ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1733/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 June 2002)

Subject: Greater security over bankcard payments

Despite the constant efforts of banking establishments, bankcard fraud is still on the increase.

At the same time, the number of cardholders increased by 6 % in 2001. It therefore comes as no surprise that over ten years the number of card transactions has almost doubled, reaching a figure of 4,8 billion by 2001.

The system of electronic payment terminals for bankcard transactions in shops uses an advanced technology which reads the microchip data in each card. Cash machines also rely on the microchips in bankcards for security checking the card pin code. However, not all the cards issued by banks in the various Member States bear a microchip

Given the above, and the upsurge in this type of fraud, will the European Commission ensure greater standardisation of bankcard security mechanisms, which would allow European citizens to use this increasingly popular payment method in total security?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The Commission is aware of the increase of bank card fraud and agrees with the Honourable Member that it is essential to introduce chip cards in all Member States in order to reduce counterfeit fraud. In fact, at the moment the main source of payment fraud in the Community is counterfeit cards, accounting for approximately 30 % of the losses. The payment card schemes and the banks are committed to introduce chip cards in all Member States by 2005. The deadline is due to the huge number of cards to be re-issued and of the equipment (terminals, automated teller machines, etc) to be replaced or modified.

To prevent fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash payments, the Commission adopted in February 2001 a three-year Fraud Prevention Action Plan(1). Security improvements are the main priority of the Action Plan, which supports the introduction of the highest economically viable level of security.

The Commission will organise in 2003 a Conference on the security of payments in the Internal Market, with a view to improve information on the security of modern payment products and systems. Discussions on the progress in the migration to chip cards in the Union take place regularly at the meetings of the EU Fraud Prevention Experts Group, the steering group for the implementation of the Fraud Prevention Action Plan.

The E-europe Smart Card Action Plan also provides for initiatives aimed at promoting the use of chip cards for payment applications, which also cover standardisation issues.

(1) Communication from the Commission Preventing fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, COM(2001) 11 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1872/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Fiji

With respect to Fiji, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2272/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Council

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Failure by the Council to reply to priority questions within the set time limits

My priority written question P-0296/02(1) on the role of the Spanish Presidency in the fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva (18 March to 26 April 2002) was sent to the Council on 30 January 2002 and was registered on 5 February 2002. I received a reply to that question on 25 June 2002, by which date the session of the Commission on Human Rights had ended two months previously, and the Spanish Presidency only had five days left to run.

Under Rule 44(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, replies must be given to priority questions within three weeks of their being registered at the Council, which would take us to 26 February 2002 at the latest.

In the Council's joint answer to written questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00(2) dated 10 July 2000, the Council stated that it was not bound by the deadlines set in the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure. Nevertheless, it stressed that with a view to better collaboration with the European Parliament in this area, it had acted swiftly to introduce a series of internal measures enabling it to reply to written questions within two months.

In the case in point, the answer to the priority question which I had tabled came almost five months after it had been registered, at a time when that answer was inapplicable, and therefore of no use, as the fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights had ended and the Spanish Presidency was nearly over.

Is the Council aware of the difficulties that failure to observe the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure create? Will the Council take genuinely effective measures to eliminate these delays, which are more frequent and much longer than is the case with replies from the Commission?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 70.

(2) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 167.

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The Council can only confirm the answer it gave to Questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00. Furthermore, it can assure the Honourable Member that, as far as possible and in accordance with its own internal rules of operation, it always acts in such a way as to ensure that a reply is given as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/02

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Low cost airlines and consumer rights

In light of the increase of complaints from consumers in regard to so-called low cost airlines, would the Commission investigate the operations of these airlines to ensure that all EU consumer rights legislation is being adhered to by this type of airline?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2002)

The Commission attaches great importance to protecting the rights of air passengers and is developing a legal framework to do so. In 2000, it proposed a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents(1), which was adopted this year(2). Late in 2001 it proposed a new Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights(3) (to replace the existing Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport(4)). This is now before the Parliament and the Council for their decision. Finally, earlier this year it published a consultation paper on airlines' contracts with passengers intended to prepare a proposal for legislation next year.

The individual disputes between passengers and airlines are matters for the national courts, which may refer questions requiring interpretation of Community law to the European Court of Justice under Article 234 of the Treaty. However, should there be well documented and compelling evidence that Member States' authorities are not taking the appropriate measures to guarantee that the relevant Community law is correctly implemented and/or enforced, the Commission as the guardian of the Treaty is of course ready to investigate such complaints.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002, OJ L 140, 30.5.2002.

(3) OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

(4) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1996/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Mauritius

With respect to Mauritius, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2430/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Essential oils

Has the Commission considered creating a new industry entitled aromatherapy in which essential oils could be classified in two forms:

1. agricultural products,

2. chemical products?

Agricultural products would be derived from a simple distillation process, whereas chemical products would be altered in their chemical nature and content, and standardised to defined industrial standards.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

For tariff and statistical purposes, goods are generally classified in trade classifications (Harmonised System, Combined Nomenclature (CN)) according to objective criteria such as physical or chemical properties.

Essential oils are of vegetable origin, and obtained by various processes (e.g. expression, distillation, and extraction). They are classified as such in trade classifications (Combined Nomenclature heading 3301: Essential oils (terpeneless or not), ) according to the plants they originate from (e.g. of bergamot, orange, lemon lime, geranium, jasmine, lavender, peppermint, etc.). They are generally of complex composition and contain many chemical substances such as alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, phenols, esters, ethers and terpenes in varying proportions.

Synthetic essential oils are not produced as such. Specific chemical substances obtained by synthesis, that may prove cheaper, are added to essential oils to reinforce their aroma. According to classification rules, these substances are classified according to their chemical structure as Organic chemicals (CN-chapter 29). Therefore the knowledge of the exact composition of these products is necessary in order to classify them properly. Pure substances of well defined structure that have been extracted from essential oils are equally classified as Organic chemicals.

As a conclusion, for systemic reasons a distinction between agricultural (natural) and chemicals (synthetic)-containing essential oils for aromatherapy could prove difficult to implement within trade classifications, and as far as it is known, has never been requested by the industry.

From an industrial point of view, the Community activity classification NACE Revision 1 presently includes class 24.63 Manufacture of essential oils. This class only includes manufacture of extracts of natural aromatic products and excludes manufacture of synthetic aromatic products.

The next revision of NACE will take place in 2007. The revision process has already started, and although so far the Commission has received no proposals for this sector, a proposal send to the Commission will be included in the revision process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1657/02

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Funding of CARDS infrastructure programmes

The five-year strategic programme, CARDS, does not provide for funding for major infrastructure projects owing to a shortage of appropriations. Consequently, funding to strengthen and improve infrastructure, which is essential for the long-term development of south-eastern Europe, is excluded from the Community framework, raising questions as to how it can be financed.

1. What methods of funding major infrastructure projects has the Council provided for south-eastern Europe?

2. Which European Union services and financial organisations does it intend to involve in the funding of infrastructure projects?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

1. Over and above the Community support under the CARDS regulation, investment projects in the candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe are in particular furthered by the global guarantee granted by the Community to the EIB in relation to possible losses under loans for investment projects in these countries. The ceiling for total guaranteed lending in this region was set in November 2001 at EUR 9 280 million until 2007.

2. Furthermore, the EIB has created a pre-accession facility of some EUR 8 500 million applicable until 2003 for non-guaranteed lending for investment projects in the candidate countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1357/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Banking secrecy in the Member States

Banking secrecy has an important role to play in combating both the financing of terrorism and money laundering.

Can the Commission therefore state:

1. In which Member States is banking secrecy laid down by law?

2. In which Member States does it exist on the basis of the bank's general terms of business and of its employees' employment contracts?

3. In which Member States does it not exist?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2002)

Banking secrecy or customer confidentiality, protected via the criminal code, specific legislation or civil law, exists in some form in every Member State.

The anti-money laundering Directive, Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering(1), as amended by Directive 2001/97/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001(2), requires that banking secrecy be suspended when

there is a suspicion of money laundering and that a suspicious transaction report must be made to the competent authorities. Directive 2001/97/EC, which must be implemented by 15 June 2003, widens considerably the range of criminal activity covered by the Community definition of money laundering. When the Directive was adopted, Member States also agreed that all crimes linked to the financing of terrorism constituted serious crimes for the purposes of the Directive.

The (often complex) situation in the individual Member States can be summarised, in necessarily simplified terms, as follows.

Banking secrecy is laid down by law in Denmark, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden.

In Belgium, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the concept of banking secrecy is not set out in specific legislation but is based primarily on the civil law contractual agreement between the bank and customer which obliges the bank to maintain customer confidentiality.

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.

(2) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1880/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Grenada

With respect to Grenada, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2971/02

by Christa Prets (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Directorate-General for Employment and Social Policy

At 18.00 on 12 September 2002 the Austria Press Agency (APA) published an urgent press release entitled EU severely criticises Austria's employment policy. In it the APA refers to the annual Commission audit report concerning the national action plans, which had been provided to the APA on an exclusive basis. On 13 September 2002 I wanted further details and our office made enquiries with the appropriate Commission department but obtained no information, on the grounds that the report will not be published until November. Why is Commission information made available to MEPs after the press?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

The Commission adopted the Draft Joint Employment Report 2002 on 13 November 2002(1). It assesses the progress made by Member States in the implementation of the 2001 Employment Guidelines. On adoption, it was forwarded to the other institutions including the Parliament and made available to the press and the general public.

In the preliminary stages of preparing the Draft Joint Employment Report and its supporting document, the Commission holds bilateral meetings with all Member States in order to ensure that it has its facts right. This year's meeting with Austria took place on 13 September 2002. Shortly before the meeting the preliminary draft of the supporting document was, as usual, sent to the Austrian Ministry of Labour and Economic Affairs.

It is not the Commission's policy to make draft proposals available to the press before adoption and transmission to the other European institutions. According to the Framework Agreement, the Commission does not make public any legislative initiative or significant initiative or decision before notifying the Parliament. According to the provisions of the Framework Agreement, it is therefore the Commission's practice to inform the Parliament immediately after its weekly Commission meeting of the most outstanding decisions taken by the College.

(1) COM(2002) 621final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2008/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Nigeria

With respect to Nigeria, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1982/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Food safety as a barrier to trade with Romania

Since March 2002, various Dutch consignments of good-quality fruit and vegetables have been stopped at the Romanian border on the ground that the exporters have not had the proper papers. Evidently, various EU directives on quality standards, plant health measures and food safety requirements are not being correctly interpreted by the Romanian authorities, thus hampering the export of fruit and vegetables. This technical barrier to trade still exists, the loss now amounting to EUR 2 million.

1. Is the Commission acquainted with the problems encountered by exporters from the Netherlands when exporting fruit and vegetables to Romania?

2. What action has the Commission taken to prompt the Romanian authorities to remove this technical trade barrier?

Answer given by Mr. Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problems encountered by Member State exporters as a result of a new Romanian Order regarding the security and quality conditions for fresh fruit and vegetables for human consumption. It is the the Commission's view that the requirements of the order are excessive.

The Commission has made formal and informal contacts with the competent Romanian authorities, in particular the Romanian Minister for Agriculture. The Commission has made it clear that measures introduced must not be a barrier to legitimate trade and is pressing for the order to be repealed or brought into line with Community norms.

The Commission will continue and intensify its actions as long as excessive measures remain in place, as non-tariff trade barriers go counter to the provisions of the Europe Agreement, signed between the Community and its Member States of the one part, and Romania of the other part.

The Commission will also provide assistance to the Romanian authorities in the drafting of new legislation in the framework of Romania's preparations for accession to the Union.