navigation in the other ten official languages is envisaged within the framework of a further revision of the web site of DG Enlargement, which will be set up in January 2003. Meanwhile, the Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that the European citizens already have access to important documents such as the Strategy Papers concerning the Progress of the Applicant Countries in the Negotiations for 1998-2002 in all eleven official languages of the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2367/02

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Illegal increases in insurance premiums

Insured persons have complained recently that private insurance companies have introduced excessive increases in their insurance premiums by reformulating the terms of insurance contracts. The insurance companies justify these excessive increases by arguing that they are the result of a more general crisis affecting the stock market and investments.

Since the policy of privately insuring European citizens is constantly gaining ground and is replacing public medical care and insurance services, will the Commission say:

1. Has it taken any measures to protect insured persons from arbitrary indexing practices by insurance companies?

2. Has it made any provision for the implementation of common frameworks for insurance conditions in contracts so as to protect insured persons in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

As the Honourable Member may know financial services companies, including insurance, are subject to the principle of freedom of contract. The Commission does not in principle intervene in the insurance markets nor interfere in the fixing of prices.

It seems that the aftermath of 11 September 2001 led to increases in reinsurance costs and consequently increases in direct insurance premiums for a number of insurance products. Also the general downturn in markets has reduced insurers' investment returns and has increased pressure on prices. An unfavourable investment climate means the return on investment of premium is reduced. The Commission makes every effort to improve the efficiency of the internal insurance market. Its plans are set out in the Financial Services Action Plan. It is persuaded that increased competition should help the consumer to find lower prices as well as a wider choice of products.

Excessive prices may raise concern under the Community competition rules where they are imposed by a dominant company. The Commission may also intervene if insurance companies have agreed or colluded to fixed prices. However, similar price increases are not necessarily a sign of collusion, but might be a rational individual response by each insurer to changes in external circumstances. For any intervention, any allegation of collusion would need to be substantiated with evidence.

The concrete kind of practices of arbitrary indexing of prices by insurance undertakings to which the Honourable Member refers is not clear for the Commission. Nevertheless, it should be noted that any clause in an insurance contract which could be considered as abusive for the consumer would fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in cousumer contracts(1).

(1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.