ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3199/02

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 November 2002)

Subject: Vaccination requirements in Europe

There is as yet no European legislation on vaccination requirements. Rules in this area vary considerably within the European Union. Each Member State determines which vaccines it considers should be made compulsory. For instance, in France antidiphtheria, antitetanus and antipolio vaccines are compulsory, whereas only the antipolio vaccine is prescribed by law in Belgium. Some Member States require repeated doses of the vaccine ('boosters') to be administered while in others only one dose is obligatory. This gives rise to obvious discrimination between citizens of different Member States, some of whom are obliged to have their children vaccinated while others are completely free to choose whether or not to do so. All this is in fact set out in detail in a survey commissioned by the European Commission and conducted by Euvax(1).

Should an Italian or British citizen not be free to react in the same way as a Finnish, Greek or Swedish citizen vis-à-vis the same illness? In other words, should European citizens not all be equal with regard to vaccination requirements?

Does the Commission not therefore believe that European legislation on vaccination requirements should be submitted as soon as possible?

(1) Scientific and technical evaluation of vaccination programmes in the EU, Euvax Project report, Kari S. Lankinen, PSR Consulting Ltd, 2001.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2002)

The Commission recognises the importance of monitoring and keeping under review the vaccination policies in the Union, and to ensure a high level of health protection by prevention and control of communicable diseases. A major public health tool to prevent communicable diseases is vaccination.

The Commission can support the Member States in their work to control vaccine preventable diseases and to eradicate targeted diseases, taking in account their own specific vaccination strategy. In this light, the Commission is involved in various activities with the Member States relevant to vaccination policy.

The Commission is funding projects to support either specific vaccine preventable diseases surveillance activities, or more transversal and policy oriented projects. Among this last group it is relevant to mention the Scientific and Technical Evaluation of Vaccination Programmes in the Union (EUVAX). According to this project, six Member States are running a compulsory vaccination policy that includes immunisation to protect citizens against poliomyelitis, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B and tuberculosis.

There is no legal basis to impose obligatory vaccination in the Union. The main responsibility for vaccination policy, like health services and medical care in general, lies with Member States and each has developed its policy according to national needs. The organisation of health care delivery plays a major role in determining the variable pattern of vaccine policy application in the different countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2163/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: ECB advertising campaign

The European Central Bank has published leaflets and run television advertisements in Britain with the slogan The Euro Our Money which, since it is factually incorrect, can be considered as no more than publicity for the single currency rather than as an information campaign. Could the Commission please say what the legal basis in the Treaties is for the ECB to advertise the single currency in an EU Member State? What consequences would there be at European level if no legal basis could be established? Furthermore, what action, under the Treaties, might a country with strict political funding rules take against the ECB if it deemed it to have interfered in the electoral process say in the run-up to a referendum on the single European currency?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

From a general point of view, since information campaigns impose no rights and obligations on third parties and are by definition for information only, they do not require a specific legal basis. Even so, this particular information campaign is a natural corollary of the European Central Bank's (ECB) essential task to authorise the issuance of banknotes in the euro area (Articles 106 of the Treaty and 16 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and of the ECB). Information campaigns by the Bank on the introduction of the euro in an area composed of 12 of the 15 Member States only require a prior positive decision of the ECB's Governing Council.

Given that the euro is an international currency whose impact goes largely beyond the borders of those 12 Member States, such information campaigns also aim at informing people outside the euro area, in particular about the appearance of the new banknotes and coins and the security features of those banknotes. The British Government and the Bank of England, of which the latter is a member of the European System of Central Banks, also proceed regularly with similar information campaigns.

With this aim, an international version of an ECB public information leaflet on the euro was translated into 23 languages, apart from the 11 official languages of the Union, and was made available to people outside the euro area.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3741/02

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Utilisation of appropriations in line B2-142

The Commission proposes the transfer of 4 000 000 in commitments from Article B2-142 EQUAL to cover, together with other appropriations, the promotion of the conversion of vessels and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco.

The Commission also proposes the transfer of 123 000 000 in payment appropriations to endow, together with other lines, the EU Solidarity Fund intended for Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic following the floods which occurred in August of the current year.

Can the Commission indicate, as it confirms that the EQUAL initiative has a surplus, why this situation occurred?

Can the Commission confirm that the failure to fully utilise these appropriations is not due to the Commission's own off-putting procedures which discourage the potential beneficiaries of this initiative from utilising these funds?

Can the Commission indicate what means could be employed in order to achieve the purpose for which the EQUAL initiative is amongst the important EU actions in the field of equality?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2003)

The transfer of commitment appropriations does not affect any activities under the EQUAL programmes in the Member States. Instead, it concerns resources allocated to the thematic networks at European level. These networks are now being set up in a partnership between the Commission, Member States and other actors in this field. The role of the networks is to analyse and validate the results of the work carried out in the Development Partnerships. Therefore, it is logical that activities under these networks will only begin when the results start to come in. Under 2003, it is expected that all thematic networks will be up and running.

Concerning the transfer of payment appropriations, this is due to the fact that the first phase of EQUAL (Action 1), involved the setting up of national Development Partnerships and Transnational Partnerships, i.e. activities that cost only limited amounts of money. The implementation phase (Action 2) of the EQUAL programmes started in May 2002. With the current system of reimbursement of real costs, it will inevitably take some time, from the moment the costs are incurred by the final recipients, for the information to be passed on to Managing Authority, for it to be certified by the Paying Authority, sent to the Commission, and then for a payment to be made on this basis. Already when the Community Initiative Programmes were negotiated and adopted it was clear to the Member States and the Commission that the financial distribution over years did not correspond to the expected execution of the programmes. This profile was obligatory in order to ensure that the EQUAL budgets were in line with the Financial Perspective for 2000-2006 adopted at the Berlin European Council in 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3312/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Community funding for Cross-Border Public Health Centres in Greece

At a time when infectious diseases (mainly tuberculosis and viral hepatitis) are spreading in Greece, its four Community-funded Cross-Border Public Health Centres, which could provide initial check-ups and medical care for the numerous incoming economic migrants suffering from such infectious diseases, are inoperative.

What was the exact amount of EU funding provided for the construction of these centres? Why are they not yet operative? Does the Commission know how the funds earmarked for the construction of these centres in Greece were actually spent? What penalties may, if appropriate, be imposed on Greece?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Under the Interreg II Community Initiative (Cross-border cooperation strand) for the period 1994-1999 the European Regional Development Fund granted 70 % financing for the following cross-border public health centres:

>TABLE>

Our information from the national authorities is that the projects have been completed, i.e. the physical constructions included in the Community programme have been deemed suitable for their purpose and taken over and will come into operation when the necessary steps have been taken on (recruitment is in progress).

Greece has not yet asked the Commission for financial closure of the programme. Under the Community rules in force applications relating to the period 1994-99 must be made by 31 March 2003.

The Commission will at that time examine all the documentation required under the rules before the programme is closed, including the final report, and decide case by case what action to take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Absence of Greek from Inforegio website

The Inforegio website offers visitors a very interesting opportunity to read about the achievements of regional policy in each Member State. The page on Greece, however, (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/projects/stories/search.cfm) offers no Greek language option, which means that Greek readers have to resort to another language to obtain information about their own country.

Can the Commission state the reasons for such a serious omission? Will the Commission in future also provide such information in Greek?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

The Inforegio website devoted to the Union's regional policy was run by a private firm until last February but has now been transferred to the Europa server of the Commission, which is endeavouring subject to resource availability and technical constraints to increase the number of documents put on line in all the Union's official languages. The good practice examples presented on the Inforegio site to which the Honourable Member refers will be published in Greek within the next few months and a further set of examples will be published directly in Greek in spring 2003. The Commission will mark Greece's six-month presidency of the Council by publishing these examples in a brochure on Structural Fund action in Greece.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3084/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Slimming agent Letigen

There has been a heated debate in Denmark over whether to ban the slimming agent Letigen owing to numerous complaints about these pills. Swedes have also reportedly crossed the Sound to Denmark to obtain Letigen.

In other Member States, however, these slimming pills are banned. What rules then apply in the internal market? Should Letigen be authorised throughout the Union because it is authorised in one Member State? Or if Letigen is such a health hazard as its critics in Denmark claim, should it really be possible to sell it in one Member State when it is banned in the majority of the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3064/02 by Mr Lund(1).

(1) See page 152.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2921/02

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

(16 October 2002)

Subject: St Kitts and Nevis

Will the Commission say what projects in St Kitts and Nevis were funded from the EU budget during 2000?

Will it say how much aid in total was given to the country in all forms during 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1907/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Subject: Immigration

Would the Commission consider that the recently enacted legislation relating to immigration in Denmark is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in respect of Article 12 and Article 14 of the Convention?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Although it is the duty of the Commission to ensure observance of fundamental rights in the field of Community law, it has no power to examine the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of national legislation lying outside the scope ot Community law. This is derived from the case law of the Court of Justice (Demirel, Warauf and ERT) and Article 51 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union.

In the field of immigration, there is yet no Community provision in place based on Article 63 of the EC Treaty. Furthermore, on the basis of its protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty, Denmark has opted out the application of Article 63 of the EC Treaty.

In the field of free movement of Union citizens and their family members who are third country nationals, the provisions of the new Danish legislation on immigration do not apply.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1890/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Regional coding of DVD players

Following my written questions regarding the regional coding of DVD players in June 2000 (E-1509/00, E-1510/00(1)) and the decision to investigate this further in June 2001, could the Commission please provide an update on work being carried out on this subject and any advances that have been made.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, pp. 157-158.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2002)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission opened an investigation into the digital video disc (DVD) regional coding system in June 2001. The position of the major film production companies is that the basic purpose of this system is to allow them to protect their copyrighted intellectual property and the traditional pattern of releasing their films at different times in different parts of the world, as well as to protect against piracy.

The Commission understands the Honourable Member's concerns (as outlined in his written question E-1510/00) that this system may prevent consumers from benefiting from DVDs at potentially cheaper prices. In the course of its investigation, the Commission has obtained significant amounts of information relating to the establishment and ongoing operation of the regional coding system from a broad range of film studios, DVD equipment manufacturers, and commercial retailers. The Commission is now completing its analysis of the file with a view to ascertaining the system's compatibility with the Community competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3132/02

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Representation of the different languages in Commission departments

The European Patent Office performs a vitally important role from the point of view of firms applying for a European patent. The European patent project has long been in the pipeline, and the Commission has been a prime mover.

It is in the interest of Europeans for all countries and language groups to be represented in common European bodies. In Finland the fact that there is no Finn working at the European Patent Office, and no service can therefore be provided in Finnish, has been found to pose a problem.

What will the Commission do to enable the patent service to be speeded up and made more flexible as far as language factors are concerned? Technology, for example, is developing very rapidly, and if a patent takes several years to obtain, the technology to which it relates may in that time become obsolete.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The European Patent Office (EPO) is not a Community body. In fact it is an autonomous entity and totally independent from the Community institutions. According to Article 4 (2) of the Convention on the grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention, EPC) the EPO is one of the main organs of the European Patent Organisation.

Since 1975 when the EPO was set, up the official languages of the EPO are English, French and German. Further to Article 14(2) of the EPC, nationals of an EPC Contracting State having a language other than the three working languages may initially file a European patent application in an official language of their State, subject to the transmission of a translation at a later stage.

Finland adhered to the EPC on 1 March 1996. In 2001, 20 Finnish nationals were employed by the EPO, and according to information obtained from the EPO eight additional Finnish staff have been recruited by 31 October 2002.

The issue of working languages enabling staff of international organisations to communicate with each other must be clearly distinguished from translation requirements which may apply, for example, after grant of a European patent.

In the context of the planned creation of a Community patent(1) and a possible accession of the Community to the European Patent Organisation, careful consideration is being given to issues such as translation requirements, costs and the possible involvement of national patent offices in the initial stages of the treatment of Community patent applications.

Whilst the Commission is aware that patent application procedures may be rather lengthy, it should be noted that workload is only one among a number of factors determining the duration of the period from application to grant. Other factors include the strategy of the patent applicant and the timetable for processing applications which is laid down in the legal and procedural framework within which patent offices have to operate.

(1) Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent, OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3223/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2002)

Subject: Accession countries and volume of hot air

Is there an estimate on how big a volume of so-called hot air is possessed by the 10 (and later 12) new Member States during the initial period of the EU emission trading scheme (2005-2007) or the subsequent period(s)? What is the volume, in comparison, of the hot air the German Federal Republic is able to sell taking into account the fact of the German reunification which took place after the base year of the Kyoto protocol?

Has the EU developed strategies on when and how this hot air should be put on the market in regard to the price of emission allowances (and the actual reductions of emissions in the EU) and where have such strategies been published if they exist?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2003)

The targets of the Kyoto Protocol apply in the period 2008-2012. Prior to that date, there are no legally binding targets.

The Community's greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, as foreseen by the Commission's proposal(1), is an entity based allowance trading scheme. Allocations of allowances must be made to entities covered by the Directive according to pre-determined criteria and in accordance with the EC Treaty's provisions, in particular with regard to state aid.

If hot air is understood as being a greater allocation of allowances than the expected real needs of companies, then the Commission is confident that there will be no hot air traded, neither in the period 2005-2007, nor in subsequent periods. This is because the proposal would prohibit governments from giving to their entities more than their likely need.

In these circumstances, it is not foreseen that any so-called hot air will be traded by operators in any Member State, whether new Member States or not.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Introduction of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes

Vigorous debates are currently being held throughout the euro area about the existence and scale of price hikes since the introduction of the euro on 1 January 2002.

As a result of the non-stop publication of figures by consumer protection associations seeking to confirm such price instability and of ongoing discussions in the media, many consumers regard the euro as being the root cause of price hikes. The manifest consequences are falling consumption indices for business and, above all, widespread falling consumer confidence in European financial policy and, hence, in the new currency which, as a symbol of the European spirit, should really not make people feel nostalgic for the old national currencies.

In Italy, consumer organisations and trade unions reacted very negatively this week to the publication of the latest provisional retail price index (+ 2,3 % in August), so much so that the Italian Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance, Giulio Tremonti, eventually called for the introduction of a EUR 1 banknote in Italy. The idea is to counteract the general trend whereby coins, compared with banknotes, are deemed to have no value, and, in this way, to raise consumer awareness and create a positive climate for consumption.

Does the Commission have any plans to counteract the current climate of uncertainty by taking a psychologically positive step and introducing 1 and 2 euro banknotes?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2002)

The choice of banknote denominations is the sole responsibility of the European Central Bank. The decision to produce seven banknotes ranging in value from EUR 5 to EUR 500 was taken after four years of deliberations by the Working Group on Printing and Issuing a European Banknote set up in 1992 by the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks. The Eurobarometer surveys conducted since the start of 2002 bear witness to the high level of acceptance of the banknotes by the European public and do not reveal any desire to change the range of notes available. The possibility of issuing EUR 1 or EUR 2 banknotes has no genuine support (outside Greece and Italy) and even meets with strong opposition in some countries (e.g. in France, where 68 % of those questioned in a recent survey opposed the idea).