ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/02

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Seats in the European Parliament after 2004

On the assumption that all the candidate countries with the exception of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey will be taking part in the elections to the European Parliament in June 2004, and according to the bizarre provisions of Article 2 of Protocol A of the Treaty of Nice, how many seats will then be allocated to each of the 25 Member States for the 2004-2009 legislature?

If as a result of an equitable adjustment in the accession negotiations Malta is allotted 6 seats and the Czech Republic and Hungary 22, how many seats will then be allocated to each of the states?

Reply

(8 October 2002)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Treaty of Nice is currently in the process of being ratified and the accession negotiations have not yet been completed. Incidentally, the Council does not share the view expressed regarding the Protocol in question.

It is not the Council's wont to engage in speculation based on unsettled situations in the final outcome of which the Council has no say.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2193/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: EU fish meal industry

Can the Commission provide information on the production of fish meal in the EU, indicating which Member States are involved, the number of vessels and processing plants engaged in fishing for and processing species which are destined exclusively for the production of fish meal?

Can the Commission provide information on the final destination of fish meal produced in the EU, indicating what percentage is earmarked for meal to be used as animal feed and what percentage is destined for aquaculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The majority of EU fish meal production derives from the reduction of whole fish most of which comes from industrial fisheries, a significant proportion also comes from trimming based fish meal factories where the raw material is a by-product of fish processing (circa 30 % in recent years). The reduction from industrial landings takes place in relatively few facilities throughout the Community.

The share of turnover by Member States in industrial fisheries has recently been given (STOA 101/2001) as Denmark 47 %, Sweden 11 %, United Kingdom 9 %, Spain 7 %, the Netherlands 7 %, Ireland 5 %, France 4 %, Finland 3 %, Portugal 3 % and other Member States 4 %. The same source presents economic data for this sector, with total landings at 2,970,000 tonnes, turnover at EUR 211 million and jobs at 4920.

Denmark is the main producer and an information paper Facts on the Industrial Fisheries was presented to the Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea in February 2002 (CONSSO FEB 02/2/Info-1). Comparable data is not readily available for other Member States. The Danish fleet involved fully or partly in industrial fishery comprises more than 300 vessels and provides around 1,000 jobs at sea.

Industry sources indicate that 175 000 tonnes of European fish meal (European Economic Area) was used in farmed fish production in 2001 compared with 520 000 tonnes in terrestrial animal nutrition (non-ruminants).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Investigations into paedophile websites

Reports have recently appeared in the Italian weekly press concerning investigations now being carried out by the Italian post office police into paedophile and child pornography websites. In addition to these police investigations, an information campaign has been launched in schools to explain the dangers of the Internet to children, parents and teachers. A year ago, an investigation by the post office police led to the closure of a site whose owners were charged with promoting prostitution. Numerous other questions have been submitted on similar subjects.

Does the Commission not consider that this experience sets a precedent for action at Community level to close down child pornography websites?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Primary responsibility for dealing with illegal content (including child pornography) is with the appropriate law enforcement and judicial authorities of the Member States, which co-operate internationally in the fight against child pornography on the Internet through the existing channels of communications, such as Europol and Interpol.

The Union has been a forerunner in the fight against illegal and harmful content since 1996, with an approach agreed unanimously by the Parliament and the Council. The Safer Internet Action Plan adopted by the Council and the Parliament on 25 January 1999(1) is a major element in the Commission's activity in the field, providing funding for a European network of hotlines, allowing users to report illegal content including child pornography. The Commission has proposed on 22 March 2002(2) to extend the current Action Plan for a second phase of two years, as well as to adapt its scope and implementation to take account of lessons learned and new technologies, and to ensure co-ordination with parallel work in the field of network and information security.

Other elements of the Union strategy to combat child pornography include legal instruments and practical measures against computer crime and child pornography. These include the Commission proposal for a Council Framework Decision(3) on approximation of laws and sanctions in the field of sexual exploitation of children, with particular reference to child pornography on the Internet, and the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998(4) on Protection of minors and human dignity and the Council Decision of 29 May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet(5).

(1) OJ L 33, 6.2.1999.

(2) COM(2002) 152 final.

(3) COM(2000) 854 final.

(4) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(5) OJ L 138, 9.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1228/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Bilateral agreements with the Swiss Confederation

Can the Commission provide information on the exact time-scales for the entry into force of the bilateral treaties between the EU and the Swiss Confederation?

What further agreements are under consideration, and, in particular, what are the prospects for Switzerland's accession to the Schengen agreement?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2002)

The seven bilateral agreements the Union has signed with Switzerland on 21 June 1999 will enter into force on 1 June 2002. These agreements have been published in the Official Journal(1).

Currently, the Commission is negotiating with Switzerland bilateral agreements on cooperation in the fight against fraud, on statistical cooperation, on the Swiss participation in the European Environment Agency and on the modification of the Protocol to the Free Trade Agreement as regards processed agricultural products. In addition the Commission is looking forward to immediately start negotiations with Switzerland on the taxation of savings.

Further agreements are under consideration for the future. In this context the Commission has made recommendations to the Council with the aim of getting authorisation to start negotiations with Switzerland on free trade in services, the Swiss participation in the Media programmes and the Swiss association to the areas covered by the Schengen and Dublin acquis.

At the time being it is impossible to give any indication regarding the prospects for a Swiss association to Schengen and Dublin.

(1) OJ L 114, 30.4.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2134/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Guyana

With reference to Guyana, will the Commission say which projects were financed in 2000 under the EU budget?

Will the Commision specify the total amount of aid allocated during 2000 to all the initiatives relating to Guyana?

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

(23 September 2002)

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

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2145/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Lesotho

With reference to Lesotho, will the Commission draw up a list of projects approved for financing under the EU budget in 2001 and state the total amount of investment for that year?

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

(23 September 2002)

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

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2523/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Agriculture

Who are the 10 biggest recipients of EU agricultural subsidies in each of the 15 Member States and what percentage of total agricultural support (in % and actual amounts in euro) was paid to those recipients in 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1949/02 by Mr Poignant(1).

(1) See page 123.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2582/02

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2002)

Subject: Requirement for trucks to be fitted with blind-spot mirrors

In Belgium, one cyclist in many cases, a young cyclist is killed every month in an accident caused by the blind spot in the field of vision of truck drivers. The European Union has made it compulsory in one of its directives for all new trucks to be equipped with a system which eliminates the blind spot. At the same time, the European Union decided not to impose this requirement on trucks which were already in operation; i.e. it did not require retrofitting of trucks. This decision is costing lives.

In view of the above:

- When will the Commission introduce retrofitting of trucks with systems to eliminate blind spots?

- Will the Commission in the near future create tax incentives for the fitting of trucks with systems to eliminate blind spots, and if so, how?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2002)

The problem presented by the Honourable Member indeed covers a serious road safety problem. The Commission has already taken an initiative to mitigate this problem by proposing an amendment to an existing vehicle type approval directive in order to make it mandatory in the future to equip all new trucks and buses with mirrors or cameras enhancing the indirect field of vision of their drivers(1). The expectation is that this proposal will be approved by the Parliament and the Council before the end of 2002.

However, indeed an important number of existing trucks are not yet equipped with such systems and could cause further accidents before they are replaced. The Commission considers the opportunity to prepare a proposal for legislation imposing the retrofitting of existing heavy goods vehicles and long buses with mirror systems eliminating the blind spot for the beginning of 2003.

On the other hand, the Commission has no competence in the area of fiscal measures aiming at an earlier retrofitting of such devices on existing trucks. These measures indeed are to be considered by the Member States themselves.

(1) OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/02

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

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Gabon

With respect to Gabon, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000? Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

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

(23 September 2002)

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

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2536/02

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

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Seizure of Galician-owned British fishing boats the recent seizure of the fishing vessel Hermanos Yañez

The Galician-owned fishing boat Hermanos Yañez sailing under the British flag was recently seized by British navy patrol boats whilst it was fishing in Community waters. It was apparently taken to the port of Falmouth to ascertain how large its catch actually was. Since July four Galician-owned vessels sailing under the British flag have been seized and obliged, for various reasons, to sail into a British port. Do the British authorities treat vessels belonging to United Kingdom citizens in the same way? Does the Commission consider that the British authorities are behaving arbitrarily in monitoring vessels flying the British flag and fishing in adjacent Community waters, since they treat vessels differently depending on ownership of the vessels and hence Galician vessels may be the subject of discrimination? Has the Commission carried out any inspection to ascertain whether such discrimination exists?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission has been informed, on 16 August 2002, of the detention on 10 August 2002 of the United Kingdom registered and licensed vessel Hermanos Yañez (Registration number AR870) for failing to comply with Articles 19b, c and e of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1), as amended. The British authorities are obliged under Community law to inspect and follow up any violations by masters of fishing vessels of the rules of the Common Fishery Policy.

The Commission is not aware of any cases of discrimination by British surveillance and control authorities regarding inspection and detention of certain Community fishing vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom.

From January to June 2002, Commission Fishery inspectors made seven missions to the United Kingdom in order to verify, on the spot, the implementation of Community rules by the British authorities. The purpose of these missions was to verify the implementation of Title II of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 recording and reporting of catches). Any practices of discriminatory behaviour by British authorities have not been reported by Commission Fishery inspectors.

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, as amended by a Proposal for a Council Regulation, OJ C 213 E, 31.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2142/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Kiribati

With reference to Kiribati, will the Commission say which projects were financed in 2000 under the EU budget?

Will the Commision specify the total amount of aid allocated during 2000 to all the initiatives relating to Kiribati?

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

(23 September 2002)

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

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2461/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Untreated effluent

Will the Commission estimate how much untreated effluent is discharged into the EU's seas and rivers based on the latest available data compared with five and ten years ago?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Information on untreated sewage effluents on European wide level, is, inter alia, currently evaluated by the joint questionnaire 2002 of Eurostat and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This evaluation will allow estimating existing untreated sewage discharges, and also compare recent data with data of ten or more years ago.

In addition, a Commission report on urban waste water treatment based on Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(1) as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998(2) is under preparation, which will give information on the present treatment situation in comparison with former years taking also into account rough estimations on still untreated effluents.

The implementation of the Water Framework Directive(3) foresees an analysis of pressures and impacts of human activity on the status of surface waters and groundwater by river basin until 2004. This exercise, which has to be undertaken by the Member States, should give further information on still untreated waste-water discharges in future.

In the framework of the marine conventions as Oslo-Paris Commission (Ospar), Helsinki Commission (Helcom), and others no estimates are foreseen at present.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 67, 3.7.1998, p. 29.

(3) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Treatment of asylum-seekers in the EU

1. How does each Member State count the number of migrants (refugees, asylum-seekers, etc.) seeking admission (i.e. do they include all family members in their calculations or just heads of families)?

2. What State benefits are these migrants entitled to in each of the Member States of the EU?

3. At what stage are migrants entitled to vote in each of the Member States of the European Union?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

1. Some Member States provide that an application for asylum may be made by an applicant on behalf of his dependants, including minors. In other Member States, each adult person has the right to make a separate application for asylum on his own behalf.

This situation is reflected in the statistics prepared by Member States. Those which allow heads of families to make applications on behalf of their dependants normally use weighted formulas.

It should also be noted that, in its amended proposal for a Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status(1), the Commission envisages certain guarantees for cases in which Member States accept applications made by an applicant on behalf of his dependants.

2. In relation to the benefits to which asylum applicants are entitled, at its meeting on 25 April 2002 the Council defined a general approach to the proposal for a Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in the Member States. The Council instructed its subordinate bodies to examine the opinion of the European Parliament and to ensure the legal and linguistic finalisation of the text with a view to its formal adoption at a forthcoming meeting.

3. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the right of citizens of third countries to vote in Member States is governed by national laws.

(1) COM(2002) 326 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2623/02

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Transposition of the new Postal Services Directive 2002/39/EC by the candidate countries

This Spring, the new European Parliament and Council directive 2002/39/EC(1), amending Directive 97/67/EC(2) with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, was adopted. The Member States must transpose this new Directive into national law by 31 December 2003.

Does the Commission propose to set separate deadlines for the candidate countries for the liberalisation of their postal markets, or is it intended that the new Postal Services Directive should already have been transposed by the candidate countries at the time of accession?

Will the EU competition rules also have to be transposed by the candidate countries by the time of their accession?

(1) OJ L 176, 5.7.2002, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

As any other piece of the acquis communautaire, candidate countries will be required to have transposed the new Directive 2002/39/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, by the date of their accession to the Union, unless the Accession Treaties would include, in due time, specific transitional arrangements.

As far as the competition rules are concerned, the Central and East European countries have the obligation under the Association Agreements to ensure already now that the substantive antitrust and state aid rules of the acquis are respected.