ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1312/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Freedom of information in Italy and Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union reads:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

Can the Commission state whether Italy's national law No 62 of 7 March 2001: New rules on publishing and on publishing products and amendments to Law No 416 of 5 August 1981, published in Italy's Official Journal (Gazzetta Ufficiale) No 67 of 21 March 2001, is not in open breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The Commission does not have sufficient facts at its disposal to answer the question put by the Honourable Member. It has approached the Italian authorities with a view to obtaining additional information and ascertaining the content of the provisions in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1834/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 2001)

Subject: Toxic substances in ship paint

Recent analyses carried out by Greenpeace in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki have given readings for TBT (a toxic substance contained in antifouling paints) in excess of the limits proposed by international conventions.

In view of the high toxicity of this particular substance, the German Government had asked the Commission to draw up a uniform European policy to restrict the use of TBT. Since that was not forthcoming within the time limits set by Germany, however, the German Government decided in January 2001 to ban the use of TBT through national legislation. From 1 January 2003, therefore, TBT-based paints will no longer be available in Germany.

As the use of TBT in Greece and the other Member States is prohibited only on vessels shorter than 25 m and on installations or equipment which are completely or partly below water, will the Commission issue a general ban on that substance in view of the fact that less toxic substitutes are also available?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

The Member States which are Party to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) are currently negotiating, together with the Commission, an international Convention on harmful anti-fouling systems, including tributyltin (TBT). In 1999, in the framework of the discussions on Commission Directive 1999/51/EC of 26 May 1999 adapting to technical progress for the fifth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximations of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (tin, PCP and cadmium)(1), the Member States and the Commission agreed to await the results of the decision of IMO, to ban TBT globally before introducing a ban at Community level.

The Commission is fully supportive of a global ban by 1 January 2003 on the application of organotin compounds which act as biocides in antifouling systems on ships as proposed by the Maríne Environment Protection Committee of the IMO. As negotiations stand, the future Convention to be considered in an IMO Diplomatic Conference in October 2001, will probably call for a general ban on TBT which takes effect on the proposed date.

Following the Diplomatic Conference, the Commission will immediately prepare a Commission Directive adapting Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations(2) to technical progress. Such a Directive would follow the Committee procedure and could be completed in three to six months. This would leave sufficient time before 1 January 2003 for the Member States to transpose the provisions into national law.

(1) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1798/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Investigation concerning the TUI/Neckermann/T-Online (Internet Dutch Telecom) joint venture

It is no secret that the Commission is investigating the joint venture which has been set up by the two German holiday companies (TUI and Neckermann) and the company T-Online (a subsidiary of Internet Dutch Telecom) for the purpose of selling package tours via the Internet.

In view of the significance of TUI and Neckermann to the European tourist industry (particularly in Germany and Spain), could the Commission provide information regarding the current state of its negotiations and the impact which the activities of the new company are having?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

The concentration was notified to the Commission on 19 March 2001. It concerned the proposed creation of a jointly-controlled online-travel agency by T-Online International AG (T-Online) and the German tour operators TUI Group GmbH (TUI) and C & N Touristic AG (C & N).

The Commission opened a second phase investigation on 8 May 2001 primarily based on concerns that the vertical combination of T-Online's high market shares in the internet services provider (ISP) and internet portal markets with TUI/C & N's strong positions in the package holiday market would result in Newco becoming dominant in the German online-travel agency market.

The notification was withdrawn on 5 June 2001. T-Online intends instead to create a sole-controlled online-travel agency, in which TUI and C & N will each acquire a 12,45 % non-controlling stake. This operation will thus not constitute a concentration under the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(1)). It will, however, be subject to scrutiny under Articles 81 and 82 (ex Articles 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty and the equivalent provisions under German competition law.

(1) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0569/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Trade

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Trade provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0224/01

by Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Economy class syndrome

There have been frequent media reports concerning what is known as economy class syndrome. Yet it would seem that there are far more deaths from this syndrome than the media reports would suggest.

The syndrome consists of the formation of blood clots in the legs or hips during flights longer than two hours. Because passengers are immobile, these clots can reach the brain and cause death.

In view of the importance of this issue and the possibility of taking preventive measures to reduce the risk, will the Council say whether it plans to take any action to ensure that European airlines take preventive measures to reduce the health risk to travellers posed by economy class syndrome?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

The Council has not received any proposal from the Commission regarding this subject but, upon receipt, will give it its utmost consideration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Annual quantities of depleted uranium imported into and exported from EU Member States

Will the Commission publish a table of the annual quantities of depleted uranium respectively imported into and exported from EU Member States for each year since 1991?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2001)

Since 1988, the Commission (the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat)) has collected and published statistics on extra- and intra-Community trade. The information sources for these statistics are customs declarations for the extra-Community data and Intrastat declarations for intra-Community data. Data on trade in depleted uranium is collected on the basis of the products defined in the following subheadings of the combined nomenclature:

Subheading 2844.30-11:

- Cermets containing uranium depleted in U 235 or compounds of this product.

Subheading 2844.30-19:

- Uranium depleted into U 235; alloys, dispersions, ceramic products and mixtures containing uranium depleted in U 235 or compounds of this product (excluding cermets).

Subheading 2844.30-91:

- Compounds of uranium depleted in U 235 or of thorium, whether or not mixed together (Euratom) other than thorium salts.

Individual figures for uranium depleted in U 235 are not available.

Note: For certain Member States, trade in products coming under subheadings 2844.30-19 and 2844.30-91 is confidential and therefore not published.

By way of example, figures on the above-mentioned products have been supplied in an annex that has been sent to the Honourable Member directly as well as to the Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1983/01

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Implementation of environment legislation

The European Commission rightly places a strong emphasis on the importance of sound implementation of environmental legislation. Environmental legislation is often highly technical and complicated.

1. Is the Environment DG sufficiently staffed closely to monitor implementation of European environmental legislation and where necessary to take action against Member States that continue to be in breach of it?

2. How often does it happen in the Environment DG that infringement proceedings against a Member State are prepared by an official who is paid by that same Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

One of the duties of the Commission, pursuant to Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, is to ensure the correct application of the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto. Implementation of Community environment law is therefore one of the main priorities of the Commission.

In the Environment Directorate General, the number of new complaints concerning alleged instances of non- compliance with Community environment legislation has increased steadily over the past few years. 162 new complaints were registered in 1996 while 534 new complaints were lodged with the Commission in 2000.

On 25 July 2001 the total number of on-going investigations concerning instances of non-respect of Community environment law, was 1161, representing 34 % of all Commission's total open cases.

Over the same period the unit responsible for monitoring implementation of Community environmental legislation has received a significant staff reinforcement (both through internal redeployment of existing human resources and new posts) equivalent to just under 20 %. However, this reinforcement has not kept pace with the increasing workload and the unit remains a priority area for additional resources should they become available as requested by the Commission in the 2002 preliminary draft budget.

In the preparatory phase, the Commission makes full use of the expertise made available by the administrations of Member States in the form of seconded national experts. However, the supervision of the implementation of the Commission's duties pursuant to Article 211 of the EC Treaty, and in particular, the preparation and implementation of Commission's decisions in the context of the infringement proceedings set out in Articles 226 (ex Article 169) and 228 (ex Article 171) of the EC Treaty is managed by the Commission's own staff.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/01

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Situation of Spanish pensioners who were previously employed in Gibraltar

For some time now the UK authorities have seriously discriminated against Spanish pensioners who were previously employed in Gibraltar.

Since 1990 approximately 10 000 Spanish citizens have been denied the statutory contractual pension increases received by their former colleagues who still live in Gibraltar.

This state of affairs has become even more deplorable and incomprehensible since the proclamation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Since this issue clearly constitutes a breach of the spirit and the letter of the Treaties, what action has the Commission taken (or is it intending to take) vis-à-vis the UK authorities with a view to urgently rectifying a state of affairs which is incompatible with the European social model?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1962/01, E-1979/01 and E-2033/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Honourable Member wishes to know the Commission's position regarding the problems encountered by numerous pensioners who formerly worked in Gibraltar, who complain that their pensions have not been increased since 1990 or subject to any periodic adjustment.

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it is in the process of examining the problem in question with regard to Community law, and in particular the principle of equality of treatment provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1) and Article 10, which waives residence clauses for the payment and calculation of pensions.

In order to be in a position to examine the complaint, the Commission has asked the British authorities to provide detailed information on the pensions adjustment scheme in Gibraltar and to give their opinion on its compatibility with Community law.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of any further action taken on the matter.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, 5.7.1971) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972, fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ L 74, 27.3.1972) (updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Rules on the use of water scooters and guaranteeing bathers' safety

The use of water scooters on Spanish beaches and along the coast this summer has resulted in a number of serious accidents, involving several fatalities and quite a number of injuries.

Public opinion is understandably alarmed, since there are serious doubts as to whether any national legislation fully and effectively guarantees the safety of both users and bathers. Moreover, the renting and use of water scooters is common practice throughout the Union, particularly in countries where there is large-scale summer seaside tourism. Does any relevant Community legislation on these vehicles exist?

If so, how is it applied?

If not, does the Commission intend to develop such legislation as a matter of urgency, with a view to its introduction before next year's tourist season, so as to avoid a repetition of what happened this summer, and guarantee the safety of all those enjoying seaside holidays?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

The use of jet-skis in the Community is regulated by national legislation. There is no Community legislation in this area and there are no plans to introduce Community measures in relation to the conditions of such use.

As regards rules for the construction of this type of craft, in October 2000 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council modifying Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft(1). This proposal is currently under discussion in the Parliament and the Council. It seeks to lay down essential safety requirements for the construction of jet-skis, as well as exhaust and noise emission requirements for all recreational marine engines, including the engines on jet-skis. The purpose of this proposal is to enhance the effective operation of the internal market while ensuring a high level of environmental and safety standards.

(1) OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1810/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Ban on goods made from dog and cat fur

I understand that the US government has recently introduced a domestic ban on the sale of goods made from dog and cat fur.

In the light of this development, is the Commission planning to come forward with proposals for an EU-wide ban on the marketing of products made from dogs and cats and the export from the Union of such goods?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The United States (US) bill HR 4868 pertaining to prohibition on importation and other trade in products made with cat and dog furs entered into force on 9 November 2000. It aims to impose a ban on the sale, manufacture, offer for sale, transportation and distribution of cat and dog fur products, regardless of their source (the only exception applies to import, export and transportation for non-commercial purposes of a personal pet deceased, including a pet preserved through taxidermy). It is a domestic ban with an external trade dimension.

On the question whether the Commission plans to come forward with proposals for a Community-wide ban, it should be recalled that trade policy is only an outward projection of the internal policy of the Community. Given that the principle of subsidiarity should apply on such sensitive policy matters, within the limits set by the EC Treaty with regard to the free movement of goods and that no Member State has adopted legislation to prohibit the sale, manufacture, transportation and distribution of cat and dog furs within its own territory, the Commission does not believe that the issue of sale of cat and dog furs warrants any legislative initiative in the Community at this stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1778/01

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Opening of a casino at the Zelezna Ruda railway station

The frontier railway station at Eisenstein is partly on German territory (Bavarian Eisenstein) and partly on Czech territory (Zelezna Ruda). The German section houses the Bavarian-Bohemian Information Centre For Nature Reserves And National Parks. The Information Centre was established with the aid of funds from Interreg III. The Czech section of the station was restored with the aid of a considerable amount of funding from PHARE-CBC. The association Green Heart of Europe has also set up a centre there. According to our information, a casino is now to be set up in the Czech section of the station.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it true that a casino is to be set up in the Czech section of the station?

2. If so, is setting up a casino consistent with the provisions of the PHARE-CBC programme and what form do those provisions take?

3. If setting up a casino is not consistent with the provisions of the PHARE-CBC programme, what practical measures must be taken to prevent it?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The project Reconstruction of the railway station building in elezná Ruda Albìtín was included in the PHARE Cross-border-cooperation (CBC) Programme CZ 9604.

The Commission is not aware that a casino is to be set up in the Czech section of the station. If such a proposal were to be made, it would raise the case with the Ministry responsible for implementation of the PHARE CBC Programme CZ 9604, i.e. the Ministry for Regional Development, since the targets established in the project fiche, according to which the project was financed must be maintained as agreed during the signature of the Financing Memorandum.

The project fiche specifies the services and amenities to be provided in the re-constructed building. These include amenities for travellers, i.e. a restaurant, buffet, waiting room and left-luggage room. Any changes would have to be approved by the Commission. The Commission would not approve the addition of a casino to services and amenities to be provided.

According to information provided by the Implementing Agency of the Ministry for Regional Development, after the completion of the construction and handing over of the building to the beneficiary, Czech Railways, the beneficiary, launched a public tender to establish and manage the restaurant. The company that won the tender is called Ingo Casino. This may explain a possible misunderstanding regarding the use of the re-constructed building. In any case, the beneficiary will be informed of the need to adhere to the agreed terms, above. If they were not adhered to, the return of the funds provided through the PHARE programme would be requested.