ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0536/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Destruction of the environment by gold mining

According to the Initiative Committees which have been set up in provincial capitals in Thrace, a number of companies are planning to mine gold at Sapes in Rodopi and at Perama in Evros. The Initiative Committees claim that mining will damage the environment in that it brings sulphur to the surface which on contact with water forms vitriol and contaminates the ground water. Furthermore, the dust created by the rock-breakers used in extracting the gold is carried by the air and pollutes agricultural produce. The entire operation is obviously a health hazard for the population of Thrace but also creates problems for farmers and fishermen in the region since the ecosystem from which they make a living will be under severe stress.

Is the Commission aware of these plans? How can it intervene to put an end to such projects which threaten such sensitive regions as Thrace, which is a remote area of the Community and, unfortunately, not one of the richest?

Answer given by Ms Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of the plans to prospect for and extract gold in Sapes and Perama, as it has already received complaints on the subject. It has contacted the Greek authorities several times to request information, notably on the situation with regard to the environmental impact study approval procedure.

Regarding the Sapes project, the information received from the Greek authorities shows that a preliminary decision on location was adopted on 10 February 2000, but no environmental impact study has been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. The Greek authorities have confirmed that the provisions of national and Community law will be observed during the authorisation procedure.

Regarding the Perama project, a preliminary decision on location was adopted on 24 March 2000 and an environmental impact study submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. The information received from the Greek authorities indicates that, owing to the complexity of the project, a scientific committee has been set up to assess its effects and decide whether additional studies should be carried out. The Greek authorities have undertaken to inform the Commission when the procedures for assessing the impact study and approving the environmental conditions for the project concerned have been completed.

The Commission will continue to keep a close eye on both projects and, if necessary, will take appropriate measures to ensure that Community environmental legislation is observed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0629/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Data from animal tests and EU chemicals policy

When it draw up the draft directive on chemicals policy, how does the Commission propose to ensure that animal tests for which data already exist do not have to be repeated?

Is the Commission aware of the success of the 120-day public comment period and other measures aimed at reducing the need for animal testing introduced by the US Environmental Protection Agency in the course of the HPV Challenge programme, and does it believe that there are lessons which can be learnt from this?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Following publication of the White Paper on the Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy(1), the Commission consulted extensively with a wide range of stakeholder working groups, which included representatives of animal welfare organisations, Member States and industry, on how best to implement the strategy. One such working group considered the issues related to animal testing and in particular how to avoid unnecessary repeated testing. This group's discussions are being taken into account in the preparation of the new legislation.

Although the working groups consisted of representatives of organisations based in the Union, the Commission wishes to take advantage of all relevant international information. It has therefore approached the American Environmental Protection Agency to ask for further details on its 120-day public comment period. The response will also be considered in the preparation of the new legislation.

Once the Commission has prepared its legislative proposal, it will be submitted to Parliament and Council under the co-decision procedure. The provisions related to animal testing can then be discussed with all stakeholders as an important element of the wider debate on the new legislation.

(1) COM(2001) 88 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0740/02

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

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Côte d'Ivoire

With reference to Côte d'Ivoire, can the Commission say which projects were funded from the EU budget in the 2000 financial year?

Can it also provide details of the total aid provided to the country under all the relevant budget headings in 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0732/02, E-0733/02, E-0734/02, E-0735/02, E-0736/02,E-0737/02, E-0738/02, E-0739/02, E-0740/02 and E-0741/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Banana directives

There are persistent reports in the British press that the European Union is forever delving into every nook and cranny of life through the use of unnecessary directives. Others claim that these reports are Euro-myths. One of the most persistent reports concerns the sale of bananas.

Can the Commission indicate whether it is true that all bananas sold within the European Union must conform to certain standards including degree of curvature and size, and, if so, to specify the relevant directive and the principal requirements that retailers of bananas are required to observe.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on common organisation of the market in bananas(1) states that quality standards shall be laid down for bananas, except plantains, that are to be supplied fresh to the consumer.

The standards themselves are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 laying down quality standards for bananas(2).

They were adopted following wide consultation with the trade, which already applied its own commercial standards.

In the interests of producers, the trade and consumers quality standards exist for many agricultural products.

(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993.

(2) OJ L 245, 20.9.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0741/02

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

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Côte d'Ivoire

With reference to Côte d'Ivoire, can the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for funding from the European Union's budget for 2001 and give the total amount for investment in that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0732/02, E-0733/02, E-0734/02, E-0735/02, E-0736/02,E-0737/02, E-0738/02, E-0739/02, E-0740/02 and E-0741/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Radioactive dumping in the Atlantic Ocean

What assessment of dangers to the marine environment and implications for the fishing industry does the Commission plan to undertake following press revelations in January this year that the UK dumped plutonium contaminated radioactive waste into the Atlantic Ocean off Spain's north west coast in the 1960s and that some boats used for dumping nuclear waste got so lost that the United Kingdom authorities now have no accurate record as to exactly where off the coast some waste was dumped?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

As confirmed in the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0334/02(1) the Commission considered the environmental impact of the past dumping of British nuclear waste in the Atlantic Ocean in the report The radiological exposure of the population of the European Community from radioactivity in North European marine waters, project 'Marína' (Radiation Protection 47, 1990). This report is in the process of being updated and will again address the significance of nuclear waste dumped in the Atlantic Ocean, including the radiological implications of contamination of fish, using all information and data available. The study is expected to be published mid 2002.

(1) See page 120.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1218/02

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Food products containing free gifts

On 16 May 2000, the Commission and representatives of the 15 Member States reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the available information, there was no proven specific risk factor involved in attaching free gifts to food products when wrapped separately, as in the case of chocolate eggs, cereals, etc.

In the meantime, studies in Europe indicate that children of various ages have been injured or even killed in accidents involving these products. ANEC, European Association for the Coordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation has been fighting to ban the mixing of food and non-food products. However, unlike the USA, Australia and Malaysia, no legislation to this effect has yet come into force in the European Union.

What measures does the Commission believe should be taken to prevent the common commercial practice of including inedible objects in food products placed on sale, particularly food products destined for children?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1008/02 and E-1218/02given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Commission has already answered several previous parliamentary questions on the issue raised by the Honourable Member. He is therefore asked to refer to the joint answers given to Written Questions E-0504/02 by Ms Karamanou and E-0548/02 by Mr Alavanos(1), and to Written Questions E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira Da Silva, E-2631/00 by Ms Damião and E-2632/00 by Mr Lage(2).

(1) See page 153.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/02

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Projects submitted by Spain for cofinancing from the Cohesion Fund

What projects have been submitted by the Kingdom of Spain for cofinancing from the Cohesion Fund?

Which of those projects have been approved by the Commission, and which will be realised in the Madrid Autonomous Region?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat the list of projects submitted by Spain and approved in 2001. For the projects adopted between 1994 and 2000, the Commission would request the Honourable Member to refer to the annual reports of the Cohesion Fund, which are available on the website http://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int under Documents.

The following projects on that list will be carried out in the Autonomous Community of Madrid:

- water supply in the Tagus basin;

- drainage and water treatment in the Tagus basin (group 2);

- drainage in the Tagus basin (group 3);

- Pinto methane generation and composting plant;

- selective waste collection in Zarzaquemada (South) and extension of the collection system in Zarzaquemada (North).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0353/02

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Tax changes in connection with cross-border work and services in Germany

From 1 January 2002 a 15 % tax is being charged on payments for building work carried out in Germany for a legal entity under public law or a private person regarded as the employer under the turnover tax law. This tax can only be waived if the builder gives the client a certificate of exemption from the relevant German tax office.

The normal practice of the German tax authorities is to oblige Austrian enterprises that are not based in Germany to go through a cumbersome administrative procedure to apply for a separate exemption for each building project. The extensive additional notification requirements make it considerably more difficult, particularly for SMEs, to carry out their activities in Germany particularly as, under the dual taxation agreement and the official assistance agreement between Austria and Germany, the data required by the German tax authorities could be provided by submitting records that have to be kept in Austria. It is particularly discriminatory that, under normal administrative practice, enterprises subject to profit tax in Germany (i.e. all German building firms) can usually obtain an exemption certificate valid for up to three years and thus have to deal with far less bureaucracy, which gives the German enterprises a competitive advantage.

Does this practice of the German tax authorities infringe EU law, in the light of the comments by the Court of Justice in its judgment in the De Coster case?

Reply given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to its reply to written question E-2875/01 by Ms Plooij-van Gorsel(1) and add the following observations:

- Direct taxes are the responsibility of the Member States, which are required to exercise that responsibility in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

- The purpose here is to combat tax evasion of the type that has occurred in the building industry. The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has received a complaint regarding the legislation in question and is currently examining the dossier. Before the Commission can reply definitively to the question whether proceedings for Treaty infringement should be brought under Article 226 of the EC Treaty further investigations are required, including checks on implementing legislation announced for the Spring.

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 17.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/02

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

(15 March 2002)

Subject: The Comoros

With reference to the Comoros, can the Commission say which projects were funded from the EU budget in the 2000 financial year?

Can it also provide details of the total aid provided to the country under all the relevant budget headings in 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0732/02, E-0733/02, E-0734/02, E-0735/02, E-0736/02,E-0737/02, E-0738/02, E-0739/02, E-0740/02 and E-0741/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0264/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Cases of death, torture and disappearance in Chechnya

Civil and human rights organisations and groups of mothers of Russian soldiers continue to report cases of death, torture and disappearance in Chechnya, in a campaign intensified by the Russian army which, since 11 September 2001, seems to have been authorised to crush the movement for the independence of Chechnya by attacking the civilian population and violating human rights.

What view does the Council take of this behaviour on the part of Russia, a country which considers itself a friend of the EU States?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The EU has taken note with deep concern of reports from the OSCE Assistance Group, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as well as the NGOs Memorial and Medecins sans frontieres. On the basis of these and other reports, the EU has raised the situation of Chechnya at all recent political dialogue meetings with Russia and will continue to do so. This should come as no surprise, since the EU has repeatedly spoken out loud and clear against all violations of human rights as well as against the plight of the civilian population IDPs and refugees in Chechnya. The EU has consistently adopted a principled stand, making clear to Russia that for as long as Chechnya is in turmoil, EU will continue to press hard for change there.

Clearly, the EU condemns all terrorist acts in the strongest terms, it has always been understood that the fight against terrorism and extremism must be conducted within the framework of the rule of law and full respect for human rights. Indiscriminate use of force only threatens to sow a whirlwind to be reaped for many years to come.

The Council believes that there is growing recognition of this in Russia. Indeed, some steps have been taken in the right direction, albeit belatedly and not going far enough. The EU notably welcomed statements by President Putin that members of the Russian armed forces responsible for human rights violations will be tried and sentenced. The EU looks to the Russian authorities to follow this commitment, and to prevent any future human rights violations.

Ultimately, the EU is convinced that only a political solution can solve the Chechen conflict. That is why it is the firm and considered conviction of the Council that engagement is the best path by which the EU may work to improve the situation in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. It is the very fact of the Union's strategic partnership with Russia which allows for full and frank discussion of these issues.

A Troika visit of EU Heads of Mission in Moscow is planned for the coming months. This will be an important chance for the EU to form its own assessment of situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0418/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Livestock export refunds

What was the Commission's total expenditure in 2001 on refunds for the export of livestock to non-Community countries?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0418/02 and E-0420/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The total amount of export refunds paid in 2001 for livestock exports was 44,4 million(1). In recent years subsidies paid for cattle traded for slaughtering were reduced significantly from 60,50/100 kilogram (kg) (in 1999) to 41,00/100 kg (32 %). The export refund for breeding cattle was reduced from 63,00/100kg to 53,00/100 kg (16 %).

Concerning the measures to reduce live animal exports, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-0480/02 by Mr de Rossa(2). (It should be noted that the report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on the welfare of animals during transport was adopted on 11 March 2002.)

(1) Based upon licences requested for Gatt year 2000/2001.

(2) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 220.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0109/02 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council. Euro and ERM II.



Official Journal 229 E , 26/09/2002 P. 0055 - 0055



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0109/02 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council (29 January 2002) Subject: Euro and ERM II If the UK were to decide to join the euro, would it have to participate in ERM II? If so, for what length of time would it have to be a member of ERM II? Reply (25 June 2002) The Council invites the Honourable Member to refer to the reply to question 3180/00, which she had asked on the same subject in 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1121/02

by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Possibility of EU subsidies for student halls of residence

In what way does the European Union subsidise the construction and/or renovation of student halls of residence? Are there, for example, any special subsidies for halls which reserve a certain percentage of rooms for participants in the EU's student mobility programmes (e.g. ERASMUS)?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

The construction and renovation of student halls of residence, which forms part of third level educational building or maintenance programmes, is the responsibility of the Higher Education Institutions themselves and/or National authorities and not of the Commission.

Any assistance which might come from the Commission would be in the context of structural fund support. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and under the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), both the choice of the projects and their implementation fall within the responsibility for the Member States.

The arrangements for reception of university students on Community funded exchange programmes are a matter for the universities' authorities rather than for the Commission. Universities are required to come to prior agreements on such issues before student grants can be made.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1283/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 May 2002)

Subject: Service contracts awarded by Eurostat

1. Can the Commission provide a list of all partners with whom Eurostat concluded contracts for the provision of services in 2000, 2001 and 2002?

2. Can it state how much the various partners were paid in 2000 and 2001?

3. Can it indicate the cases where contracts were awarded to employees or former employees of Eurostat, either directly or indirectly (e.g. to firms in which they hold shares)?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

1. The list of contractors with whom Eurostat concluded contracts for the provision of services in 2000, 2001 and 2002 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

2. The amounts paid to the individual contractors in 2000 and 2001 are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

3. No contracts were awarded to officials currently working in Eurostat. Two study contracts for the purpose of writing the 50-year history of Eurostat were awarded to two retired officials of Eurostat but no remuneration was provided for, merely reimbursement of variable costs payable only on production of supporting documents. Eurostat maintains no register of shareholdings of its current or former officials.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1243/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Information campaign on risks involved in eating honey

In the United States and other countries information campaigns warn consumers of the albeit limited risks to new-born babies which eating honey entails, on account of its botulin content.

The provision of proper consumer information would avoid the spreading of false rumours about the dangerousness of honey by indicating that the problem only applies to a very limited number of cases and that the risk levels are very low.

What is the Commission's position on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

The Commission has been informed about the national measures taken by some non-member countries, and which some Member States plan to take, in order to prevent the risk of botulism in infants as a result of eating honey.

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member regarding the protection of consumers, particularly the most sensitive among them such as babies. This is why the Commission has asked the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures, in the context of public health, to assess this risk as well as any other relevant microbiological risks relating to honey. As soon as this has been done, the Commission will use the findings as the basis for proposing the most suitable measures, such as informing consumers through appropriate product labelling.

Furthermore, in the context of its monitoring of health risks from food, the Commission receives information on a daily basis, especially through the system of rapid alerts. If harmful effects are reported, the Commission can then immediately take provisional risk-management measures in order to ensure or maintain the high level of protection applying in the Community.