ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0237/03

by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE)and Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Dumping of fuel in Algeciras Bay

Algeciras Bay has become a refuse dump for ships that regularly sail through the Straits of Gibraltar. Environmental organisations and local representatives have for years been denouncing the fact that the coastline is vulnerable owing to the lack of resources available for implementing a penalty system that would act as a deterrent.

Moreover, the nature of the bunkering activities carried on in Gibraltar very often contravenes the London Convention and Marpol regulations, since because there is no refinery nor quay at which to refuel, veritable floating fuel depots such as the tanker Vemamagna are being used, which are only 600 metres off the Spanish coast and not under the supervision or control of the port of Gibraltar.

The Commission will agree that these activities pose a major environmental risk. Does it not consider that bunkering rules and regulations need to be tightened up? Have any steps been taken to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations governing such situations?

The Commission is working on a proposal for a regulation which will impose criminal penalties on anyone who pollutes the sea deliberately or through gross negligence. Can the Commission indicate when this proposal will be presented and whether it will apply to the case in point?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Regarding the risks posed by refuelling activities in Algeciras Bay and Gibraltar, the Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Oral Question H-0800/02 by Mr García Margallo y Marfil at Parliament's December 2002 session(1).

The Commission can confirm that on 5 March it adopted a legislative proposal to apply criminal sanctions to any shipowner, shipper, classification society or other person responsible for pollution through gross negligence. The proposed text would introduce strict rules relating to pollution, including unlawful tank cleaning operations as well as refuelling activities.

(1) Oral answer of 17.12.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0742/03

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Compensation to EU fishermen and shipowners for temporary cessation of activity

Article 16 of the current FIFG regulation (2792/1999(1)) describes a number of conditions under which Member States are allowed to compensate fishermen and shipowners for the temporary cessation of activities.

How often has this measure been used by the Member States?

For each time that compensation has been awarded, can the Commission indicate:

- which of the circumstances listed in Article 16 was invoked;

- which Member State was involved, for which fishery and for what period of time;

- how many fishermen and/or ship-owners were involved;

- how much money was awarded, broken down by Community participation and State participation?

Is the Commission aware of any similar compensation paid by the Member State(s) without the use of Community funds? If so, could similar information be provided?

Under the previous FIFG regulation (3699/1993(2)), compensation was possible for temporary cessation of activities under Article 14. Could the Commission provide similar information for any such use of funds under that regulation?

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

(2) OJ L 346, 31.12.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

In the present programming period 2000-2006, the Financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) aid foreseen for temporary cessation, compared to the total aid, is rather limited, about 3,9 %. Spain alone represents more than 80 % of the total amount programmed for this measure.

The actual expenditure declared and reimbursed by the Commission is listed in the following table:

>TABLE>

In the case of Spain and Portugal, the aid was used to compensate fishermen and vessels owners owing to the non-renewal of the fisheries agreement with Morocco, forcing about 400 vessels and about 4 000 fishermen to quit this activity.

In the case of Belgium, 60 vessels and more than 300 fishermen were granted compensation on the basis of article 16.1(a) of the FIFG Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999(1) unforeseeable circumstances, caused by biological factors.

The closure of the programmes relating to the previous programming period 1994-1999 will take place in 2003. The preliminary figures show that about EUR 54 million were granted for temporary cessation, of which the Community part amounts to EUR 38 million (Spain EUR 31 million, Denmark EUR 4 million, Portugal EUR 2 million and Sweden EUR 1 million).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0373/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Animal welfare and consumer information

The European Union is facing a flood of cat and dog fur items in the form of toys, clothing, lining and homeopathic treatments, all of which are mislabelled, not labelled or made to appear as faux fur or other fur.

Now that 10 Agriculture Ministers of the EU have asked the Commission to ban this consumer fraud under internal market considerations, would the Commission please state why it continues to ignore this and claim it cannot do anything about animal welfare concerns, when the Ministers have clearly stated they want consumer fraud tackled and it is an internal market crisis?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0373/03 and E-1145/03given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

The Commission does not ignore the issue of imports of cat and dog furs. The Commission is currently examining the questions raised taking into consideration the respective requirements of World Trade Organisation (WTO) law, legal bases under Community law and the interplay with existing legislation to prevent consumer deception.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0395/03

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

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Building work in the IJmeer near Uitdam

It would appear from the draft regional development plan for southern North Holland that the North Holland Provincial Council is about to authorise the building of a combined marina and large-scale housing project for permanent recreational use in the IJmeer near Uitdam. This project is situated entirely outside the dyke and thus entirely within the IJmeer, which is protected under the European Birds Directive.

The project does not involve a small campsite with tents, but rather the construction of a large-scale holiday centre (250 accommodation units) and the establishment of a marina (450 harbours), as a result of which the habitat of birds and other fauna and flora in and near the IJmeer will be reduced permanently by some 3 hectares. It is highly likely that the damage will be substantial. Should this indeed be the case, either the project cannot go ahead as planned or the Netherlands Government will have to take compensatory measures elsewhere so as to ensure that the total habitat for birds and other protected fauna and flora is not reduced in size.

Does the European Commission share my view that the Netherlands authorities should investigate whether the combined project to build a marina, together with a large-scale holiday accommodation complex for permanent recreational use will not cause significant ecological damage in the IJmeer?

What view does the European Commission take of the planned project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Following Article 6, Paragraph 3, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) (Habitats Directive), which, pursuant to its Article 7, also applies to Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2), any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of such a site but likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.

The SPA IJmeer has a total area of ca 7 400 hectares (ha). The planned building project mentioned by the Honourable Member will directly affect an area of about three hectares within the Special Protection Area. In order to be able to decide whether or not the full protection regime under Article 6, paragraphs 3 and 4, of Directive 92/43/EEC applies to this project, it must indeed be investigated if the project is likely to have a significant effect on the site. This investigation will have to be carried out by the Dutch authorities. The information provided by the Honourable Member does not allow by itself to conclude if any significant effects are likely to occur or not.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0151/03

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

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Mozambique international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Mozambique international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Mozambique?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The previous fisheries agreement Community/Mozambique, signed in 1988, was denounced by Mozambique in 1993, and therefore there is currently no fisheries agreement in force. However, on the 21 October 2002, the Community and Mozambique have initialled a new agreement, which will come into force in 2003, after the completion of the necessary approval procedures. The associated protocol and annexes will come into force on the 1 January 2004.

The elements hereafter refer to the new agreement.

1. Article 2 of the first Protocol to the new fisheries agreement between the Community and the Republic of Mozambique(1) fixes the level of financial contribution at EUR 4 090 000 per year. The entire financial compensation will be devoted to the measures in support of the Mozambican fisheries sector specified in Article 3 of the Protocol.

2. The financial contribution of EUR 4 090 000 per year represents the amount that is paid in exchange for the fishing opportunities made available to the Community fleet.

3. The amounts paid by the vessel owners are fixed in points 2 and 4 of the annex to the Protocol.

For the deep-water shrimp fishery, the licence fees to be paid by the shipowners amount to EUR 600 per tonne of shrimp quota, within the maximum allowable quota of 1 000 tonnes of deep-water shrimp attributed to the Community.

For the tuna fishery, the licence fees are EUR 25 per tonne of tuna caught within the waters of Mozambique. The licences are delivered after advance payments of EUR 3 000 for tuna seiners and of EUR 1 500 for surface longliners. The amount of the advances are deducted from the total amount due on the basis of the catches during the preceding year, but if the amount due is less than the advance the balance is not recoverable.

(1) To be published.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: European Court of Justice ruling

Can the Commission give its reaction to the ruling of the European Court of Justice on 26 February 2003, in the case of a Greek pensioner being treated for a chronic heart complaint, that EU pensioners travelling in Member States other than their own have the right to medical treatment even for existing chronic medical conditions, with their home country paying the full cost?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

The Commission is very pleased with the ruling of the Court of Justice on 26 February 2003 in Case C-326/00, which is in line with the views set out by the Commission in the conclusions it submitted regarding this case.

According to the Court of Justice, a Member State cannot make reimbursement of necessary medical expenses incurred by a pensioner during a visit to another Member State conditional either upon authorisation or upon the requirement that the illness in question manifested itself suddenly.

This ruling is very important for pensioners, as this is the first time the Court has stipulated that they may receive healthcare which has become necessary during a visit to a Member State other than the one in which they are resident, without being obliged to prove the urgent nature of the treatment, as required for workers in Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71(1). It also states that the fact that a pensioner has a pre-existing pathology of which he is aware, such as a chronic illness diagnosed prior to the trip, is not sufficient to prevent him from receiving the care required by a change in his state of health during his stay.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, last updated by Regulation (EEC) No 118/97 OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1023/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Perugia

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that EU subsidies include a support programme to foster the twinning of European cities and that many Italian cities, including the municipality of Perugia, would be particularly appropriate for events of this kind,

Can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects to benefit from funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme?

2. whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0864/03, E-0886/03, E-1017/03, E-1018/03,E-1019/03, E-1020/03, E-1021/03, E-1022/03, E-1023/03, E-1024/03,E-1025/03, E-1026/03, E-1027/03, E-1028/03 and E-1029/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Twinning is funded centrally.

The grants are awarded by the Commission on the basis of projects presented by local authorities or twinning committees.

The grants are not paid until after the event, following submission of supporting documents.

The participation of local authorities in town-twinning activities is arranged via the publication of an annual call for proposals in the Official Journal of the European Union.

With regard to the Honourable Member's questions the municipalities of: Fiumicino (E-0886), Frosinone (E-0864), Ancona (E-1017), Florence (E-1019), Livorno (E-1020), Macerata (E-1021), Perugia (E-1023), Pesaro (E-1024), Pisa (E-1025) Pistoia (E-1026) Siena (E-1028) and Terni (E-1029) did not obtain funding for the organisation of twinning events in 2000.

The municipalities of Carrara (E-1018) Massa (E-1022) Prato (E-1027) received funding for twinning in 2000. These funds were used.

The Honourable Member might wish to contact the local authorities for further information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0667/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Transposition dates for DG Environment directives

Can the Commission state the transposition dates for all DG Environment directives since September 1999 and the dates (if any) on which the UK Government confirmed to the Commission that they had been transposed into UK law and in which cases the Commission has commenced proceedings in order to secure compliance?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

There are twenty-six directives for which Directorate General Environment is responsible, which are relevant for transposition by the United Kingdom and for which transposition was due after September 1999. These are listed in the table which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. As can be seen from the table, six of the Directives listed have been transposed. For the rest, infringement proceedings are on-going. Eleven of the cases listed relate only to the failure to transpose in Gibraltar.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0276/03

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Council

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Transfer of currency reserves

Transfers of currency reserves have reportedly taken place in Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy without objections being raised by the competent EU authorities.

Have currency reserves held by national banks in fact been transferred and can these reserves then be used freely on the basis of national budget decisions (e.g. to finance public road-building or research)?

Must EU authorities, and if so, which ones, authorise such transfers, or can such a decision be taken solely at national level?

What volume of currency reserves are available for transfer in the individual countries involved?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

In accordance with Article 31 paragraph 2 of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB and subject to Article 23 thereof (fulfilment of external obligations of national central banks), operations in foreign reserve assets remaining with the national central banks after the obligatory transfers of such assets to the ECB for the purposes of the monetary policy of the Community, are subject to approval by the ECB in order to ensure their consistency with the exchange rate and monetary policies of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0636/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Council

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Reception conditions for asylum-seekers

The English High Court ruled on 19 February 2002 that the application of section 55(1) of the UK Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. This provision allows the UK Government automatically to refuse food and shelter to an asylum-seeker

who has not made their asylum claim as soon as reasonably practical. The court ruled that refusing food and shelter is a breach of the applicant's human rights and the ban on inhumane and degrading treatment if it poses a real risk of destitution and injury to the asylum-seeker's health.

Since the wording in the UK Act is the same as in Article 16(2) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC(1) laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the risk may be that other Member States might fall foul of the ECHR if they also impose an automatic denial of benefit on delayed claims. Given the interest in a uniform application of EU law, will the Council Presidency ensure that all Member States follow the guidance that this English judgment offers so that asylum-seekers are not left destitute?

(1) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.

Reply

(13 May 2003)

As the Honourable Member mentions in her question, on 27 January 2003 the Council adopted Directive 2003/9/EC on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers(1).

Article 26 provides that Member States must bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 6 February 2003.

The Council understands that the UK Government has lodged an appeal against the High Court ruling of 19 February 2002 to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with Article 211 TEC, it is for the Commission to ensure that the measures taken pursuant to the Treaty are applied, and that in accordance with Article 67(5) TEC, as established by the Treaty of Nice, any amendments to Directive 2003/9/EC will be adopted pursuant to the procedure provided for in Article 251, thus only on a proposal from the Commission.

(1) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1136/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme for migrant workers by the municipality of Prato

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Prato, urgently need to use European funds to support migrant workers, including those from outside the Community, in order to guarantee them the best conditions in which to live and integrate with the local community, in terms of both work and social conditions,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the action programme for migrant workers?

2. whether the municipality of Prato has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0828/03, E-0894/03, E-1126/03,E-1127/03, E-1128/03, E-1129/03, E-1130/03, E-1131/03, E-1132/03,E-1133/03, E-1134/03, E-1135/03, E-1136/03, E-1137/03 and E-1138/03given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

There is currently no Action Programme for Migrant Workers at Community level. The Commission recalls that funding for measures to promote the integration of migrant workers, under Budget Line B3-4110, was suspended in 1998 following the judgement of the European Court of Justice in Case C-106/96. No funding has been awarded in this field since that date.

A new programme to promote the integration of third country nationals, under Budget line B5-815, will be launched by the Commission (Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs) in May 2003.