ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1409/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Violation of humanitarian principles in Chechnya

In answer to Question H-0060/02(1), the Council stated that it would be discussing Chechnya with the Russian authorities on 28 May 2002.

On 16 April 2002, the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, Poul Nielson, presented ECHO's annual report. The Commissioner took the opportunity to draw attention to the growing tendency to disregard international humanitarian principles. The Commissioner considered that there were no circumstances which could justify this attitude. In addition to Israel, he mentioned Russia (Chechnya), where aid workers were unable to work unhindered or to use VHF radio communications.

Will the Council use this information from Commissioner Nielson to persuade the Russian authorities that they must seek a political solution to the conflict in Chechnya in the spirit of the European Parliament's resolution of 10 April 2002? If not, why not?

How and to what extent did the Council raise the issue of Chechnya, and is it continuing to do so, at the preparatory and preliminary meetings before the EU-Russia summit on 29 May 2002?

(1) Oral answer of 13.3.2002.

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Council is fully informed of Commission concerns regarding the difficulty of carrying out humanitarian operations in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. It goes without saying that the Council fully supports Commission positions on this in all political dialogue meetings with the Russian authorities. As previously stated in answer to parliamentary questions E-0264/02 and H-0358/02, the EU is convinced that only a political solution can solve the Chechen conflict. For this reason, the issue of Chechnya was raised at all preparatory meetings for the EU-Russia summit of 29 May 2002, as well as at the summit itself.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2266/02

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Axle weight limits for cranes

In France, engines powering crane jibs (i.e. engines which simply power the lifting gear on a building site) may be run on fuel oil, which is significantly cheaper than normal diesel. This represents a not insignificant competitive advantage for French crane operators.

Is the Commission planning to submit a proposal for harmonisation in this area?

In France, the axle weight limit for cranes is 13 tonnes, as opposed to 12 tonnes in Germany. Accordingly, a French crane may carry more ballast weight.

Is the Commission planning to submit a proposal for harmonisation in this area?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils(1) sets in Article 8(3)(b) that Member States may apply a reduced rate of taxation on gas oil used under fiscal control in respect of plant and machinery used in construction, civil engineering and public works. In such cases, the rate charged shall not be less than the minimum rate set in Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992, on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on mineral oils(4).

In 1997, the Commission proposed a Directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products(2). One of its aims is to enhance the approximation of excise duty rates applicable to mineral oils. The European Council in Barcelone (15 and 16 March 2002) asked the Council to reach an agreement on the adoption of the energy tax Directive by December 2002.

There is no European legislation on the maximum weights and axle weights for cranes. However, there exists Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996(3), laying down for certain road vehicles (a.o. vehicles for the carriage of goods above 3,5 tonnes) circulating within the Community the maximum authorized weights and axle weights in international traffic. These axle weight limits are 11,5 tonnes for a driving axle and 10 tonnes for a single non-driving axle. However, Member States may nonetheless allow circulation in their territory of vehicles or vehicle combinations for the national transport of goods freight which are not in conformity with these limits (e.g. 13 tonnes for driving and non-driving axles in France). The Commission has no plans to submit a proposal for harmonisation in the area of axle weight limits for cranes.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, as last amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994).

(2) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.

(3) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.

(4) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, as last amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1466/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Jim Currie

Further to the answer given by Mr Kinnock on 19 April 2002 to Written Question P-0825/02(1), will the Commission state the outcome of its examination as to whether the former Director-General of DG Environment will be in a position to comply with the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations in joining the Board of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd?

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 221.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

As announced in May 2001 the Commission has reviewed the case of Mr James Currie, formally Director General of DG Environment, and concluded that he may take up a post as a non-executive director of BNFL, for which he was nominated by the UK Government. The relevant Commission authorities took account of the fact that more than a year has elapsed since Mr Currie had any responsibilities for nuclear safety matters, and the fact that Mr Currie has stated in writing that he was not in possession of any information in written, electronic or any other form which could be deemed to be confidential or politically sensitive in the area of radioprotection.

Mr Currie made a written commitment that, as non-executive board member, he will avoid involvement in any executive decision making or lobbying. He has also given 3 undertakings which the Commission required as conditions to be placed upon his appointment. Consequently, Mr Currie will not use or transmit any confidential or politically sensitive information relating to nuclear safety or radioprotection to which he would have had access while he was Director-General of Directorate General Environment; will abstain from being in any way involved in matters related to the infringement procedure opened by the Commission with respect to British Nuclear Fuels activities; will not start his activity with BNFL before 1 November 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2282/02

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Gas filling stations inside the EU

More and more questions are being asked about the problem of filling up gas-fuelled cars in the EU.

Since there are evidently no uniform standards, owners of gas-driven cars find it impossible to fill up using a single system throughout Europe. There are considerable extra costs and obstacles involved. Furthermore, some filling-stations refuse to sell gas to tourists or foreigners. In many EU countries there are too few gas filling stations.

What steps will the Commission take to promote standardisation in this sphere? What measures has it introduced to make driving gas-fuelled cars more attractive for consumers?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2002)

New cars that are capable of using a gas fuel, for example liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or compressed natural gas (CNG), and vehicles that have been converted to run on such fuels are covered by certain Community requirements that govern the safety of the gas fuel installation on the vehicle and the design of the fuel filling aperture. For example, United Nations-Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) Regulation No 67 provides for the type-approval of LPG equipment installed on motor vehicles and Regulation 110 provides for the type-approval of CNG equipment installed on motor vehicles. Both Regulations are accepted for European whole vehicle type-approval. Accordingly, vehicles that have a gas fuel system designed to the requirements of Regulation 67 or 110 should be able to fill up with the relevant fuel throughout the Community.

Regulation 67 is in the process of being modified to further improve the safety of LPG installations and work has to be completed in the UN-ECE forum before the Community can take a decision on any new amendments. The Community is also in the process of proposing its accession to a new UN-ECE Regulation for the type-approval of LPG and CNG retro-fit systems. The proposed accession to this new draft regulation on retrofitting which will be very soon transmitted to the Parliament through the assent procedure can be considered as the quickest to promote standardisation for attracting more consumers to gas-fuelled vehicles.

The Commission has no specific competence in addressing the adequate numbers of filling stations in the Community selling gas fuel. However, several Member States do operate incentive schemes to encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles using LPG or CNG either as a new bi-fuel vehicle or an existing vehicle retro-fitted to also operate on a gas fuel.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Structural funds

The rules for managing structural funds in Member States can be complex and cumbersome. At what point will we see the same changes that have been implemented in the Commission being transferred to Member States in relation to structural funds? Will the system of structures of responsibility that are now in place at the top (i.e. the Commission) be used to reform the way funding is implemented and monitored on the ground (i.e. at Member State level)?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2002)

Under the new generation of regulations governing the operation of the Structural Funds adopted in 1999 provision is made for a number of responsibilities to be transferred to the national administrations. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the implementation of assistance is a matter for individual Member States at the appropriate regional level depending on their specific circumstances.

Taking on these new tasks has meant that each Member State has had to make adjustments in the light of its experience and political and administrative structure. The Commission does not impose a standard form of decentralisation within the Member States. It confines itself to ensuring that the arrangements contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) and the Commission implementing Regulations (EC) Nos 438/2001(2) and 448/2001(3) on the management and control systems and financial corrections are given full effect.

In its communication of 5 July 2001(4) on the results of the programming of the Structural Funds for 2000-2006 (Objective 1), the Commission invites the Member States to step up their efforts to ensure that more efficient use is made of the Structural Funds, in line with the new implementing regulations, in particular as regards the computerised management systems in order also to help avoid delays in interim payments. The Commission is planning to undertake a comparative analysis of financial management and control systems which should help to identify best practice and to promote new solutions to problems arising in this field

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds, OJ L 63, 3.3.2001.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the procedure for making financial corrections to assistance granted under the Structural Funds, OJ L 64, 6.3.2001.

(4) COM(2001) 378 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2345/02

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(29 July 2002)

Subject: Use of European Social Fund resources for the Edunet project

With reference to my Written Question E-0103/01 of 29 January 2001 concerning the use of European Social Fund resources for the Edunet project promoted by CST srl (Centro Servizi Terziario, via Tagliamento 45, I-00198 Roma) and to the Commission's reply of 8 March 2001(1) in which the Commission stated that action would be taken vis-à-vis Italy's Ministry of Employment with a view to shedding light on the progress of the project and the amount of money spent on it, would the Commission say what the outcome of that action was and what further information it obtained from the Ministry of Employment?

Is the Edunet project now complete? If so, has a final audit been carried out of the expenditure made in connection with it?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 11.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

In 2001, the Commission asked the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy simultaneously to:

- carry out all necessary checks, and

- suspend all advance payments to the Edunet project.

In addition, the Commission has forwarded the case to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

Following the Commission's request, the Ministry of Labour suspended payments and, on 10 December 2001, submitted its inspection report on this project.

The covering letter to the report, signed by the Deputy Director, Mr D. Carnevale, sums up the Ministry's position as follows:

Following examination of the report and annexes, there appears to be a confusion of project-related activities and activities outside the scope of the project, i.e. trade union activities.

The Provincial Labour Directorate in Rome nevertheless reserves the right to submit definitive information once it has completed its inspections by checking the certified expenditure charged to the project.

In the meantime, pending new information, the Managing Authority will maintain the suspension of payments to CST.

The Commission is therefore awaiting the financial certification of the closure of the Community initiatives (Adapt/Employment) and reserves the right, then, to evaluate the eligibility of the submitted expenditure.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1234/02

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 April 2002)

Subject: Tax stamps and control of smuggling

Faced with the problem of the smuggling of bottled spirit drinks in the Union, some Member States may consider resorting to the device of tax stamps, with obligatory affixing of such to each bottle lawfully sold.

Has the Commission any advice on the question:

(a) whether this is likely to be an effective way of combating the evil in question; and

(b) whether there is any risk of conflict with single market law on non-discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

As regards the Honourable Member's point (a), attitudes towards the effectiveness of tax markings in the control of smuggling and fraud vary, not only from Member State

to Member State, but also from product to product, and as conditions alter over the course of time. The Commission would not therefore wish to offer any opinion on their overall usefulness. In the particular field of bottled spirits drinks, according to the Commission's information, only Denmark, Spain, Italy and Portugal currently require fiscal markings.

As regards point (b), the detailed rules on the application of tax markings are laid down in Article 21 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992, on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products(1). In particular, Article 21 provides that:

1. Without prejudice to Article 6(1), Member States may require that products released for consumption in their territory shall require tax markings or national identification marks used for fiscal purposes.

2. Any Member State which requires the use of tax marking or national identification marks as set out in paragraph 1 shall be required to make them available to authorized warehousekeepers of the other Member States. However, each Member State may require that fiscal marks be made available to a tax representative authorized by the tax authority of that Member State.

Without prejudice to any provisions they may lay down in order to ensure that this Article is implemented properly and to prevent any fraud, evasion or abuse, Member States shall ensure that these marks or markings do not create obstacles to the free movement of products subject to excise duty.

3. Tax markings or identification marks within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be valid in the Member State which issued them. However, there may be mutual recognition of these markings between Member States.

Article 6(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC referred to above in paragraph 1 of Article 21 provides that excise duty shall become chargeable at the time of release for consumption (which the provision goes on to define in detail) or when shortages are recorded which must be subject to excise duty .

Therefore, a Member State's requirement that products bear tax markings may not affect the moment when excise duty becomes chargeable on them.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2346/02

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2002)

Subject: Galileo Project

There seems to be some delay in the launch of Galileo (the European satellite-navigation system), despite mediation efforts by the Commission and the ESA.

The European industry must complete in-orbit validation of the satellite clocks by 2005, so as not to jeopardise the assignment of the frequencies which have already been allocated internationally to the European navigation system.

On 23 May 2002 the European Council gave the green light to the drawing up of a framework agreement designed to facilitate joint projects between the European Union and the ESA.

In view of the above facts, does the Commission not consider that structures which will enable the project to be properly run on a joint basis should be put in place as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

It is difficulties encountered in the European Space Agency (ESA) in finalising the programme statement on Galileo which have prevented the establishment of the joint undertaking.

As these difficulties are persisting, the Commission has proposed to the ESA executive that it obtain its Member States' authorisation to set up the joint undertaking with the Community, represented by the Commission, without having to wait for an arrangement to be reached on the level of their contributions.

This would enable the joint undertaking to start operating with funding from the Community budget paid to it by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1454/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Council

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Special arrangements

France, Italy and the Netherlands benefit from special arrangements as regards excise duty on mineral oils.

1. What was the basis on which the special arrangements were granted?

2. What scope is there for Austria to extend the Eco-point system?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

1. In respect of the basis for special arrangement as regards excise duty on mineral oils in France, Italy and the Netherlands, the Honourable Member is referred to Council Decisions 1999/880/EC(1), 2000/446/EC(2) and 2001/224/EC(3).

Moreover, the Honourable Member is reminded that the measures adopted by the Member States pursuant to the above measures were deemed compatible with the common market by the Council Decision of 3 May 2002.

2. The ecopoint system currently in force was put in place following the accession of Austria to the European Union as a transitional measure of limited duration. Protocol 9 annexed to the Act of Accession of Austria will expire on 31 December 2003.

In response to paragraph 58 of the conclusions of the Laeken European Council, the European Commission presented on 21 December 2001 a proposal for a Regulation establishing an ecopoint system applicable to heavy goods vehicles travelling through Austria for the year 2004. The proposal also contains provisions allowing for the extension of that system for one further year and thereafter for a second year at most, if the framework proposal on charging for the use of infrastructure is not adopted by the relevant deadline.

The Council is very well aware of the problems relating to transit traffic through the Alps. The Transport Council, at its meetings in March and June 2002, discussed the new ecopoint proposal from the Commission, together with the wider issues relating to Alpine transit. The delegations most directly concerned indicated their intention to hold consultations with a view to making progress towards a solution.

(1) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999, p. 73.

(2) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 35.

(3) OJ L 84, 23.3.2001, p. 23.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1436/02

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

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Torture in the EU

A recent Amnesty International report denounced the practice of torture in Spain, involving foreigners and ethnic minorities. It cited 321 cases in the last seven years, 32 of them documented in detail, including 6 deaths and 5 rapes or sexual assaults. Is the Council aware of this type of inhuman practice in Member States other than Spain? What measures has it taken, if appropriate, to disavow the practice of torture? What measures has it taken to investigate claims of torture, prevent torture and punish it where it has been proven to exist?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that each Member State is responsible for the respect for and safeguard of fundamental human rights, including the right of any person to a fair trial.

The Union's responsibility in this case, as set out in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, concerns situations where the Union acts in the exercise of its competence.

Launching investigations into a Member State of the kind suggested by the Honourable Member does not fall within the competence of the Council.