ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0070/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Damage caused by natural disasters in Greece

In Greece, large volumes of heavy snowfall over an extended period and exceptionally low temperatures have led to extremely severe and widespread damage to arable and livestock production, plant and animal resources and agricultural facilities (greenhouses, stable buildings etc.) in many parts of the country.

Given that producers' revenue and means of production have suffered a severe blow, will the Commission fund measures to compensate for the loss of revenue and for the repair of the damaged production infrastructure?

During the approval procedure for the preliminary draft budget for 2003, will the Commission consider an increase in the appropriations to be made available for agricultural development, in order to fund compensation requests, as it did during the approval of the budget for 2001 to fund compensation for damage caused by the hurricane which hit many Member States at the end of 1999?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

The Commission has not yet received official information from the Greek authorities concerning the impact of the recent adverse weather conditions on agriculture and rural economy. The Greek authorities are currently estimating the extent of damages in the affected areas and sectors. The Commission services involved will consider the issue as soon quantitative and qualitative information and official request has been submitted by Greece.

Depending on the magnitude of these damages, Community solidarity may be proved to be indispensable to overcome the problems rural areas are confronted with and to rebuild production potential.

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) contribution should be designated within the total financial allocation attributed for structural funds intervention to Greece within the programming period 2000-2006 by redefining the programme's priorities approved by the Commission. The current National Operational Programme Rural Development (2000-2006) for Greece with a total financial allocation of 1 233,42 million also covers the issue of natural disasters and emergencies with a credit of 14 million. Should this amount not be sufficient, the Greek authorities are entitled to submit a request for a redefinition of the programming priorities and of the corresponding financial allocations.

In addition, the Greek authorities may consider the possibility to use the programming reserve of the 3rd Community Support Framework Programme (2000-2003) for Greece.

It should be emphasised that EAGGF intervention will be limited to the reconstitution of production potential and not to the income losses which are not eligible. If aid will be necessary to compensate income losses, national aid scheme should be notified to the Commission for approval.

No other special Community funds or Community compensations can be provided. Similar conditions were applied by the Commission for other Member States when they experienced adverse weather conditions at the end of 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0407/02

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (NI) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Intra-Community repatriation of corpses

Cross-border transport of corpses is currently based on the 1937 Berlin Agreements and the 1973 Strasbourg Agreement. However, these agreements are no longer applicable, since they were based on the presumption of border controls which no longer exist.

Could the Commission say:

- to what extent the Treaties require EU Member States to allow free intra-Community transfer of human remains between their territories?

- whether it plans to look into ways of simplifying intra-Community transfer of deceased persons?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0073/02, E-0087/02,E-0210/02, E-0344/02, E-0346/02, P-0407/02 and E-0679/02given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The Commission recognises that the repatriation of mortal remains of a person who has died in another Member State than his/her own is a sensitive and difficult issue which can cause great suffering for the family involved.

The Commission is aware of some individual cases, in particular, through the recent written parliamentary questions, where the repatriation of a deceased person from one Member State to another has raised difficulties. However, the Commission does not have any information or statistics which would provide an overview of a possible problem and its scope.

These issues potentially raise a number of questions, some of them in relation to different Community policies, for instance, transport, health, free movement, etc. However, it does not appear that there would be a clear Community competence to cover all these various aspects. Moreover, the regulations governing the transfer of remains of dead persons are laid down in the International Agreement of Berlin (1937, No 4391 League of Nations Treaty Series) and by the Agreement on the transfer of corpses of the Council of Europe concluded in September 1973. In any event it should be recalled that Member States which regulate the transport of deceased persons, must, in conformity with the case law of the Court of Justice, apply any requirements on a non-discriminatory basis. Any derogation based on public health grounds must also be in conformity with the case-law of the Court.

In the light of the above, the Commission will continue to follow these issues closely, but does not envisage any specific initiative for the moment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0096/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Child car seats

1. Will the Commission state what EU provisions if any currently apply to the standards set for children's detachable car seats?

2. Do such standards aim for the objective that such seats should be readily attachable in every make of car?

3. What efforts if any have been made to ensure the widespread standardisation of such child car seat fixings?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Commission Directive 2000/3/EC of 22 February 2000, adapting to technical progress Council Directive 77/541/EEC relating to safety belts and restraint systems of motor vehicles(1), lays down the technical requirements concerning child restraint systems, in particular removable seats intended for children.

Annex XVII of Directive 2000/3/EC refers explicitly to Regulation 44 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE), as regards the technical requirements necessary to approve child restraint systems. It is worth noting that the Community has acceded to Regulation 44 including the 03 series of amendments, by virtue of Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the Community to

the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions ('Revised 1958 Agreement')(2).

Regulation 44 permits a child seat to be secured to the vehicle by using the safety belts for adult occupants.

In concrete terms, every child restraint system has to be approved according to either Directive 2000/3/EC or Regulation 44 before being allowed to be put on the Community market. The proof of conformity is given by the approval sticker affixed to the seat.

The Commission is participating actively in the works of the Groupe de Rapporteurs sur la Sécurité Passive (GRSP), within the UN/ECE, which is currently setting up technical requirements for a simpler fixing method, called the Isofix system. Once adopted, the Isofix system will ease the fitting of child restrain systems in any vehicle. As soon as the relevant UN/ECE regulations have been amended, the Commission will adopt appropriate measures for the insertion of the new requirements in the Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 53, 25.2.2000.

(2) OJ L 346, 17.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Treatment of fish with water-binding substances to increase their total weight

There have been reports in the German specialist press about a method of processing fish and fish products which misleads consumers. Products are said to be in use in the Netherlands which bind excess water, thus artificially increasing the weight of the final product. These substances, known collectively as Tari, are allegedly used in both fillets and whole fish. The active ingredients are said to be proteins, so that the European ban on the use of phosphates does not apply. The proteins added are not listed on the label of the final product, in violation of the relevant legislation.

The consumer suffers because the 5-15 % weight gain, which is reflected in the price of the product, is entirely lost when the fish is cooked. Furthermore, the consumer is not informed that the substances have been added.

As well as this, the parts of the industry which do not use these unfair methods are affected by the competitive disadvantage they suffer.

1. Is the Commission aware of fish being treated in this way, in the Netherlands or elsewhere?

2. What can be done to prevent this practice, which is prejudicial to the interests of consumers and honest producers alike?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2002)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform her of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Poultry consignments contaminated with dioxins

On 18 January the Belgian authorities discovered a case of poultry fodder contaminated with dioxin, resulting in large quantities of poultry being withdrawn from major supermarket chains which cooperate with similar undertakings in Greece.

1. Does the Commission know whether consignments of contaminated poultry have entered the Greek market?

2. Is it satisfied by the checks carried out by Member States prior to the export of meat and if not what measures does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

According to the information provided by the Belgian authorities to the Commission concerning the contamination of feedingstuffs by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in January 2002, no chickens fed with feedingstuffs contaminated with PCBs have reached the Greek market.

An intensive monitoring system on the presence of PCBs in feedingstuffs and foodstuffs is currently applied in Belgium. As a result of this monitoring, a contamination by PCBs above the Belgian maximum level of 200 microgram per kilogram (µg/kg) fat for PCBs had been observed in feedingstuffs. Given the time needed to perform the analysis and the short production cycle of chickens for fattening (broilers), some of the chickens

fed with the contaminated feedingstuffs had already been slaughtered and marketed when the contamination was detected on 18 January 2002 and when the concerned poultry holdings were identified on 22 January 2002. Samples taken from the remaining slaughtered chickens contained levels of PCBs below the national maximum level of 200 µg/kg fat for poultry meat with the exception of one result (438 µg/kg fat).

Intensive controls at all stages of the food chain are necessary to enable early detection of a contamination, but it has to be acknowledged that when production cycles are short or contamination occurs shortly before consumption of the food, limited quantities of possibly contaminated food may have reached the consumer. As regards dioxins, the Commission is developing guidelines for monitoring at all stages of the food chain, including frequency of sampling.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Commission statements in favour of nuclear power

Of the 15 European Union Member States, seven at present have no nuclear power stations. In some cases (e.g. Italy) this is the result of a referendum. Other Member States, such as Sweden, have also consulted their voters and intend to phase out their nuclear power stations. A similar situation applies in Germany, where, after complex negotiations, the government and the electricity companies have agreed on a timetable for the closure of all nuclear power stations. No reactor is currently being constructed in any EU Member State, while Spain shut down its last operating uranium mine in 2000. For some years now it has been clear from all opinion polls that public opinion in the EU is strongly opposed to nuclear power.

In the light of the above what are the Commission's reasons for its statements in favour of nuclear power?

Does the Commission consider it a reasonable policy to reaffirm support for an energy source which is rejected by European public opinion and by a considerable number of governments in the Union?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0133/02 and E-0187/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2002)

The Commission's position on nuclear energy is outlined in the Green Paper on energy supply(1) from November 2000. The declarations referred to by the Honourable Members as those of any other Member of the Commission are made in this context.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0512/02

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Sport

Sport does not fall within the Community's sphere of competence, but given its close ties with the freedoms inherent in the single market, it is becoming increasingly associated with matters under the first pillar.

Will the Commission provide a detailed list of all measures and actions connected with sport or with sportsmen and women during the current term of office?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2002)

As stated by the Honourable Member, the Treaty does not give the Community any specific competence with regard to sport.

Nevertheless, sport is directly affected by various provisions of the EC Treaty.

Owing to the growing economic dimension of sport, several Community policies, including competition policy and freedom of movement for persons, goods and services, have had a direct impact on the organisation and development of sport. However, sport is also implicated in health and research policies, as well as education, vocational training and youth programmes. During the Commission's current term of office, sport has been addressed by all these policies in different ways. For example, the Commission has taken decisions concerning sport in the context of competition policies, e.g. covering training assistance. In the field of education, a Commission proposal to make 2004 the European Year of Education through Sport is being considered by the Institutions.

The European Council, in its declaration appended to the conclusions of the Nice Council of December 2000(1), also emphasised the need for all Community action to take account of the social, educational and cultural functions inherent in sport and making it special, in order that the code of ethics and the solidarity essential to the preservation of its social role may be respected and nurtured.

(1) Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0133/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2002)

Subject: Statements on nuclear power by Commissioner de Palacio

The statements in support of nuclear power in Europe made yesterday in Madrid by Commissioner Loyola de Palacio have been widely reported in the Spanish media.

Bearing in mind that public opinion in Europe is highly sensitive to the question of the future of nuclear power, and given the valid differences of opinion on this matter and the forceful nature of Mrs de Palacio's remarks, it is vital that the Commission provide some explanations.

Are these statements Mrs Palacio's own opinions or do they reflect the position of the Commission? Does the Commission not think that the Commissioner responsible for energy should exercise greater caution when discussing such matters, not least to avoid confusion between personal opinions and Commission policy? Does it not think that these remarks could jeopardise the debate on the Green Paper on energy?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0133/02 and E-0187/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2002)

The Commission's position on nuclear energy is outlined in the Green Paper on energy supply(1) from November 2000. The declarations referred to by the Honourable Members as those of any other Member of the Commission are made in this context.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0125/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE), Albert Maat (PPE-DE)and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Trade barriers introduced in response to the BSE crisis, particularly in the applicant countries

Since the outbreak of the BSE crisis, many non-member countries, including the applicant states, have introduced trade barriers, for example against the import of breeding cattle and embryos.

1. How many of these trade barriers still exist?

The European Commission's classification of the geographical risks of BSE in the applicant states shows that usually the risk is significant and comparable to that in the EU itself. Cases of BSE have already occurred in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. These countries and Hungary have since started to implement BSE prevention measures, while the other applicant countries are also preparing to take over this part of the Community acquis.

2. Does the Commission not share the view that, in the light of this, the countries that want to join the Union in the near future should remove the trade barriers concerned?

3. If so, what does the Commission intend to do about this situation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

1. The restrictions imposed by third countries in late 2000 and early 2001 due the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis in the Union remain largely intact. In general, these restrictions consist of complete bans for imports from the Union of live cattle, beef and several other products of bovine origin. In many cases, imports of bovine embryos are also banned. The import policies of the applicant countries largely follow a similar line.

2. The Commission is of the opinion that the applicant countries, together with other third countries, should only apply scientifically justified BSE import regimes in line with the World Trade Organisation/Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (WTO/SPS) Agreement. In any case the applicant countries will have to fully comply with the relevant Community legislation by latest on accession.

3. The Commission has frequently addressed the overly restrictive BSE import regimes of third countries, including the applicant countries, during bilateral and multilateral contacts such as in the SPS Committee with the relevant countries, insisting that import restrictions must be science-based and comply with international standards. The Commission will continue to address this issue in future contacts with these countries. In the context of the enlargement negotiations the applicant countries have to commit themselves to align their import requirements with the Community legislation by accession at the latest.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0434/02

by Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Ryanair

Further to the European Commission's announcement that it is investigating Ryanair's operations at Charleroi airport on grounds that the company may be gaining an unfair competitive advantage, could it indicate the stage that this investigation has reached and whether it plans to take any action?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0314/02 and P-0434/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2002)

The Commission can confirm that it is currently examining the agreements signed, at the end of 2001, between the Walloon region, the Charleroi airport management company and the airline Ryanair.

The Commission wishes to make sure that the benefits obtained by Ryanair on setting up in the Walloon region are indeed commercial and that the agreements, a copy of which it received at the end of 2001, do not contain anything likely to contravene the rules of the Treaty on State Aid (Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty).

Examination of these agreements began following the appearance of articles in the press and complaints to the Commission. The next stage of the examination will be to send a letter to the Belgian authorities to ask for additional information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0305/02

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Protection of pedestrians on the public thoroughfares

Having regard to:

- Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU concerning the right of the citizen to protection,

- the dangers and unfavourable conditions affecting non-motorised road users in the European Union (37 % of victims(1)),

- the principle of fair division of use of public thoroughfares in towns, built-up areas, villages and residential areas in general,

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What rule specifically defines the space which must be made available to a pedestrian on public thoroughfares to ensure ease of movement and effective protection against danger directly arising from motorised traffic (space, obstacles, active safety measures)?

- If this rule exists, what administrative/legislative provision requires it to be implemented by the Member States and local authorities?

- What administrative/legislative measure exists to enable citizens to uphold their right to safety from the dangers and inconvenience caused by automobiles?

(1) Eurostat Carine Collin: 44 000 deaths and 1 700 000 injured in 1998. (Section 7, 3/2000 available on http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/FR?catalogue=Eurostat&product=CA-NZ-00-003-_-I-FR&mode=download.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

Road safety is one of the Commission's priorities, as clearly stated in the White Paper on European transport for 2010: time to decide(1). Given the annual death toll of 40 000, 16 % of victims being pedestrians, the White Paper sets the ambitious target of cutting the number of deaths on public roads and thoroughfares by 50 %. It is in this context that the Commission is preparing a road safety programme for the period 2002-2010.

However, the Commission would stress that there is no EU rule specifically defining the space which must be made available to a pedestrian on public thoroughfares, as the principle of subsidiarity applies here.

Citizens may therefore invoke their rights regarding proper space for pedestrians under national, regional or local administrative provisions and laws.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.