ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3507/02

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Council

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Avian influenza epidemic in Italy

The provinces of Verona, Mantua and Brescia are suffering an epidemic of avian influenza caused by a mildly pathogenic strain of the H7N3 virus. So far the influenza is almost exclusively affecting turkey farms. In order to stop the disease from spreading, the Italian authorities will ask the EU to approve the vaccination of the susceptible species in the areas at risk.

However, this approach may mean that poultry produced in the areas where vaccination has been carried out cannot be exported to other Member States. The three provinces together produce around 80 % of Italian turkeys and around 20 % of total production is exported.

It is therefore clear that an possible export ban will lead to:

- a reduction of around 20 % in turkey production;

- the import of poultrymeat from third countries (Brazil and Thailand);

- the loss of the German market;

- a reduction in the area covered by vaccination with the resulting risk of a perpetuation of the disease and modification of the virus, so that it becomes highly pathogenic rather than mildly pathogenic.

Can the Council say:

1. whether it is possible to obtain approval for emergency vaccination, whilst maintaining the possibility of export to other Member States? This was allowed during the previous influenza epidemic in 2000, when the discriminatory test (DIVA) differentiated between birds testing positive (because vaccinated) and negative (because infected);

2. whether it is possible to vaccinate on a massive scale using a heterologous vaccine (H7N1) and continue to export, by ensuring with absolute certainty that the meat of the exported birds definitely does not carry the virus, in that the birds were healthy before they were slaughtered?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council always follows with great concern the outbreak and spread of epidemics such as avian influenza which is currently affecting Italy and to which the Honourable Member is referring.

The Council adopted Directive 92/40/EEC which introduces Community measures for the control of this disease.

When adopting this Directive, the Council considered that management of such an epidemic should primarily be the responsibility of the Member States' veterinary health authorities, which could implement stricter measures. However, the task of evaluating these measures and, where necessary, adopting specific implementing measures should be entrusted to the Commission which would submit them to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in accordance with Article 21 of the aforementioned Directive.

The powers of the Commission, which takes the relevant decisions, relate in particular to the evaluation of vaccines and diagnostic methods and to the relaxation of marketing restrictions, referred to by the Honourable Member.

It therefore calls on the Honourable Member to address his question directly to the competent authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2926/02

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Repeated infringements of EU law by the Member States

In 1999 the level of implementation of EU law was 94,53 %. However, there is a deep gulf between formal and actual implementation.

Violations of EU law take many forms. Particularly when the infringement is deliberate, the Commission ought to intervene directly. One instance of delayed reaction is in the case of the illegal taxation imposed by Finland on removal lorries, against which the Commission has not taken any action pursuant to Directive 83/183/EEC(1), even though I informed the Commission of it over two years ago. This is something which EU citizens should not be expected to put up with.

In cases of manifest violations of EU law, the Commission should have the right to take a preliminary decision requiring that the Member State comply with EU legislation. To dispute the Commission's decision, the Member State could take the matter to the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice would always have a duty to treat the Commission's preliminary request urgently, so that the Member States' legal certainty would not be infringed. In addition, the Court of Justice's decision-making should be speeded up, as was attempted to some extent in the rules adopted in 2000 at Nice.

1. Does the Commission consider that the implementation of EU law is currently too slow and unpredictable?

2. Does the Commission intend to propose to the next Intergovernmental Conference that it should be granted the right and duty to take preliminary decisions?

3. If not, how does the Commission propose to intervene in this unsatisfactory situation?

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 64.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2002)

1. The information in the annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law, which the Commission has been sending to Parliament for nineteen years, does not, in the Commission's opinion, give the impression that the implementation of Community legislation is slow and unpredictable, as the Honourable Member claims.

2. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty laying down the procedure whereby failure by a State to fulfil an obligation under that Treaty was recorded in a reasoned Commission decision against which the State in question could institute proceedings before the Court of Justice. At this stage in the Convention's deliberations, the Commission has not yet stated whether it would be desirable to include a similar procedure in the new treaty.

3. Discussions prompted, in particular, by the White Paper on Gouvernance(1) indicate that the Commission is attentive in pursuing its role as guardian of the treaties, including at the level of preventive measures, which were not mentioned by the Honourable Member and which, in its view, it is very important to develop.

(1) OJ C 287, 12.10.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: The decisions apparently taken by the Spanish Prime Minister and the French President on separating the sea corridors for Prestige-type vessels

What decisions has the Council taken, and what decisions does it intend to take, concerning The decisions apparently taken by the Spanish Prime Minister and the French President on separating the sea corridors allocated to Prestige-type vessels? What are the potential practical consequences of such decisions for the impact of such disasters on the coasts?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3563/02, E-3581/02, E-3582/02, E-3583/02,E-3584/02, E-3587/02, E-3589/02, E-3625/02 and E-3761/02

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council would refer the Honourable Members to the declaration made by the Presidency on behalf of the Council on all the points raised in their questions during the plenary session of the European Parliament in December 2002, and to its replies to Questions H-833/02, H-839/02, H-847/02 and H-871/02 put by Messrs Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Manuel Medina Ortega, Camilo Nogueira Román and John Cushnahan respectively at Question Time on 15 January 2003 in Strasbourg.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2832/02

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Ban on exports of EU certified organic products to the USA

From 21 October 2002 it will apparently no longer be possible to export certified organic products from Europe to the United States because organic product inspection and certification bodies must be accredited with the US Department of Agriculture according to American production standards, which are seemingly different from the European standards.

The accreditation procedure which has been initiated would seem to be a lengthy and costly bureaucratic process and to involve a reorganisation of the specific procedures of inspection and certification bodies. To date, no Italian inspection and certification body has obtained US accreditation. Will the Commission state whether any action has been taken at European level with a view to concluding an agreement on equivalence and mutual recognition of standards between the USA and Europe?

What is the Commission's European Organic Action Plan intended to achieve and what arrangements have been made to ensure that people can rapidly obtain comprehensive information on the activities carried out under the plan?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

On 21 October 2002, 18 months after its introduction, the National Organic Program (NOP), which is the legal framework for organic farming in the United States, comes into force. The American authorities indeed require that products from organic farming imported in the United States are certified by inspection bodies accredited by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). A number of Community based inspection bodies, including one that is recognized in Italy, have been accredited by the USDA so far and several others are being evaluated.

On Community level, the Commission has been holding intensive technical discussions with the USDA. These discussions form the basis for a possible equivalency agreement, in which case the overall regulatory system of the Community on organic farming would be recognized as equivalent by the United States.

The USDA has declared it will apply a flexible approach for the transition after 21 October 2002, when the NOP will come into force. Products already in the stream of commerce, including crops planted before 21 October 2002, will be treated as according to the procedures used previously.

As requested by the Council, the Commission is analysing the possibilities of a European action plan to promote organic food and farming. The Commission is currently working on a Communication to the Council and the Parliament that will be presented by December 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/02

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Enlargement

The Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE) recently drew attention to the slow working of the administration in certain candidate countries. Some cases of corruption have also arisen among these countries.

This situation considerably hinders the entry and establishment of firms from European Union countries.

What measures is the Directorate-General for Enlargement planning to take to mitigate this situation?

Has a quantitative assessment been made of the economic damage which might result from these technical barriers?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

As can be seen from the Commission's Regular Report on the progress towards accession in the candidate countries, the problems mentioned by the Honourable Member are known to the Commission. The information provided by UNICE, as by other independent sources, are very useful and are greatly appreciated.

The problems of administrative weakness have been addressed by the Commission since the beginning of its co-operation with the candidate countries. Many PHARE projects in all candidate countries aim at strengthening the capacity of public administration. In fact, today it is the core objective of PHARE. This has included specific programmes to combat corruption. These efforts continue

under the PHARE programmes presently under implementation, and further projects are being considered. However, it must be realised that the first responsibility for addressing these issues lays with the countries themselves.

The Commission has not undertaken a quantitative assessment of the economic damage resulting from such obstacles, which are being tackled in various forms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3885/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 January 2003)

Subject: Take-up of Community funding in the EU Member States at the end of 2002

Can the Commission state the level of commitments and expenditure effected at the end of 2002 under the Community support framework for each EU Member State?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2003)

The information requested is set out in the table which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. It should be noted that the sum of payments to each Member State in the case of the Community initiative Interreg cannot be compared with the amount earmarked per country (allocations column) since, for Community accounting purposes, payments are made to the country that coordinates the programmes. This is why the table does not give the breakdown by Member State, in contrast to the situation with regard to other Community initiatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2717/02

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Administrative cases brought by officials and other staff of the European Commission

The initial answer of 24 May 2002 to Written Question E-0661/02(1) states that a substantial number of the cases brought by Commission staff (30,5 % before the Court of First Instance and 13,2 % before the Court of Justice) during the period from 1 January 1996 to 20 June 2001 were deemed to be well founded and were considered admissible, if only in part, by the two courts.

However, this information is insufficient to determine the full impact on human and financial resources, bearing in mind that in such cases the Commission is usually ordered to pay the legal costs, including the fees of the plaintiffs' lawyers and, on occasion, of those acting for the Commission.

Will the Commission give details of the total number of legal cases during the period in question in which the Commission had to pay legal costs, together with the average cost of each case?

Will it give details of the total number of persons employed in-house or externally for the management of administrative disputes covered by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 117.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2567/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Euro-area price rises

Will the Commission break down Eurostat's estimate of the possible rise in prices due to the transition to the euro up to 0,2 per cent by euro-area Member State?

Will it compare those price rises with the institutional arrangements made in each euro-area Member State to protect consumers, noting for each euro-area Member State any requirements for price control, mandatory or voluntary dual display pricing and any other measure designed to avoid temporary inflationary effects?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Eurostat's analyses of the impact on inflation of the changeover to the euro are based on the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices for the euro-zone as a whole. No breakdown by individual Member State is available.

The analyses for the euro-zone used statistical time series techniques which, if a breakdown by individual Member State were calculated, would give less reliable estimates.

It is therefore not possible to conduct the comparison requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Pump guns

Reports of incidents of murder, manslaughter and accidents involving the use of pump guns have, unfortunately, become an everyday occurrence.

Does the Council not consider that it would be appropriate to ban pump guns, as they are used neither by the security forces nor by members of shooting clubs or huntsmen?

Does the Council share the concern felt by the author of this question, and does it intend to take action itself and exert its influence with the Member States? How do matters stand in this area?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council certainly shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the risks associated with misuse of pump guns. However, it is not for the Council to initiate any actions by itself with a view to a possible ban of pump guns as the Honourable Member suggests. It is the competence of the Member States themselves to take any action they deem appropriate to restrict or forbid the use of pump guns.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3839/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Evidence of the existence of concentration camps in North Korea

The existence of concentration camps forced labour camps in North Korea, about which there was talk for a long time, but which had never been confirmed by non-North Korean witnesses, has been proved by satellite images which the Far Eastern Economic Review published after obtaining them from a commercial satellite imagery provider.

The images were recognised as showing the Haengyong concentration and labour camp by a former prison guard, Ahn Myong Chol, who defected to South Korea in 1994.

The South Koreans and American intelligence sources had long encouraged the rumour that they had satellite photographs of the camps in their possession, but the supposed evidence was never published.

Does the Council have the same kind of satellite images or has it been informed by one of the Member States in possession of similar evidence about the existence of concentration camps in North Korea? Does the Council have any information about the existence of other concentration camps in North Korea which could be proven by satellite images? When does the Council expect to forward to the relevant European Parliament committee the satellite images or any other evidence of the existence of concentration camps in North Korea and what political initiatives does it intend to take vis-à-vis the Pyongyang government to induce it to close all the concentration camps immediately and release all the prisoners without delay?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council is not in possession of satellite images referred to in the Honourable Member's question, nor of similar evidence on the existence of concentration camps. It is aware of allegations that many persons are held in so-called re-education camps.

The Council recalls that the EU underlines the importance it attaches to respect for human rights and the rule of law regularly in its discussions with North Korea.

The EU Troika visited the DPRK in June 2002, and made clear that the EU expected concrete improvements to be made on human rights issues in the DPRK. The Troika stressed that independent monitors should be given access to establish the veracity of the many negative reports that are circulating internationally about the situation in the DPRK. Particular areas of concern included prison camps, religious freedom, torture and the treatment of repatriated refugees. The EU will continue to raise these issues with the government of North Korea at every suitable opportunity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

The complexity of the current GATS negotiations highlights the requirements of many EU citizens for effective and transparent governance within the European Union and its institutions. In the light of these concerns, could the European Commission clarify the EU decision-making process whereby the General Agreement on Trade in Services is negotiated and, more specifically, confirm the role of the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions in this process?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

The Community has exclusive competence for the common commercial policy (Article 133, paragraph 1 of the EC Treaty). This provision has its origins in the requirement for the Community to take responsibility for the external consequences of the internal policy to establish a customs union. Article 133, paragraph 1 provides for exclusive Community competence essentially for trade in goods, cross-border services not implying movement of persons and some very specific aspects of intellectual property rights. However, there is provision for its scope to be extended to include the full range of trade in services, and intellectual property, should the Council decide unanimously to do so (this widening of exclusive powers is further extended under the Nice Treaty).

In the case of the international agreement likely to result from the Doha Development Agenda, the Council adopted conclusions in 1999 setting out the objectives of the negotiations. These constitute the basis for the negotiations which are conducted by the Commission in consultation with a Committee designated by the Council under the EC Treaty (the Article 133 Committee). The Council is responsible for concluding agreements. Responsibility for the day-to-day management of trade policy lies with the Commission, which keeps in close contact with the Council through the Article 133 Committee, which meets on a regular basis.

Although the Parliament has no formal role in the formulation of trade policy under the existing treaties, it is in accordance with the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 regularly briefed on trade policy issues and consulted on key questions. Certain trade matters may also be related to agreements requiring the assent of the Parliament under Article 300, paragraph 3, subparagraph 2.

The Committee of the Regions is not involved in the decision making process with regard to the common trade policy and has so far not devoted any own initiative reports to trade policy. However, the Commission is ready to inform the Committee of the Regions about specific trade issues, in particular as the Doha Development Agenda moves ahead.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3401/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Total Information Awareness

According to some articles that have appeared in the press, the United States Government approved last February a USD 200 million budget to develop two new offices: the Information Exploitation Office and the Information Awareness Office. The latter is notably building a programme called Total Information Awareness (TIA), whose aim is the collection, integration and treatment of any kind of information in order to detect suspect individual behaviours and identify potential terrorists. Some of the planned activities of TIA are the development of the Genoa I software for the clandestine exploration of all electronic databases and other forms of data-mining and information collection at international level.

Given the global nature of electronic communications, the system would have immediate implications for and be effective on communications even between EU citizens.

Can the Council ask the US Government for confirmation of this information? If this information is confirmed, does the Council not think that the planned activities of TIA would be in breach of EU directives on data protection, and of other relevant treaties between the EU, its Member States and the US? What measures will the Council take in order to have EU law and European citizens' rights and freedoms fully respected?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3384/02 and E-3401/02

(8 May 2003)

The Council never comments on press statements and underlines that the work on a prototype system of the so-called Total Information Awareness (TIA) system was available from open sources before the said statement appeared in The Washington Post on 12 November 2002.

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the statement it made on this subject to the plenary part-session of the European Parliament on 23 October 2002.

From a more general point of view the Council maintains a constant dialogue with the United States Government, particularly within the framework of the Transatlantic Dialogue, where information is exchanged about matters of mutual interest and concern.