ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3595/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Checking of statistical data in Greece on employment and unemployment

The Greek authorities have undertaken to develop a modern system for the statistical monitoring of employment and unemployment.

In view of the delays detected by the Commission, the complaints by workers to the National Statistics Service concerning falsification of data and the Commission's reply to my previous question (E-2419/01(1)), which stated that under Article 3(6) of Regulation No (EC) 577/98(2), the Commission may require Member States to provide detailed information on the criteria adopted for the design and size of the sample, has the Commission made such a request?

Could the Commission provide information on the progress made in modernising the Greek statistical system, including under the Community Support Framework?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 244.

(2) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

The Commission has requested and received information from the National Statistical Service of Greece which shows that:

- a continuous labour force survey has been conducted in Greece since the beginning of 1998 (with interviews, each quarter, of around 30 000 households throughout the different NUTS 2 regions);

- the unemployment estimates published by the National Statistical Service of Greece (which have not been transmitted to Eurostat) for the third and fourth quarters of 2000 were compiled from a sub-sample of 8 % of the questionnaires;

- transmission of the labour force survey results will be speeded up in the very near future: the results for the 4th quarter of 2001 should be transmitted to Eurostat in March 2002 (in accordance with the regulatory deadline).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2933/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Commission inspectors' investigation into BSE in Greece

In September 2001, Commission veterinary inspectors carried out investigations in Greece into the implementation of measures relating to BSE in Greek slaughterhouses. Commission veterinary inspectors also carried out investigations in February 2001, when they identified several shortcomings and infringements.

In the light of the inspectors' report, will the Commission say:

1. whether sufficient checks are carried out on cattle to detect the disease, and

2. whether the measures to protect cattle from BSE are observed?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2001)

The Commission inspectors of the Food and Veterinary Office carried out a mission in Greece from 17 to 21 September 2001 in order to evaluate the implementation of certain reinforced protection measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

This mission was also undertaken as a follow-up to a previous mission carried out in February 2001 (reference number DG(SANCO)/3234/2001). The report of the mission of February 2001 has been transmitted to the Parliament and can also be consulted on the Health and Consumer Protection General Directorate website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/greece/index_en.html.

As regards the mission of September 2001, the report is not available yet. Once it has been completed in accordance with the procedures established in Commission Decision 98/139/EC of 4 February 1998 laying down certain detailed rules concerning on-the-spot checks carried out in the veterinary field by Commission experts in the Member States(1), it will also be transmitted to the Parliament and published on the Internet.

Until the report is finished, it is not possible to provide a precise or definitive reply to the questions raised.

Nevertheless, in the light of the preliminary information available after the mission, there seem to be some indications that certain improvements have been made as regards the implementation of measures related to the epidemio-surveillance of the disease and the removal and disposal of specified risk materials.

(1) OJ L 38, 12.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3407/01

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: Scope of the Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC of 4 December 2000

In the Member States of the EU the use of waste oil for the production of heat energy is restricted, particularly as regards small heating units. At the time, the reason for this was that it was not possible to burn waste oil in small heating plants while complying with current

emissions standards. However, oil burners have now come on the market which are intended for the heating of small premises and which use waste oil as fuel. These have been shown after careful testing to keep well within the existing emissions standards and to burn waste oil much more cleanly than ordinary burners using light heating oil.

In the light of the above, will the Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC(1) adopted on 4 December 2000, which enters into force in 2005, apply to these high-technology oil burners with an output of 30-50 kW, which have been developed for the heating of small premises, which were planned from the outset with waste oil in mind, and which burn no more than 5 litres of waste oil per hour?

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/ EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000, applies in the case of the waste oil where it is used as regular or additional fuel in burners. There is no capacity threshold below which the use of waste oil as fuel for heating in waste oil burners would be exempt from the scope of the directive. Therefore burners with a capacity of 30 to 50 kilowatt (kW) used for the generation of heat or energy and fired with waste oil as a regular or additional fuel fall within the scope of the directive and would be treated as co-incineration plants as defined in Article 3, paragraph.5, in the context of Directive 2000/76/EC.

According to Article 20, Directive 2000/76/EC shall apply in the case of new plants from 28 December 2002 and in the case of existing plants from 28 December 2005.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2232/01

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Straw-shortening chemicals

Are there any existing or planned prohibitions at EU or national level in one or more Member States on the use of straw-shortening chemicals in agriculture?

If there is no such EU legislation in preparation, are there any plans to initiate it?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2001)

The marketing and use of plant protection products in the Community is governed by Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1). It provides that no plant protection product can be placed on the market in the Community unless it has first been authorized by the Member State in whose territory it is to be marketed. The scope of the directive includes the marketing and use of growth regulators and Member States have had to apply, since the entry into force of the Directive in July 1993, in particular Article 4 of the Directive when granting authorizations for specific uses.

At Community level, there is no specific legislation prohibiting the use of plant protection products as growth regulators in cereals and there are no plans at this time to introduce any.

At national level, the Commission is aware of legislation in Sweden. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Plant Health held on 16 June 2000, and during the examination of Commission Directive 2000/50/EC of 26 July 2000 concerning the inclusion of an active substance prohexadione calcium in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC(2), Sweden made the following declaration:

Since 1987, plant growth regulators are not allowed to be used in cereals in Sweden, except in rye for which there are no short straw (lodging resistant) varieties available at present. This regulation is based on a general restrictive national view on the use of all agrochemicals and is also in line with the Council Resolution of the fifth Environmental Action Programme(3). We also fear that allowing plant growth regulators may as a consequence indirectly increase the risk of nitrogen eutrophication.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2) OJ L 198, 4.8.2000.

(3) OJ C 150, 31.5.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2386/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Annuities

Does the Commission believe that the EU market in annuities (regular payments for the remainder of a life) works reasonably well? Is it aware of certain distortions of competition which may arise because of regulatory requirements, and is it satisfied that those regulatory requirements do not involve discrimination against other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Annuities is a specific product sold by life assurance undertakings and built according to life assurance techniques, which require the insurer to set up enough technical provisions in order to enable the insurance undertaking to meet the contractual commitments arising from the insurance policy. Community insurance legislation coordinates Member States provisions regarding the conditions for taking up and pursuing life insurance activities in the Community. In addition to an administrative authorisation of a life insurance undertaking, the coordination of national rules covers the methods of calculation of technical provisions, which must be sufficient, and the representation of such technical provisions by appropriate, spread and matching assets as well as a minimum solvency margin. Community legislation allows insurance undertakings to engage in life insurance activities in all Member States, if they consider it appropriate, and therefore to market annuity policies in different Member States, by means of right of establishment and the freedom to provide services.

The contents and the terms of annuities policies often depend on particular factors existing in Member States in different fields such as social or tax legislation rather than insurance law itself. These factors, in particular tax law, explain the importance of annuities products in some Member States compared to others. Member States tend to afford a favourable tax treatment, when those particular conditions laid down by tax law are met, instead of capital lump sum insurance contracts. In the current stage of Community legislation Member States are competent to lay down the conditions regarding taxation of different life insurance products. However when using their powers, Member States cannot provide rules which are contrary to Community law, in particular to the rules of free movement of persons and services.

The Commission has recently published a Communication on the elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions(1). The Commission considers that discriminatory tax treatment of pension and life assurance policies concluded with providers established in other Member States is contrary to the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty. The Commission will monitor the relevant national rules and take the necessary steps to ensure effective compliance with the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty.

(1) COM(2001) 214 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3318/01

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Natura 2000 network

What objections were detected by the Commission to the SCI which has been proposed by the Spanish Government as part of the Natura 2000 network and which is known as the Sistema Transversal Catalán ES5110005? What species and habitats are to be found within that SCI? Has the list undergone any recent changes?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The Spanish authorities proposed the site on November 1996 as a site of Community importance. With an area of 228,227 hectares, the site hosts habitats and species of the Mediterranean region.

The types of habitats described for these sites are:

- Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara sp (3140).

- European dry heaths (4030).

- Sub-Atlantic semi-dry calcareous grassland (6212).

- Sub-Atlantic very dry calcareous grassland (6213).

- * Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea (6220).

- Humid tall herbfringes of watercourses and woodlands (6431).

- Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) (6510).

- Western eu-mediterranean and oro-iberian calcareous cliffs (8211).

- Central pyrenean calcareous cliffs (8212).

- Siliceous rocky slopes with Chasmophytic vegetation (8220).

- Caves not open to the public (8310).

- Medio-european limestone beech forest of the Cephalanthero-Fagion (9150).

- * Alluvial forest with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Pandion, Alnion Incanae, Salicion Albae) (91 E0).

- Castanea sativa woods (9260).

- Salix alba and Populus alba galleries (92A0).

- Quercus suber forests (9330).

- Quercus ilex and Quercus rotundifolia forests (9340).

In relation to the species of Community interest the site hosts the following species of mammals: Miniopterus schreibersi, Barbastella barbastellus, Myotis blythii and Rhinolophus ferrum-equinum.

In relation to fish, the site hosts the specie Barbus meridionalis.

In relation to invertebrates, the site hosts the following species, Austropotamobius pallipes, Graellsia isabelae, Cerambyx cerdo and Vertigo moulinsiana.

For the time being, the Commission has not analysed any site of Community importance from the Mediterranean region proposal.

The Bio-geographical seminar for the Mediterranean region is foreseen for July 2002. During this meeting, all the sites proposed by the Member States will be analysed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2939/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Persecution of the Serenissimi of St Mark's by the Italian courts

The Italian courts, which have so far failed to secure a single conviction in a criminal prosecution against Islamic terrorists, have, on the other hand, attacked with tenacity a number of Venetian patriots whose only offence was to have carried out a spectacular occupation of St Mark's belltower in support of the right of the Venetian people to their own identity and freedom.

The demonstrators were sentenced to between three and six years imprisonment and, even today, are still on probation or parole.

Does the Council not think that, in this disgraceful case of judicial persecution of decent people with no criminal records who have done nothing but express their opinions, it has a duty to check whether the sentences passed comply with the principle of equity which is at the root of European judicial ethics and whether or not they breach the protection of freedom of opinion and expression established by the international legal order?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Honourable Member of the European Parliament is informed that the Council is not competent to determine whether concrete actions taken by the judicial authorities in the Member States are legal or justified.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Possible irregularities in the EQUAL assistance programme

The aim of the EQUAL Community programme, financed by the European Social Fund, is to promote new means of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market, through transnational cooperation(1).

Has the Commission any information about possible irregularities involving the award, in the year 2000, of a contract for technical assistance worth approximately EUR 20 million for the EQUAL support structure by the German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs?

If so, can the Commission indicate:

- what those irregularities are?

- to what extent the implementation of the programme was affected thereby?

- what steps it has taken or plans to take in this matter?

- whether there have also been irregularities in the award of other contracts for technical assistance (e.g. in the XENOS programme) by the Federal Ministry?

(1) OJ C 127, 5.5.2000.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission is in the process of analysing the tendering procedure followed by the Federal Ministry of Labour in order to check whether the Community rules on public contracts were complied with for the selection of the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) responsible for implementing the EQUAL programme.

If the Commission's analysis were to conclude that the Community rules on the awarding of public contracts had not been complied with and, consequently, that the co-financing for this contract by the European Social Fund (ESF) should be refused, the implementation of the EQUAL programme in Germany could certainly suffer as a result. The Commission has already asked the German authorities to take all the necessary steps to ensure normal implementation of the programme if this hypothesis were to be confirmed and the contract subsequently had to be annulled or cancelled.

The Commission is currently examining other contracts entered into by the Federal Ministry of Labour that combine a transfer of powers from the public authority to private-law third parties (Beleihungsverträge) with other services. Its intention is to verify that the Community rules for awarding public contracts have been properly complied with.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3268/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: The European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime

The European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime has been in force since 1988. Greece is one of the few EU countries which have signed the Convention but have yet to implement it: this means that it has no system of State compensation for the victims of violent crime, which is one of the basic objectives of the Convention.

Given that Greece has signed the Convention in question, will the Commission say:

1. Can the victims of violent crime within the meaning of the Convention apply for compensation, even though no system of State compensation has yet been set-up?

2. Does it intend to ask the Member States or the EU applicant countries to ratify and implement the Convention in question?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

The signature, as such, of the Convention to which the Honourable Member refers does not give victims of violent crime the possibility to apply for state compensation.

In 1999, the Commission submitted a Communication to the Council, the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee entitled Crime victims in the European Union reflexions on standards and action(1). One of the recommendations of this Communication related to the ratification of the Convention in question by all Member States.

As concerns compensations to crime victims by the offender, the Council framework decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings requires that victims of criminal acts shall be entitled to obtain a decision on compensation by the offender in the course of criminal proceedings.

In this context the Commission would also like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to its recently adopted Green Paper on compensation to crime victims(2). This paper launches a public consultation on possible action to be taken, at Community level, for improving the possibilities for crime victims to obtain compensations from the state. Potential actions outlined in the Paper include to establish a minimum standard for state compensation in the Union and to facilitate access to state compensation in cross-border situations. Following an analysis of the comments received on the paper, the Commission will assess the possibility for presenting a legislative proposal during 2002.

(1) COM(1999) 349 final.

(2) COM(2001) 536 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: German Regulation on packaging discrimination relating to packaging for beverages

The current German Regulation on packaging provides for obligatory deposits on the packaging of certain beverages, to take effect when the reuse of packaging in respect of one class of beverage falls below 72 %. A far lower figure, 20 %, applies to milk.

1. On what conditions does the Commission regard exceptions (varying reuse rates, compulsory deposits only for certain beverages) as non-discriminatory?

2. Does the Commission regard reuse rates and compulsory deposits on beverage containers in certain conditions as discriminatory by comparison with other packaging waste, and especially in view of the small proportion of beverage packaging among packaging waste as a whole and residual waste?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

1. The Commission has thoroughly assessed the existing German Packaging Ordinance. It has not concluded that the different reuse quotas applied to different beverages or the mechanism, according to which the deposit obligation may be triggered for only certain beverages, breach Community law. The Commission does not consider this setting up of different reuse quotas as a discrimination of applicable Community law. The German Government has explained the environmental reasoning behind the system introduced by the existing German Packaging Ordinance. On the basis of the information available the Commission has found this reasoning satisfactory with a view to Community law, apart from the application of the reuse quota to mineral waters that have to be filled at source.

2. See answer to question 1. Differentiated approaches for specific waste streams to take into account their potential specific environmental effects might be justified, to the extent that they are compatible with Community law. Packaging waste is a significant waste stream in terms of quantities (approximately 17 % of municipal solid waste by weight) and spread of generation sources; beverage packaging is an important component of packaging waste.