ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1096/02

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against Germans in Austrian hunting areas

Is it true that Austrian hunters (in this case in Mittelberg, Kleinwalsertal) pay a hunting tax of 15 % on the lease for a hunting ground, whereas German hunters pay 35 %?

If so, does the Commission regard this as an instance of unequal treatment of German hunters vis-à-vis (local) Austrian hunters?

What steps does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2002)

Article 3 of the Land Vorarlberg law does provide for a 15 % hunting tax for Austrian residents and a 35 % tax for non-residents.

But an amendment to this law, introducing a standard rate of 20 % for all EU residents, is currently going through the Land Vorarlberg legislature. Its adoption will soon put an end to the discrimination referred to by the Honourable Member, which does indeed conflict with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2633/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Road tolls

Would the Commission confirm whether Member States have the power to levy tolls, and to retain in full the money gained thereby, on roads which have benefited from receipt of European funding?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2002)

Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures(1) lays down the rules for the levying of tolls and user charges on heavy goods vehicles (above 12 tonnes) for the use of certain infrastructures (motorways and similar roads). Member States wishing to introduce or to maintain such tolls and user charges should respect this legislation. According to Directive 1999/62/EC and following the European Court's jurisprudence(2), motorway toll rates on heavy goods vehicles have to be related to the infrastructure costs of the motorway concerned regardless of whether the Community grants to finance construction work have been received. The levels of motorway tolls on other types of vehicles (cars, coaches, lighter commercial vehicles) are not covered by Community legislation.

As indicated in the White Paper on the European transport policy until 2010(3), the Commission will propose to amend the legislative framework related to infrastructure charging notably to ensure that the different transport modes reflect more accurately the costs they engender. The Commission will publish in the coming weeks a communication on the methodology for transport infrastructure charging.

(1) OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

(2) Case C-205/98 Commission vs Austria.

(3) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2973/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Broiler chickens

In their 2000 report the Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare concluded that painful leg disorders and heart failure are two of the principal health and welfare problems facing broiler chickens and that both of these are mainly caused by the rapid growth rates imposed on broilers.

Does the Commission intend to address the question of leg disorders, heart failure and rapid growth rates in its forthcoming proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of broiler chickens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2002)

The Commission is in the process of elaborating its proposal for the protection of chickens kept for the production of meat.

The Commission proposal will take into account the main recommendations provided by the scientists in their latest report including specific provisions to address the questions related to the rapid growth rate of the animals.

Furthermore, in preparing its proposal the Commission aims to promote good management practices and to integrate the monitoring of the welfare status of the animals in controls already carried out at slaughterhouses. The monitoring of the results could replace over-detailed specifications concerning farms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2114/02

by Janelly Fourtou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 July 2002)

Subject: EU membership of the Madrid protocol

In July 1996 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council decision aimed at establishing a link between the Community mark system and the Madrid Protocol(1) and a proposal aimed at modifying Regulation 40/94 on the Community trade mark to enable such a link to be established(2). Parliament adopted these two proposals in May 1997.

When the Commission presented these proposals only six Member States (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) were members of the Madrid Protocol. Now all the EU Member States and all the applicant countries except Cyprus and Malta have acceded to the protocol.

The European Union's accession would allow industry to benefit from the advantages of the Community mark in all the Madrid protocol Member States. It would also provide protection for the mark in signatory third countries and foster a climate favourable to trade between the European Union and the third countries.

In view of all the advantages that accession by the European Union to the Madrid protocol would offer to the owners of European trademarks, to the Community mark and the contribution it would make to consolidating the single market and to trade with third countries, and given that all the Member States have acceded individually to the protocol, can the Council say what measures it intends to take finally to establish the link between the Community mark and the Madrid protocol?

(1) COM(96) 367 final, OJ C 293, 5.1.1996, p. 11.

(2) COM(96) 372 final, OJ C 300, 10.10.1996, p. 11.

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The proposed Decision and the proposed Regulation mentioned in the Honourable Member's question require unanimity in the Council in order to be adopted. It has not yet been possible to obtain unanimity on all the provisions contained in the proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2799/02 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Public procurement: tender evaluation.



Official Journal 052 E , 06/03/2003 P. 0217 - 0217



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2799/02 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (7 October 2002) Subject: Public procurement: tender evaluation Could the Commission confirm that a utility, subject to the procurements rules set forth in Directive 93/38/EEC(1), and employing the negotiated procedure, is bound to evaluate tenders on an objective, non-discriminatory basis and to select the lowest or most economically advantageous offer? (1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (4 November 2002) Pursuant to Article 34 of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, and whichever award procedure has been chosen, the criteria on which the contracting entities shall base the award of contracts shall be either the most economically advantageous tender or the lowest price only. As with all other provisions of the Directive, application of this rule must be guided by the principles on which the Directive is based: the principles of equality of treatment, of which the principle of non-discrimination is no more than a specific expression, mutual recognition, proportionality, transparency and the opening-up of public procurement to competition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3139/02

by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Genetic susceptibility of individuals to specific foodstuffs within Framework Programme 6

The European Commission is finalising arrangements for Framework Programme 6 which will establish the research strategy for the next five years. Although very helpful, the analysis of the Expressions of Interest (EoI) for FP6 remain somewhat unclear as to which areas will be supported.

With this in mind, would the Commission please clarify what priority will be given to an assessment of the genetic susceptibility of individuals to specific foodstuffs and food components within Framework Programme 6?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2002)

The Commission invited the scientific community to submit expressions of interest (EoIs) in order to assists its services to prepare the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) work programmes and to define the scope of the first calls for proposals. For the Thematic Priority Food Quality and Safety, the EoIs were analysed by external experts, who came up with a list of 53 research topics considered ready for implementation and of the highest relevance to Europe. This list has been published on the website http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/eoi-analysis.htm. Based on the 53 topics given in the EoI report, the work programme for Thematic Priority 5 Food Quality and Safety is currently being drafted. Publication of the work programme is foreseen for mid-December 2002.

The Commission considers the issue of genetic susceptibility of individuals to foodstuffs and food component as an important one. As a matter of fact, under the headings Epidemiology of food-related diseases and allergies, Impact of food on health and Environmental health risks, many of the topics retained offer the possibility for researchers to include aspects of genetic susceptibility of individuals to specific foodstuffs into their research proposals: gene-nutrient interaction; epidemiology of food allergy; lipid metabolism and chronic diseases; influence of nutrition and lifestyle on healthy ageing; functional genomics in relation to food, nutrition and health; microbes and gut health; programming effects of early nutrition on long-term health;

healthy ageing through diet; risk-benefit analysis of phyto-estrogens, as an important class of bio-active compounds, on human health; integrated strategies to prevent obesity and associated diseases; dietary fatty acids: optimised supply and response; environmental health risks, particularly in relation to sensitive groups, that are linked to the food chain.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2669/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(17 September 2002)

Subject: European sugar cartel

In its answer to written question P-1985/02(1) by the author of the present question, the Commission stated that it had not drawn up any document of the type requested by the questioner, but nonetheless made explicit reference to the existence of a procedure which it had decided not to continue with officially.

I believe that there is no doubt whatever that the concerted refusal of sugar sales referred to by Commissioner Monti in his address to the EP plenary is the reflection of an agreement which should be defined as a cartel (this is not, of course, the right place to hold a discussion on the meaning of cartel).

Given these circumstances, can the Commission note my request, once again repeated, that it forward me a copy of the procedure referred to by Commissioner Monti in his reply to written question P-1985/02, pursuant to the terms and conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(2)?

In view of the fact that the Commissioner's reference to the existence of the procedure was made in public, I am presuming that the Commission will take the view that it does not fall under Article 4 of the above-mentioned regulation.

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 168.

(2) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2002)

The Honourable Member requests access to documents relating to the procedure referred to by the Member of the Commission responsible for Competition in his reply to a previous written question P-1985/02 by the Honourable Member(1). This request is based on Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

The Commission will assess the request of the Honourable Member according to the procedure foreseen in that Regulation.

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 168.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1296/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Organisations on the list of terrorist organisations

Does the Commission agree that the inclusion of an organisation on the EU list of terrorist organisations does not in itself mean that, in criminal proceedings in Denmark, it may be regarded as having been proven to be a terrorist organisation within the meaning of the proposed provisions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001(1), provides for the application of specific measures to combat terrrorism. Such measures may lead to the freezing of funds, other financial assets or economic resources of persons, groups and entities on the basis of specific Community legislation. The measures may also entail, through police and judicial co-operation in criminal mattters within the framework of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, mutual assistance by Member States in combating and preventing terrorist acts.

The Council decides on the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the Common Position applies.

The list is drawn up on the basis of precise information or material in the relevant file which indicates that a decision has been taken by a competent authority in respect of persons, groups or entities concerned to investigate or prosecute them. The investigation or prosecution has to be for a terrorist act, an attempt to perpetrate, participation in or facilitation of such an act. Furthermore, the investigation or prosecution must be based on serious and credible evidence or clues or a condemnation for such deeds. Also persons, groups and entities indentified by the Security Council of the United Nations as being related to terrorism and against whom it has ordered sanctions may be included in the list.

The conclusion is therefore justified that when a person, group or entity is listed, such listing does not necessarily mean that is has been proven that the person, group or entity concerned has perpetrated a terrorist act, or attempted perpetrate, to particpate in or to facilitate such an act as defined in said Common Position.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Relationship between the High Representative and the Commission

Does the Commission agree that the High Representative for CFSP should, at the next revision of the Treaty, be integrated into the European Commission?

Will it consider, as a first step, inviting the High Representative to meetings of the Commission and to working groups of Commissioners when external relations are being discussed?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2002)

In its Communication A project for the European Union(1) the Commission proposes that the posts of the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Commissioner for External Relations should be merged in a manner and in accordance with a timetable to be laid down, and that the conditions under which the High Representative can be integrated into the Commission should be spelt out.

At this stage, the Commission does not plan to invite the High Representative to its meetings, as it does not wish to prejudge the European Convention's deliberations on the matter. The High Representative has occasionally been invited to working meetings of the group of Commissioners responsible for external relations. In its Communication, the Commission proposes a number of improvements in working methods which can be put into practice without waiting for the Treaties to be revised and which aim to strengthen cooperation between the High Representative and itself. It hopes that these improvements will be introduced as soon as possible.

The Commission would also stress that, thanks to fruitful daily contacts, cooperation with the High Representative works very well, despite the complexity of the institutional structure.

(1) COM(2002) 247 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2959/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: A2 (Lisbon-Algarve) motorway, Portugal

In April 2001 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Portuguese Authorities informing them that the crossing of the Castro Verde SPA by the Grandola-Almodovar section of the A2 motorway would violate the Habitats Directive.

In November 2001, another reasoned opinion was sent, concerning the next sector of the motorway (Almodovar-VLA), which affected the Caldeirao, Barrocal, and Ribeira de Quarteira proposed Sites of Community Importance.

During the processing of these cases both sectors were built. In the light of this situation has the Commission submitted the cases to the ECJ? Has the Commission received a request for funding from the Portuguese Authorities for either sector of the motorway?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that it has taken the decision to refer Portugal to the Court of Justice in connection with two infringement procedures concerning the construction of two sections of the Lisbon-Algarve motorway the Grândola/Almodôvar section (procedure 2000/4418) and the Almodôvar/Via Longitudinal do Algarve section (procedure 1999/5085).

This decision was based on failure to fulfil obligations arising from Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

Moreover, the Commission hereby informs the Honourable Member that no Community funding has been granted for the two sections in question.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2914/02

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

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Niue

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for EU budget funding in 2001 for Niue and give details of the total amount of investment for that year?

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 P-3453/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Economic integration

What measures would the Commission propose to use as benchmarks to assess the importance of foreign ownership in the production structure of each Member State, including ownership by companies in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

An appropriate indicator to assess the importance of foreign control is the share of value added generated by foreign-controlled enterprises on the value added of the whole economy (including enterprises controlled by the compiling economy). Another possibility is to measure the importance in terms of employment. Enclosed herein there are results obtained in the Structural Business Statistics-Framework with data for reference year 1999 for seven participating Member States. For more detailed information, the publication Foreign-owned enterprises with data for reference year 1997 and the Statistics in Focus Foreign-owned enterprises with data for reference year 1998 are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

However, this measure is not available for all Member States and not for the Union aggregate. A draft Regulation on the structure and activity on foreign affiliates is presently under discussion following Eurostat initiative. This legal framework would enable to provide the requested information for all Member States and for the Union as a whole.

For the time being, an alternative indicator is given by foreign direct investment (FDI) statistics. FDI inward stock expressed in percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) (see the reply given to written question E-3637/02 by the Honourable Member(1) and tables which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat) can provide indication on the comparative importance of foreign ownership over space and time. FDI are more readily available in time and more complete, but they have a financial dimension and do not give information on real variables such as production, employment, etc.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 221.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1654/02

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Support for small airports in the European Union

Documents such as the recent proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation(1) security make a distinction between small and major airports. Since small airports are absolutely vital for the economic survival and development of the Union's island regions, which cannot rely on passenger and freight traffic through those airports, will the Council say whether it has taken any measures to support the operation of the airports on small islands and, if not, whether it intends to do so?

Has the Council taken precautions to ensure that the new security measures to be implemented at European airports are not so onerous for small island airports that they are in danger of having to suspend their operations?

(1) COM(2001) 575 2001/0234(COD)/(15029/4/2001 C5-0033/2002, OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002, p. 221.

Reply

(6 February 2003)

In order to respond to the challenges posed by the 11 September attacks, on 28 January 2002 the Council adopted its common position on common rules in the field of civil aviation security, to which the Honourable Member is referring. On 14 May 2002 the European Parliament amended that common position. The Council was unable to accept all those amendments. Accordingly, a conciliation procedure was opened on 19 September 2002.

At this stage it should also be noted that Article 4(3) of the common position provides for derogations for small airports, where the application of the common basic standards could prove disproportionate in the light of a local risk assessment or where they cannot be implemented for objective practical reasons. In such cases, it would be for the Member State to adopt measures that provide an adequate level of protection. The Commission would be notified of these measures and decide whether they complied with the criteria.

However, the Council cannot give its definitive position on this issue until the procedure for adopting this Regulation has been completed.