ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/02

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Return home of corpses within the EU

A growing number of Union citizens currently live in Member States other than their countries of origin. As a result, more and more are dying outside their home countries. At present, the return home of corpses from one country to another is regulated by the Berlin agreement, dating back to 1937, and a Council of Europe Agreement, dating back to 1973. These agreements are now out of date because they are based on border policing of a type that has ceased to exist. The current situation is causing all kinds of delays and inconvenience for the grieving relatives of people who have died.

Do the EU Treaties require the Union to guarantee that corpses can be freely sent home within the EU, when the deceased persons were Union citizens? In addition, would it be possible to draw up a regulation to govern the return home of corpses whereby a journey from one Member State to another would be as simple as a journey within the same Member State?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0209/02 and E-0343/02

(21 May 2002)

Neither the Treaty on European Union nor the Community's secondary legislation contains any provisions on the subject raised in the Honourable Members' questions.

The Council is therefore unable to answer these questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0359/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Water shortage in Greece

Greece was recently hit by massive snowfalls, while for more than two and a half months (from early November 2001 until mid-January 2002), the amount of rain that fell throughout the country was unprecedented. However, there are strong misgivings that this water was not collected anywhere owing to a lack of suitable facilities.

Does the Commission know the exact number of major co-funded projects that were carried out in Greece over the last ten years in order to restrict water shortages? Is the Commission satisfied with Greece's efforts to collect water? What is its appraisal of the situation with regard to water shortages in Greece over the next ten years?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Greece has a large number of works to collect run-off water, some of which were part-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund over the first ten years in order to meet the needs of agriculture and cope with the lack of drinking water. Projects assisted by the Community include the large dam on the Evinos to supply water to Athens, the Voion dam at Kozani, and those at Lefkoia and Kirgia in the Prefecture of Drama, at Agia Paraskevi in Kalabaka, the Goumenissa reservoir at Kilkis and a whole series of artificial lakes and water catchment schemes, particularly on the islands.

According to information from the Greek authorities, the following major projects have begun or are at an advanced stage of planning: the Piros and Parapiros dams for Patras, the Aposselemis and Potamon dams in Crete, the Gadouras dam on Rhodes, the Agioneri and Panagiotiko dams in Thessaly, the Vrachos dam in Kastoria, the Grevena dam and the Achiron dam in Etoloakarnania, the Seta-Manikia dam in Sterea Ellada, water supply on Corfu, the Arzan-Amatovo dam at Kilkis and restoration of part of the former lake of Karla in Thessaly.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that neither water collection nor estimates of a possible water shortage are matters for which it is responsible. However it should be noted that, under Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(1), the Member States are required to provide data on water management. This Directive must be transposed into national law no later than 22 December 2003.

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/02

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Impact of aquaculture on coastal fishing in the Canary Islands

In view of possible incompatibilities in the use of sea areas and coastal waters, can the Commission provide information on the research carried out into the impact of aquaculture on coastal fishing in the Canary Islands? Can it also provide information on aid granted under the FIFG during the period 1994-1999 and during the current programming period for the fishing industry in the Canaries, with a breakdown of the amounts for aquaculture and for coastal fishing? What checks does the Commission carry out on compliance with protection requirements? With what resources have these activities been co-financed by the Spanish authorities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission has not carried out any studies on the impact of aquaculture on inshore fishing in the Canary Islands, and it is not aware of any research into this matter.

The Commission does have information on aid granted under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) to aquaculture in the Canary Islands in the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programming periods. However, there are no separate figures for aid to small-scale coastal fishing, since the data refer to aggregate aid to the fishing fleet as a whole under the measures implementing the FIFG programme.

The figures for 1994-1999 are as follows:

- Aquaculture: 1 802 079;

- Fishing fleet: 27 571 500.

As regards the period 2000-2006, by 30 September 2001 the Canary Islands authorities had made no payment for either aquaculture or the fleet.

The protection requirements referred to by the Honourable Member are unclear. The Commission does not directly monitor compliance with such requirements; it is up to the Member States to check on the application of regional planning provisions in accordance with national law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0282/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Railtrack

The UK government recently put Railtrack PLC into liquidation. It looks likely that the owners of shares in Railtrack will lose virtually all of their capital investment in the company, without any compensation. Is the Council concerned at the way in which the UK government has handled the liquidation of Railtrack?

In particular, does the Council believe that the effective confiscation of Railtrack shares in the UK may jeopardise plans for the liberalisation of transport infrastructures around Europe, as investors are deterred from investing in such projects for fear that the Railtrack precedent will be repeated with sudden renationalisation without compensation? Does the Council believe that the UK government should compensate the shareholders of Railtrack?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council would ask the Honourable Member to address her question to the EC Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: European Commission consultation document on the new approach directives

The internet-based feedback for the Consultation Document prepared by the Directorate-General for Enterprise concerning the functioning of the New Approach directives is only available through a questionnaire at: http://europa.eu.int/BFM/consultation/index.cfm?fuseaction=form&id_form=4

Why isn't there the possibility for an internet-based feedback outside the restrictive framework of the questionnaire?

Why is the name of the person responsible for the consultation document not available on the website?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2002)

The Consultation Document on the Review of the New Approach was prepared by the Enterprise Directorate General as part of the preparation of a planned Communication from the Commission on the functioning of the New Approach directives. The purpose of the consultation was to elicit a broad range of assessment and feedback from stakeholders so that more detailed proposals could be elaborated and put forward in the eventual Communication.

When considering the most efficient way of consulting as widely as possible for the Review of the New Approach, it was thought that an internet-based consultation was preferable to a survey restricted to the known stakeholders, in terms of reaching a wider range of potential contributors. In further considering the best choice of format for such a consultation, it was decided that the interactive tool called Interactive Policy Making, already available within the Commission, would best suit the purposes of the consultation. The advantages of this tool were evaluated both in terms of the constraints on time and in the quicker processing of results than would be possible under a less structured consultation.

The consultation document itself is the result of accrued experience in the operation of the New Approach at Member State and Community level, and of extensive discussions with Member States over a period of time. This continuity, coupled with the inevitable changes in personnel over such a period, mean that the project involves teamwork rather than the result of the work of any one individual. A functional mailbox address was available on the consultation page, to facilitate any queries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0746/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Labelling of foodstuffs

An Italian discounter wishes to open a discount store in Carinthia (Austria) and now needs to know how foodstuffs must be labelled so that they can be sold in Austria.

Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Foodstuffs Labelling Regulation 1993 LMKV, BGBl Nr 72, as most recently amended by Regulation BGBl II Nr 462/1999, labelling information must be easy to understand and must be easily visible and clearly legible and applied indelibly to the packaging or a label attached thereto.

I am forwarding to the Commission a letter from the Federal Ministry for Social Affairs and Generations which indicates that an easily understood language in Austria is German, and that labelling in Austria must therefore be in German.

In my opinion, the requirement to label foodstuffs in the national language constitutes discrimination against the Italian discounter.

Will the Commission therefore state whether the requirement for food to be labelled in the national language is compatible with EU law? If it is not, what labelling requirements must the Italian discounter comply with? (Where must the labelling be affixed? In which language must it appear? What are the legal provisions governing compulsory labelling in the European Union?)

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Directive 2000/13/EC(1) lays down, in Article 16, the rules applicable to the language in which the labelling particulars of foodstuffs must appear.

Basically, these provisions stipulate that labelling particulars must appear in a language that is easily understood by consumers, and allow the Member State in which the product concerned is marketed to stipulate that, on its territory, these labelling particulars must be provided at least in a given language from among the official languages of the Community.

The obligation for labelling particulars to appear at least in German on Austrian territory therefore seems to be fully in keeping with the above-mentioned provisions, which are based on the requirement to inform and protect consumers.

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ L 109, 6.5.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0465/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Establishment of four ginned cotton quality control centres in Greece

A scheme to set up four ginned cotton quality control, classification and standardisation centres with a purpose of creating modern infrastructures to improve the quality and marketing of Greek cotton has been included in the second CSF and in the regional operational programmes for Eastern Macedonia Thrace, Central Macedonia, Thessaly and Eastern Mainland Greece. According to the project timetable, these four centres were due to be completed and to begin operating by the end of 1999.

1. Will the Commission say at what stage has construction work reached in each of the four centres? What funding has so far been allocated to them? How and when will they be completed and begin operating?

2. What guarantees has the Commission received about the proper functioning of the centres, given that the Cotton Organisation, which had been designated as the competent body, has been abolished and its specialised staff who were due to work at the centres have been transferred to other services?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

The situation as regards progress on the four regional centres is as follows:

- for the regional programmes for Central Macedonia and Continental Greece, preparatory studies were finalised under the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework (CSF), costing 0,3 million for each of the two centres. Construction and fitting out of the centres is scheduled under the 2000-2006 CSF in accordance with the procedures laid down there, i.e. submission of a data sheet to the respective managing authorities for the two programmes, to be evaluated on the basis of the selection criteria adopted by the programme Monitoring Committees;

- for the regional programmes for East Macedonia Thrace and Thessaly, the studies and construction work were finalised under the 1994-1999 CSF at a total cost of 1,51 million and 3,79 million respectively. The equipment is to be purchased under the 2000-2006 CSF in accordance with the same procedure as outlined above.

All four centres were proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture which is studying the setting up of a management body for the centres since the Cotton Organisation which was to oversee their operation no longer exists. The selection criteria adopted clearly prevent the programme managing authorities from taking any decision unless the respective data sheets clearly guarantee that the part-financed projects will function properly. The Commission is aware of the fact that the managing body for the centres has not yet been established and will follow this matter closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0838/02

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Subject: Article 151 of the EC Treaty and cultural heritage budgetary aspects

According to Article 151(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, action is possible at EU level with a view to the conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance.

In total, how much of the EU budget has been committed to projects in this area since 1999, and under which budget headings?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

Under Article 151 of the EC Treaty, the Community has responsibility for encouraging cultural cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action in a number of areas, including the conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance. This objective is pursued by the Culture 2000 framework programme for promoting cultural cooperation in Europe (budget heading B3-2008); prior to the entry into force of this programme in 2000, it was pursued by the Raphaël programme (former budget heading B3-2000).

The amounts committed in 1999 under budget heading B3-2000 were 6,5 million, which were devoted entirely to measures targeted at the cultural heritage.

The amounts for measures concerning the cultural heritage that were committed in 2000 and 2001 under budget heading B3-2008 were 14,4 million and 11,8 million respectively.

Detailed information on the projects supported in the area of the conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage in 2000 and 2001 may be found at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html

It should be noted that other Community programmes and measures (such as the Structural Funds, the Funds devoted to the protection of the environment, etc.) include projects that are also designed to conserve and safeguard cultural heritage of European significance. The Commission intends to draw up a communication on the implementation of Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty(1). To this end, it has decided to launch a questionnaire, intended for the Member States, on the use, for cultural measures, including initiatives intended to conserve and safeguard cultural heritage of European significance, of the structural policy funds that they manage directly.

(1) Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty states that the Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0003/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Christ's new flight from Bethlehem

The refusal of the Sharon government opposed by a majority of Israeli citizens to allow the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to visit Bethlehem at Christmas should be seen within the context not only of a general plan to humiliate and discredit Arafat, but also of attempts to ethnically cleanse the Bethlehem area of its Arab Christian population.

When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, 95 % of the population were Palestinian Christians (the majority of them Greek Orthodox, together with a large number of Catholics and Armenian Christians), but this percentage has now been reduced to 45 %. The exodus of Palestinian Christians mainly to Australia and North and South America has in recent months reached dangerous proportions, with Israeli armoured units entering Bethlehem, the death of 20 Palestinians last October and the destruction of 200 homes belonging to Greek Orthodox Palestinians.

As seen in the barring of Arafat's visit on Christmas night, the Sharon government is endeavouring through both military and political means to wipe out the Palestinian Christian element in Bethlehem, because this element remains true to its Arabic identity, is moderate and, because of its religious convictions, has not wandered onto the path of Islamic extremism, which would have made it politically vulnerable; it also has the support of Christian churches in the West and, in theory, would be able to survive economically through religious tourism.

In addition to the general initiatives for the Middle East, what particular action does the Council intend to take with regard to the Israeli Government to ensure that the Palestinians in the Bethlehem area who are mainly Christians remain there?

Reply

(27 June 2002)

The Council underlines that the important contribution which the EU as a leading donor has made in the past to avert a collapse of the Palestinian Authority and to lay the seeds for genuine economic development has, in the eyes of the Council, benefited Palestinians of all faiths in the Occupied Territories.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0731/02

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

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Community laws

How many Community laws have been rescinded in each of the years 1999, 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2002)

The term Community laws has been interpreted as Community legislation adopted in the form of regulations or directives. In answer to the question, the table below gives the figures for both rescinded acts and acts which ceased to be valid during the years in question.

>TABLE>

The above data are taken from Celex, the documentary database of EU law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1608/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Denial of National Mortgage Guarantee in the Netherlands to some residents who are nationals of other EU Member States or EEA countries

1. Is the Commission aware that the Owner-Occupiers Guarantee Fund (Stichting Waarborg-fonds Eigen Woning) in the Netherlands, which provides National Mortgage Guarantees the successor of Municipal Guarantees (guarantees provided by municipal authorities that home-buyers would meet their mortgage payments) and protects home-buyers against future risks and against higher interest payments to building societies to cover higher risks, has introduced new rules in 2002, one of which (p. 12) is that an applicant from a Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area must be in possession of a Netherlands residence permit which is valid indefinitely in order to be eligible for a loan to help him/her buy a home or, as an owner-occupier, make improvements to his/her home?

2. Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands only grants the right to such a residence permit once the applicant has been entered in the population register of a Dutch municipality for five years, even if the person concerned can prove with the aid of witnesses or by producing an employment contract that he/she has been resident in the Netherlands for longer?

3. Does the Commission agree that there is no need for a requirement to produce a residence permit of indefinite validity as a means of combating speculation by people who are not resident in the Netherlands, because the rules governing mortgage guarantees also state that a guarantee is valid only if the beneficiary occupies the dwelling in person and it is his/her permanent principal home, and the guarantee remains valid only so long as this continues to be the case?

4. Do the new rules constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality, bearing in mind that people who wish to settle in the Netherlands for a long period and spouses of Netherlands nationals who themselves are nationals of another Member State of the EU or the EEA are placed at a disadvantage with regard to the opportunity to buy a dwelling with the intention of living in it in person?

5. What will the Commission do to put an end to this unequal treatment and discrimination on grounds of nationality?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.