ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3352/01

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for stock farming

In Sweden, and presumably in other countries, there have been cases in which stock farmers have applied for and been granted EU subsidies and subsequently have not treated their animals in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. Even people who have been banned from stock farming because of previous maltreatment of their animals have been granted subsidies.

The EU subsidies which are granted for stock farming are allocated regardless of whether the animals are maltreated or whether the owner has a permit to have animals or not. As long as the owner still has the animals, the subsidies continue to be paid.

Is the Commission aware of this problem and, if so, what does it intend to do to resolve it?

Has the Commission investigated what proportion of the subsidies paid each year for stock farming goes to owners who maltreat their animals?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3298/01 and P-3352/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problem highlighted by the Honourable Members. It should be noted that the Protocol on the protection and the welfare of animals annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam(1) stipulates that in formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture policy, the Community and the Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.

Payment of aid to individual farmers is done by national administration, as it falls within the competence of Member States. The Commission therefore does not have any practical action on individual cases.

In the case of written question E-3298/01, since the Honourable Member refers to Community subsidies in general, the Commission cannot answer in detail.

However, in case of direct farming support schemes, several requirements can be highlighted from the legal basis:

- First, as concerns Compensatory allowances in Less Favoured Areas, following the provisions in Article 14(2) of Regulation 1257/1999(2), in order to be eligible for support the beneficiary shall adhere to Good Farming Practice, to be defined by the Member State.

- Second, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation 1259/1999(3), in the case of direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy, it is up to Member States to take the environmental measures they consider to be appropriate in view of the situation of the agricultural land used or the production concerned and which reflect the potential environmental effects. These measures may, among other things, include general mandatory environmental requirements and specific environmental requirements constituting a condition for direct payments. However, animal welfare is not explicitly mentioned in the Council Regulation.

- Finally, and from a more general point of view, indent 11 of Article 33 in Regulation 1257/1999 provides Member States with possibilities to carry out measures in order to improve animal welfare.

(1) OJ C 340, 10.11.1997.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3577/01

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

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Inclusion of Galicia in the Iberian high-speed rail network

In the White Paper entitled European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide(1), the Commission includes the Iberian high-speed rail network amongst the 60 proposals put forward under the policy. How is Galicia to be included in the rail scheme, both within the Galician network and the latter's links with the rest of Spain and with France, and in the Ferrol-Lisbon corridor? What timetable for the construction work has been established and how much funding has been allocated? What relevant proposals have been put forward by the Spanish and Portuguese Governments?

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3577/01 and E-0065/02

(25/26 March 2002)

The Commission proposal on the revision of the Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1) provides details about the railway network development in Spain (see maps 3,0 and 3,5 of the Annex to the Proposal). The proposal provides furthermore for the interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network.

The examination of this proposal by the Council is now underway. Hence, pending a final decision by the Council and the European Parliament on this matter, the Council is not in a position to indicate in which way the eventually revised Decision will affect the situation of Galicia at the level of regional, national and trans-European railway networks. Furthermore, the Council underlines that the inclusion of a particular railway project in the trans-European transport network outline plan in no way prejudges the final decision regarding the actual implementation of a particular project; this competence lies with national authorities. In the same vein, decisions regarding the timetable for the construction work and the allocated funding also fall under the competence, in the case referred by the Honourable Parliamentarian, of the Spanish national authorities.

(1) OJ C 362 E, 18.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3216/01

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Disinfection of aircraft

Many airlines still carry out the practice of disinfection, the spraying of aircraft with insecticide in order to kill insects such as mosquitoes to prevent the spread of diseases such as malaria. This is often done while passengers are sitting inside the aircraft, or their seats may be soaked with insecticide before they board.

The World Health Organisation advises that the chemicals used are perfectly safe. However, there is substantial evidence to suggest that they may, in fact, have adverse effects on human health. The US has in fact banned the practice of disinfection of occupied cabins on US airlines for this reason (although the spraying of unoccupied cabins is still permitted), especially as there is very little evidence suggesting that aircraft disinfection is effective in preventing the spread of malaria and other tropical diseases.

What is particularly surprising and worrying is that passengers are not even informed that they will be sprayed, or that they are entering a cabin that has been sprayed.

What insecticides are permitted and used in planes belonging to European airlines, or flying to and from the European Union?

Does the Commission believe that failure to inform passengers about disinfection amounts to an infringement of article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the right to integrity of the person, giving everyone the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity?

Would the Commission consider putting forward a proposal to make it obligatory to warn passengers, in a clear fashion, of this practice?

Is the Commission satisfied that the efficacy of this practice justifies its continued use, taking into account the potential health risks?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission acknowledges the problem raised by the Honourable Member. However, it is of the opinion that, in view of their nature, the practices of disinfection and/or disinsecting rarely do take place on Community territory, their aim being to eradicate specific insects and prevent the spreading of epidemics. Consequently, any measure the Commission could envisage would have an extraterritorial impact which would be widely challenged.

The Commission is therefore convinced that action must be pursued on a more global level, i.e. through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). According to the latter's provisions, only those methods and insecticides which are recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) shall be authorised and accepted by contracting states. These contracting states shall furthermore ensure that their procedures for disinsecting are not injurious to the health of passengers and crew and cause minimum discomfort to them.

The Commission trusts that these measures are sufficient to safeguard the health of the passengers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2539/01

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(20 September 2001)

Subject: Creation and staffing of police operations planning unit

During the Swedish Presidency a decision was taken to create a separate police operations planning unit (POPU) within the Council Secretariat, and general guidelines were agreed concerning the selection, training and personal equipping of the police officers.

1. What are the Council's proposals, under the current Belgian Presidency, for completing the formation of the POPU?

2. Which specific criteria does the Council intend to lay down for the staffing and equipping of police officers to be included in the unit?

3. In what form is the Council considering participation by third countries in the POPU and, similarly, how will it ensure that the EU retains independent decision-making powers?

4. What preconditions and criteria does the Council intend to apply to the participation of third countries in the POPU?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

1. On 1 July 2001 a Police Unit was established in the Council Secretariat by the Secretary-General/High Representative as part of the politico-military structures. Its mission is to give the EU the ability to plan and conduct police operations. It consists at present of seven senior officers. Two are EU officials selected by competition, five are national experts on secondment from Member States and/or under exchange schemes. All are fully qualified policemen with international experience. The unit can be reinforced in times of crisis with experts from Member States.

2. The Unit's priorities include:

- the Ministerial Police Commitment Conference;

- developing and implementing the Police Action Plan approved at Göteborg;

- iaising with the OSCE about possible EU involvement in the police aspects of the Framework Agreement in FYROM. Until recently, a member of the Police Unit was seconded to the EUSR in Skopje.

3. There is no question of third countries participating in the Police Unit any more than in any other part of the Council Secretariat. Cooperation with third countries and international organisations, notably the UN and OSCE along with their possible participation in EU police operations is another matter and is being developed as part of the EU's development of its police capability.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3510/01

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: Possible distortions of competition in the forestry sector in the Federal Republic of Germany

In the letter dated 3 February 2000 from the European Commission to the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, signed by Commissioner Franz Fischler (SG(2000) D/101191) and dealing with State aid No NN 136/99 Germany (Brandenburg); state aid in the form of services provided to forest owners below cost price, the Commission noted that in the case in point the aid granted was consistent with the provisions of the EC Treaty, but went on to state that it was reviewing its policy on state aid in the forestry sector and reserved the right, in the future, to propose appropriate measures, pursuant to Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty.

Could the Commission state what the outcome of this policy review has been and what action it has taken, or what action it plans to take, in this area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

The Commission has not yet drawn conclusions as to a review of its policy concerning state aids in the forestry sector. The Commission is still working on this issue. At this stage, it is not possible to give indications for the timing or the outcome of such a review.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3710/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the EU data protection directive

Have all Member States now ratified the data protection directive? If not, what does the Commission intend to do to ensure that the directive comes into force throughout the Union as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

To date, all Member States but two (Ireland and Luxembourg) have informed the Commission that they have adopted legislative or administratives measures to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(1).

Following the entry into force of the Directive on 15 October 1998, the Commission had started formal infringement procedures against the nine Member States that had failed to notify transposition of the Directive. These procedures have been dropped for those Member States that have communicated in the meantime the adoption of implementation measures. In the case of Irleland, the infringement procedure follows its course, and in the case of Luxembourg, the Commission action has led to this Member State being condemned by the Court of Justice in ruling C-450/00.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3604/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Integration of settlement systems

Financial experts have criticised the inefficiency of European clearing and settlement systems, although they have recommended that the initiative to modernise the systems be left to the markets.

Nevertheless, the time appears to have come to put an end to the fragmentation of a structure which is essential in order to integrate financial markets, given that it provides the framework for confirming the terms of a transaction, defining the obligations of each party to the operation, transferring the subject of the transaction to the purchaser and transferring the payment to the seller.

When, in the Commission's view, should the corresponding initiative be taken, which is currently necessary in order to remove the fiscal and regulatory barriers hindering the consolidation of the sector on the basis of three or four clearing systems?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

The Commission shares the view that without efficient, cost-effective clearing and settlement systems in Europe, the full benefit of an integrated financial market in Europe cannot be realised. In line with the conclusions of the Report of the Committee of Wise Men on the Regulation of Securities Markets, the Commission believes that the market should have the main role in shaping the outcome.

However, the Commission will produce a Communication on the subject of clearing and settlement in the next few months. This paper will set out Commission policy with respect to these important systems. It will take the form of a consultation document and will seek input from interested parties into the process of deciding whether and if so how the public authorities can most usefully intervene to assist in the establishment of a more efficient clearing and settlement landscape in the Community in the future.

The Giovannini Group of financial market experts will also be producing a further report on this subject later in the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3629/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: List of ESF-related cases of fraud and irregularities in Spain in the 1994-1999 period

In accordance with the framework agreement of 29 June 2000 on relations between Parliament and the Commission, can the Commission, in liaison with OLAF, forward a list specifying the bodies involved in the 137 irregularities concerning non-eligible expenditure relating to the ESF during the 1994-1999 programming period which have been notified by Spain?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to his Written Question P-3135/01(1).

It notes that Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field(2) provides that the names of natural or legal persons may be disclosed to another Member State or Community institution only where this is necessary in order to prevent or prosecute an irregularity or to establish whether an alleged irregularity has taken place.

Accordingly, in the absence of specific grounds, the Commission is not planning to forward the list of names referred to by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 111.

(2) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2875/01

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: New tax legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany

On 7 September 2001 the law to curb illegal activities in the construction sector entered into force in the Federal Republic of Germany. This law requires clients in the building sector to withhold 15 % of the gross contract sum from payments to the contractor and transfer it to the German tax authorities. The amount is intended as an advance payment in respect of any corporation tax, income tax and/or turnover tax payable in Germany.

However, the tax office in Kleve, which is responsible for implementing the legislation in the case of Dutch firms, has still not take any steps to ensure that the legislation can be implemented effectively. Not only are there are no implementing directives, but the Kleve office does not have the manpower or facilities to implement the regulations. It is unlikely that these problems can be resolved in the near future. Many Dutch exporting firms therefore face financial and administrative chaos.

1. Is the Commission aware of the situation?

2. Does the Commission share my view that the complex and unclear administrative obligations make it very difficult for Dutch firms to operate in Germany and are therefore distorting competition?

3. Does the Commission agree with me that unless clear implementing measures are forthcoming, enforcement of the legislation should be put on hold until the implementing directives are known?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

1. The Commission is aware of the Law of 30 August 2001 (German Federal Government Gazette, Bundesgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 2267). At the Commission's request the new Law no longer treats domestic and foreign companies differently, in contrast to the earlier Law with similar objectives. The tax deduction is to be applied only to payments made after 31 December 2001 as set out in new Law's rewording of Section 48 of the Income Tax Law (Einkommensteuergesetz).

2. and 3. The Commission has received letters from foreign companies and is examining the facts they contain to see whether the actual application of this new Law leads to indirect discrimination against foreign companies. If necessary the Commission will take the necessary steps to eliminate measures that are incompatible with the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from Trade DG

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects which, in 2000 and 2001, were submitted by the Italian Regions of Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta for financing from the funds administered by the Trade Directorate-General, and the names of those which were subsequently approved?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Trade Directorate General has received no request for funding projects from these regions, neither in 2000 nor in 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2927/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Cost of conference Life Sciences and Biotechnology A Strategic Vision held on 27-28 September 2001 in Brussels

On 27 and 28 September 2001, the Commission held a conference in Brussels entitled Life Sciences and Biotechnology A Strategic Vision.

Will the Commission provide a breakdown of the costs involved in holding this event?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

The Commission's stakeholder conference Life Sciences and Biotechnology A Strategic Vision was an integral part of the Commission's preparation of a policy paper by the end of 2001 as announced in March 2001 in its report to the Stockholm European Council (23-24 March 2001). The Commission launched on 4 September 2001 a broad public consultation with the publication of a comprehensive and detailed consultation document(1).

The conference was held over two days on 27-28 September 2001, organised into six separate conference sessions (including four parallel workshops on selected topics), for a broad coverage of relevant subjects. Nearly 40 persons took an active role as session chairs or members of discussion panels, including several members of the European Parliament and national parliaments. The conference gathered approximately 320 participants representing a broad range of views. They included scientific experts, consumer and environmental interest groups, technology providers and other industries, healthcare providers, science communicators and the media, experts and policy makers from Community institutions and Members States, as well as experts from third countries, including developing countries.

The resulting workshop reports, together with the consultation document, have been published on a new dedicated website on the EUROPA server (http://europa.eu.int/comm/biotechnology) which also offers a possibility for submission and publication of comments from the public.

The total direct costs of the conference amount to about 104 000, composed of 78 000 for travel and subsistence costs for private experts from the Union and third countries, 16 000 for participation of governmental experts from Member State and candidate countries, and 10 000 for conference logistics. The cost of this conference compares favorably with costs of similar events organized by the Commission in the past.

(1) COM(2001) 454 final.