ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1556/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Proceedings launched under Articles 85 and 226 of the Treaty establishing the European Community in respect of Italian companies and the Italian Government

In the light of its reply to Written Question P-0770/03(1),

given that under Article 85 of the EC Treaty the Commission, on application by a Member State or on its own initiative, and in cooperation with the competent authorities in the Member States, who shall give it their assistance, () shall investigate cases of suspected infringement, and

since Article 226 of the EC Treaty states that if the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations,

would the Commission answer the following questions:

- has it launched proceedings, under Article 85 of the EC Treaty and during the current parliamentary term, relating to suspected infringements on the part of Italian companies? What are the suspected infringements and how many cases are involved? Were the proceedings initiated on application by a Member State or on the Commission's own initiative? Which proceedings are still open?

- during the current parliamentary term, what proceedings has the Commission launched under Article 226 of the EC Treaty in respect of suspected infringements by the Italian Government of the obligations laid down in the Treaty, and how many cases are involved? Which of those proceedings have been closed, which of them have led to a request for Italy to submit its observations and which of them have led to the issue of a reasoned opinion?

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 79.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

During the current parliamentary term the Commission has not launched any proceedings under Article 85 of the EC Treaty, with regard to Italian companies, nor are there any pending proceedings. Article 85 has been to a large extent out of use since the adoption of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. With regard to investigations under Regulation 17, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its annual reports on the application of the competition rules in the European Union for 1999, 2000 and 2001. These reports are accessible via internet under http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/annual_reports/.

With regard to infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the annual reports to Parliament on monitoring the application of Community law relating to 1999(1), 2000(2) and 2001(3).

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2001.

(2) OJ C 263, 19.9.2001.

(3) OJ C 214, 10.9.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1967/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Irish Government's waste prevention and waste recovery policies

On page 7 of its report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-2000(1) published on 19 May 2003, the Commission says that it is considering initiating procedures under Article 226 of the Treaty against Member States where significant deficiencies remain in the reports submitted by Member States.

Article 3(1) of the 1975 Waste Directive (Dir 75/442/EEC(2)), and the Community Waste Management Strategy, commit Member States to taking measures to encourage waste prevention and waste recovery.

On page 15 of its report on the 1998-2000 period, the Commission states that Ireland did not report on the state of its implementation of Article 3(1) and merely referred back to its report for the 1995-1997 period.

The Commission concluded that, from the information provided by all Member States, it remains unclear whether and to how much waste has been prevented within the European Union over the 1998-2000 period (p. 15).

What is the Commission's view of Ireland's failure to report on its efforts to encourage waste prevention and waste recovery during this period? Does this constitute one of the significant deficiencies in respect of which it is considering initiating legal procedures?

(1) COM(2003) 250 final.

(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1965/03, E-1966/03, E-1967/03 and E-1968/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

All four written questions of the Honourable Member refer to items as presented in the Commission's report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-2000(1) and they are therefore considered together.

As stated in the introduction to the aforementioned report, the latter is drawn up on the basis of the replies of the Member States to questionnaires established to this effect. These replies may reasonably vary in detail from one Member State to another and often contain only an update of the situation as compared to the previous reporting period. When important information is lacking, preventing the Commission from properly fulfilling its reporting duties, this may suggest a breach of the reporting obligations of a Member State. In this context however, the cases pointed out by the Honourable Member cannot be considered as justifying the initiation of infringement proceedings.

Regarding in particular question E-1968/03 on the treatment of hazardous waste in Ireland, the comment stating that the total figure of hazardous waste reported accounts for approximately 97 % of the actual, was made by the Irish authorities in their reply to the questionnaire and only referred to hazardous waste treated outside Ireland. The information provided does not specify how the remaining 3 % was treated.

(1) COM(2003) 250 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1177/03

by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Council

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Telephone tapping at Council headquarters

On 19 March 2003, the head of the Council's press service, Mr Dominique Marreau, stated at a press conference that on 28 February 2003 his institution's security services had discovered that a number of delegations those of Spain, Germany, France, Italy, the UK and Austria had been subject to illegal telephone tapping at Council headquarters in Brussels. The Council's security services had apparently found that a number of lines at the Justus Lipsius building had been bugged.

These extremely disturbing revelations suggest that similar illegal telephone tapping may have been happening, or may be happening now, at other Community institutions.

Has the Council identified the origin of this illegal tapping? If not, what action has it taken to do so?

Is the Council aware of any similar cases at any other Community institution?

What measures will be taken to prevent similar occurrences in the near future?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1177/03 and E-1488/03

(2 October 2003)

There is little the Council can add to the press statement on this subject issued on 19 March 2003 since the matter is now sub judice.

The following clarifications are given in response to the specific points raised by the Honorable member:

1. The Council has not yet been able to determine who was responsible for installing the electronic devices linked to the certain telephone lines which were discovered in the Justus Lipsius Building on 28 February 2003.

2. Following a countermeasures operation and a preliminary internal investigation, the Council decided on 14 April to bring an action for criminal proceedings to be taken against person or persons unknown on the basis of the Belgian penal code. The Council will give full assistance to the Belgian judicial authorities in conducting their investigation.

3. Since this is now the subject of a formal criminal investigation, it will be up to the courts to determine the penalties to be applied to persons found guilty.

4. The Council is not aware of similar discoveries in other EU institutions in the past.

5. and 6. The Council has already put in place measures to prevent similar situations in future. The Honorable member will understand, however, that it would be inappropriate for the Council to comment publicly on these or any other security measures taken to protect classified or sensitive information handled in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1969/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Implementation of the Fixed-Term Contract Work Directive in Ireland

In late 2002, the Commission sent the Irish Government a reasoned opinion concerning its failure to implement Directive 1999/70/EEC(1), which protects the rights of fixed-term contract workers, by the agreed date of July 2002.

What response has the Commission received to this reasoned opinion, and what action is it now proposing to take to ensure that the Irish Government lives up to its obligation to safeguard the rights of tens of thousands of fixed-term contract workers in Ireland?

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission did not receive any information that the Directive had been transposed, an application to start legal proceedings was sent to the Court of Justice at the end of January 2003. The court proceedings now run their course.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1911/03

by Johannes Blokland (EDD)and Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject: Possible effects on competition policy of the Court of Justice's judgments in cases C-469/00 and C-108/01

On 20 May 2003 the Court delivered its judgments in cases C-469/00 and C-108/01, both of which concerned the application and implementation of provisions on protected designations of origin (PDO) for foodstuffs, namely Grana Padano cheese and Prosciutto di Parma ham.

Is the Commission aware of the substance of these judgments?

Does the Commission share the view that the product dossiers on which the Court's judgments were based authorise such extensive protection measures that there are justifiable fears that they will not contribute to the effective operation of the internal market?

Is the Commission prepared to evaluate the potential effects on the internal market of provisions in PDO product dossiers and to review such provisions and dossiers if they have disproportionately negative effects on the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the two judgments that the Court of Justice handed down on 20 May 2003 in cases C-108/01 and C-469/00, respectively concerning the protected designations of origin Prosciutto di Parma and Grana Padano.

The Commission agrees with the Court of Justice's analysis that the measures contained in the specifications requiring certain operations such as grating, slicing and packaging of the products to be undertaken in the geographical area of production, are measures whose effect is equivalent to a quantity restriction (which is banned by the principle of the free movement of goods) but they benefit from one of the derogations provided for in the EC Treaty in that they are justified on the grounds of protecting industrial and commercial property, in this case, designations of origin. The measures in question are balanced and needed to protect the respective PDOs.

The PDOs, as industrial and commercial property rights, must be protected against abusive use of the designations by third parties wishing to profit from the reputation they have acquired. The measures are balanced and needed to preserve the quality features and characteristics of the products, thus protecting the reputation of the designations of origin involved.

When examining each application for registration the Commission is especially careful to ensure that certain provisions in the specifications regarding packaging, for example are in fact balanced and needed to protect the designation. This analysis ensures that abuses do not arise that would hamper the free circulation of goods.

The Commission has not noticed disproportionate effects on the internal market. As for the request to review the provisions of PDO specifications, the Commission has powers to do so only when it has received a request from the Member State concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1284/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(4 April 2003)

Subject: European Union action to ensure civil and respectful treatment for prisoners of war in Iraq

Right from the outset of the war in Iraq we have seen disturbing images of the inhuman treatment to which prisoners from the Anglo-American alliance are being subjected. The conduct of the Iraqi authorities manifestly contravenes the provisions of the Geneva Convention as regards respect for prisoners of war. It may very soon be that EU citizens are prisoners of war of the Iraqi authorities too.

What action will the Council take in this regard?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

1. The Council is strongly attached to the full respect of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war by all parties to a conflict, in particular as regards the general protection of prisoners of war under part II of the Geneva Convention, and especially its Article 13, which provides inter alia that prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated, and that prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

2. Regarding the last element of the question, as the war in Iraq has ended with the Iraqi regime's defeat and the liberation of all prisoners held by Iraqi forces, no more particular action to ensure the protection of prisoners of war in captivity by the Iraqis is required.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1386/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Statistics for immigration and asylum

Can the Council please provide statistics or comparable figures of actual expenditure incurred by the Immigration and Asylum Departments or Directorates or Interior Ministries of the Member States in relation to their asylum, immigration and citizenship programmes in the last available financial year.

(Explanatory note: programmes refers to all the costs pertaining to welfare, accommodation and/or processing of applications.)

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member.
(2004/C58E/137) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2012/03
byGlynFord(PSE)totheCommission
(17June2003)
Subject:Secondmentofstaff
CouldtheCommissionindicatethenumberofstaffithasonsecondmenttoinstitutionsandorganisations
to which it gives subsidies? Could the Commissionalsoprovide a list ofinstitutions where staff are
currentlyonsecondmentandindicatewhatstepsarebeingtakentoensurethattherelationshipisnot
abused?
AnswergivenbyMrKinnockonbehalfoftheCommission
(22September2003)
Tableswiththenumberofstaffonsecondmenttoinstitutionsandorganisationsandtheamountofgrants
that was committed for those of them to whom it was applicable in 2002 are sent directly to theHonourableMemberandtotheSecretariatoftheParliament.
Thesefiguresclearlydemonstratethattherelationshipisnotabused.Inrelationtosecondmentsinthe
interestoftheservice,theHonourableMemberwillnoticethatinthevastmajorityofcases,onlyoneCommissionofficialissecondedperhostinstitution/organisation,asituationwhichisinkeepingwiththeinterestsoftheCommission.
Inrelationtosecondmentsattherequestoftheofficialconcerned,itshouldbeborneinmindthatthe
relevant officials are fully paid by the host institution/organisation so that any net impact on theCommission(and,therefore,theUnion)budgetiseithermarginalornon-existent.
(2004/C58E/138) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2014/03
byRobertGoebbels(PSE)totheCommission
(17June2003)
Subject:DistortionofcompetitionwithregardtoCO 2emissionrights
Thepoliticalagreementonthetradingofgreenhousegasemissionrightsprovidesforatradingsystemto
comeintoeffectin2005.Initially,itwillcoverCO 2emissionsfromlargeindustrialandenergyplants.
However, because implementing procedures vary from sector to sector and from undertaking toundertakingwithinoneandthesamecountryaswellasfromcountrytocountry,theimplementationoftheEuropeanDirectivemaywellresultindistortionsofcompetitionwithintheEuropeanUnion.Whatismore,theimplementationthereofmaywellpenaliseEuropeanindustryvis-à-visindustryinotherpartsoftheworld,especiallytheUnitedStatesofAmerica,whichhasnotsigneduptotheKyotoProtocol.Thecaseoftheironandsteelindustryisparticularlystrikingifweconsiderthataninconsistentapplicationoftrading quotas may entail a sale price increase of up to 15%. It is self-evident that that sector’scompetitivenessonexternalmarketswouldbeseriouslyjeopardised.
HastheCommissiongivenanythoughttothepossibilityofanironandsteelgroupretainingtheemission
rightsrelatingtositeswhicharenolongeroperationalandwhichmaybetransferredtoothersites?
DoestheCommissionintendtotakeaccountoftherecoveryofblast-furnacegasessoldbyironandsteel
groupstotheelectricitysectors?
How does the Commission intend to protect the iron and steel industry in Europe from foreign
competitorswhodonothavetobearsuchadditionalcosts?6.3.2004EN C58E/121 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/166) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2284/03
byElspethAttwooll(ELDR)totheCommission
(9July2003)
Subject:Environmentalstandardsinaquaculture
DoestheCommissionintendtoproposeminimumenvironmentalstandardsforaquacultureintheEU?
Ifso,willthisbeaccompaniedbymeasurestoensurethatsuchrequirementsdonotplaceEUfishfarmersatacompetitivedisadvantagevis-à-visfishfarmersfromthirdcountries?
AnswergivenbyMrsWallströmonbehalfoftheCommission
(10September2003)
Aquacultureisalreadysubjecttoanumberofenvironmentalstandardsderivedfromtheapplicationof
generalenvironmentallaw.Forexample,theWaterFrameworkDirective(
1)providesageneralframework
fortheprotectionofinlandsurfacewaters,transitionalwaters,coastalwaterswhichisalsoapplicabletofishfarmslocatedinthesewaters.
Furthertotheseconditions,andasindicatedintheCommission’sCommunicationregarding‘Astrategyfor
thesustainabledevelopmentofaquaculture’(
2),theCommissionwillexaminewhethertoincludeintensive
fishfarmingintothescopeoftheIPPCDirective(3).Ifso,thiswillrequirethesettingofpermitconditions
forfishfarmsonthebasisofbestavailabletechniques(BAT).AproposaltoextendthescopeoftheIPPCDirectivewouldbesubjecttoanimpactassessmentaddressing,interalia,potentialcompetitivityconcerns.
Inaddition,andwithaviewtopreventingaccidentalintroductionsofnon-indigenousaquaticspecies,the
Commissionwillproposemanagementrulesthatareconsistentwiththe1995InternationalCouncilfortheExplorationoftheSea(ICES)CodeofPracticeontheIntroductionandTransferofMaríneOrganisms.
Asfarasaccompanyingmeasuresareconcerned,theFinancialInstrumentforFisheriesGuidance(FIFG)
establishedbyRegulation2792/1999(
4)foresees(AnnexIII,2.2(d))atreatmentoffavourforinvestments
thatreduceenvironmentalimpactbyreducingtherequiredcontributionofprivatebeneficiariesto30%of
eligibleexpenditureinObjective1regionsand50%inotherareas,insteadof40%and60%respectively.
(1) Directive 2000/60/ECoftheParliamentandoftheCouncilof23October2000establishingaframeworkfor
Communityactioninthefieldofwaterpolicy,OJL327,22.12.2000.
(2) COM(2002)511final.
(3) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control,
OJL257,10.10.1996.
(4) CouncilRegulation(EC)No2792/1999of17December1999layingdownthedetailedrulesandarrangements
regardingCommunitystructuralassistanceinthefisheriessector,OJL337,30.12.1999.
(2004/C58E/167) WRITTENQUESTIONP-2285/03
byCarlosBautistaOjeda(Verts/ALE)totheCommission
(7July2003)
Subject:CounterproductivecampaignbytheMálagamunicipalauthority
Acampaigntoraisepublicawarenessastotheneedtorecyclehouseholdwaste,unveiledinearlyMarch
2003bytheenvironmentalservicesunitoftheMálagamunicipalauthority,hasprovokedfiercecriticismfromenvironmentalandconservationistgroups.Thesloganchosenforthecampaignis:‘Re-useisathingofthepast.Recyclingisthefuture’.C58E/154 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/024) WRITTENQUESTIONE-0665/03
byCristianaMuscardini(UEN)totheCommission
(6March2003)
Subject:Banksandtheircustomers
Italiansareprotestingmoreandmorefrequentlyaboutthetreatmenttheyreceivefromtheirbanks/dash
excessively high costs,lackoftransparency, growing inefficiency, obstructiveprocedures forclosinga
currentaccountandlittlescopeforcompetition,hamperedbycostlybureaucraticprocedureswhichdo
notmakethingseasyforcustomerswhowanttochangebanks.Alonglistofcharges,commissionrates,indirect costsandaccounting‘innovations’squeeze disproportionatelylargeamountsofmoneyoutofcustomers.Thecurrentstock-marketcrisis,combinedwiththeunprofessionalattitudeofmanyemployees,hashelpedtofleeceusersofbankservicesevenmoreandmadethemfeelmoreinsecureabouttheirsavings.
CantheCommissionsay:
1. whetheritisawareofthesituation;
2. whetheritdoesnotconsiderthatallbureaucraticandadministrativeobstaclestocompetitioninthe
bankingsectorshouldberemoved;
3. whatstagehasbeenreachedinestablishingasinglemarketinthesector;
4. whetherdiscountrulesandcostsinthevariousUnioncountrieshavebeenharmonised;5. whatpowersithastosafeguardthebenefitsofsaving?
AnswergivenbyMrBolkesteinonbehalfoftheCommission
(8April2003)
Asregardscompletionofthesinglemarketinbanking,alargenumberofdirectiveshavebeenadopted
since1973withaviewtoabolishingrestrictionsonthefreedomofmovementandfreedomtoprovideservicesofbanksandotherfinancialinstitutions.ThosedirectiveswerecoordinatedbyParliamentandCouncilDirective2000/12/CEof20March2000relatingtothetakingupandpursuitofthebusinessofcreditinstitutions(
1).Theyaredesigned,amongotherthings,toensuretheprotectionofsavingsandthe
stabilityofthebankingsystemandtopromotecompetitionbetweencreditinstitutionsintheUnion.
TheHonourableMember’squestiononthedegreeofharmonisationwithintheEUofthe‘rulesandcosts’
relatingtobankingtransactionsisverywide-ranging.Strictlyspeaking,actualbankchargeshavenotbeenharmonised.
However,itmustbepointedoutthat,withtheDirectiveof27January1997(
2),theUnionputanendto
double charging for cross-border transfers within the Community. In addition, a 2001 Regulation(3)
providedforchargesforcross-borderpaymentswithintheCommunity(bycardorbywayofwithdrawals)tobealignedonthosefordomesticpaymentswitheffectfrom1July2002.Thismovewillbeextendedtotransfersasof1July2003.
Atfirstsight,itwouldseemthattheother,moregeneralconcernsexpressedbytheHonourableMember
donotstrictlyrelatetoCommunitylawandmightfalldirectlywithintheremitoftheItalianauthorities.Theywouldthoughnecessitateamoredetailedanalysisforwhichmorepreciseinformationwouldbeneeded.Accordingly,theCommissionwouldasktheHonourableMembertoclarifytheexactnatureofthecostsandobstaclesobjectedto.
(1) OJL126,26.5.2000,p.1.
(2) ParliamentandCouncilDirective97/5/EConcross-bordertransfers,OJL43,14.2.1997,p.25.
(3) ParliamentandCouncilRegulation(EC)2560/2001of19December2001oncross-borderpaymentsineuros,
OJL344,28.12.2001.C58E/22 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion