ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Implementation by Greece of Directive 89/48/EEC

Presidential Decree 165/2000 transposing Directive 89/48/EEC(1) under Greek law, has been amended by Presidential Decree 385/2002, which also transposes Directive 2001/19 EEC(2). In July 2002, the Commission forwarded a reasoned opinion (SG (2002) 220544 1.7.2002) as part of infringement proceedings (2001/4046) for failure by Greece to transpose properly under national law Directive 89/48/EEC and failure to implement properly certain provisions thereof, including recognition of diplomas awarded by the relevant institutions of other Member States on completion of studies on the basis of franchise agreements concerning the right to use the names of the institutions concerned.

Does the new Presidential Decree 385/2002 remedy the shortcomings regarding the transposition of Directive 89/48/EEC? If not, what steps will be taken by the Commission in response to failure to implement the directive properly?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

(2) OJ L 206, 31.7.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Honourable Member's question prompts the following comments:

- Presidential Decree 385/2002, amending Presidential Decree 165/2000 was sent to the Commission. The examination of this Presidential Decree concluded that it brought Presidential Decree 165/2000 into line with Directive 89/48/EEC on certain points relating to the incorrect transposition of Directive 89/48/EEC(1). These compliance measures relate in particular to the applicability of Presidential Decree 165/2000 to persons who have already practised in Greece the profession for which they request recognition and certain provisions relating to compensatory measures. The corresponding objections raised in the reasoned opinion notified to Greece on 1 July 2002 should thus be dropped.

- However, insofar as Presidential Decree 385/2002 still leaves a number of objections concerning the incorrect transposition of Directive 89/48/EEC and all the objections relating to the improper application of this Directive, the Commission intends to continue with the proceedings which are under way, taking into account the changes made following the adoption of Presidential Decree 385/2002. The Commission decided to bring this case before the Court of Justice at its meeting of 17 December 2002.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1475/03

by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Subject: Free gifts offered with food products

In the wake of the deaths in recent years of children from suffocation, a number of more socially responsible manufacturers have voluntarily taken potentially dangerous products off the market:

1. Nestlé withdrew its Magic Ball product (a chocolate-covered plastic ball with a Disney character inside) on the grounds that toys inside food products are considered extremely dangerous;

2. In Denmark and the UK, the Onken yoghurt containing a toy was voluntarily withdrawn from the market;

3. In Finland, an Austrian-made product (a chocolate egg containing a surprise gift) was also taken off the market.

Nonetheless, unscrupulous manufacturers are (in what is no doubt another marketing ploy aimed at increasing product sales) continuing to advertise and sell food products containing toys which could cause fatal accidents and gravely damage family life.

What specific measures does the Commission intend to take in the interests of consumer protection in the Union?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1475/03, E-1505/03, E-1552/03 and E-1591/03given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission has answered several previous parliamentary questions on the matter raised by the Honourable Members, so it would ask them to refer in particular to the joint answers to Written Questions E-0504/02 by Ms Karamanou and E-0548/02 by Mr Alavanos(1), and to Written Questions E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira Da Silva, E-2631/00 by Ms Damião and E-2632/00 by Mr Lage(2).

With regard to the accidents mentioned in Written Question E-1505/03, the Commission has contacted the authorities of the countries concerned in order to obtain details of these accidents and to assess them. In addition, the Commission will pay close attention to the results of the current investigation, coordinated by Parliament's STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment) Unit, into the possible risk of combining food products with non-food products.

Any new factor arising from this information will be examined to determine whether initiatives should be taken at Community level.

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0632/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: EU development policy and NGOs

Would the Commission transmit to me the list of projects funded by the European Union Commission in the field of sexual and reproductive health and rights,

and in the field of population issues, in the last five years until now. I would be grateful to receive the details of projects entirely focusing on this issue but also projects partly focusing on this issue.

I would also like to know the proportion of Commission funding, a description of the project and activities involved, partners in the project, targeted population, and under which budget line they are financed?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

The Community provides funding for projects in the field of sexual and reproductive health and rights and in the field of population issues from a variety of sources, i.e.:

- the budget line specially created for that purpose (B7-6312);

- the budget line used to cofinance operations with NGOs (B7-6000);

- regional and national cooperation programmes financed from the general budget (ALA/MED) or the European Development Fund (ACP).

A list of 38 projects funded by the Commission from budget line B7-6312 (ex 6212) between 1998 and 2002 is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. In addition to the title, which contains information on the subject of the operation, details are also provided of the location and amount. The Community funding is less than 90 % of the total project cost in every case.

The second list contains projects in the same fields financed from budget line B7-6000, intended for cofinancing of operations with NGOs. The beneficiary NGOs are also listed. The Commission contribution accounts for 80 % at most of the total project cost.

For projects funded under other programmes, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the evaluation report on EC aid in the health sector in the ACP/ALA/MED countries (2002) which can be found on the Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/reports/sector/951589.pdf.

Annex 2 of the report classifies projects and programmes according to the sectors concerned, including Family planning and reproductive health and HIV/AIDS and STDs. 33 projects out of a total 115 include activities in one or the other of these sectors.

For the sake of completeness, mention should also be made of a new project approved by the Commission in 2002 to be financed from the European Development Fund. The project involves a joint EC/ACP/UNFPA/IPPF programme for reproductive and sexual health which is described in a document also sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

An evaluation is currently under way of operations carried out by the Commission in the area of population policy. The first phase of the study is already complete and the final report is expected to be ready at the end of 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject: Unfair terms in banking contracts

The Spanish Consumers' Association (OCU) has brought a case against several banks before the Spanish High Court for including up to 17 terms in their contracts that are unfair and detrimental to customers and is seeking to have them declared null and void, all of which has aroused great interest among the Spanish population.

It appears that the need for judicial proceedings, such as those initiated by the Spanish Consumers' Association, in order for the authorities, whether national or Community, to conduct a detailed analysis of the terms of banking contracts, has once again been highlighted.

What is the Commission's view on the Community legislation on customer protection with regard to banks? Does the Commission believe that it provides customers with an adequate guarantee that they will not be subjected to unfair or detrimental practices?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

The issue of consumer protection vis-à-vis banks is a wide-ranging one:

- the rules on capital adequacy and prudential supervision ensures a stable banking system, which is in the interest also of consumers;

- Directive 2002/65/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 on distance marketing of consumer financial services(1) provides a comprehensive framework for protection of consumer interests in relation to distribution means for which financial services are particularly suitable;

- Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, on unfair contract terms(2) has established a mechanism which by and large has proved to be a successful tool to achieve balanced contract terms applicable between consumers on the one hand and sellers and suppliers on the other hand, including the financial sector; no specific amendment of this is currently foreseen.

However, the Commission believes more could be done in certain areas. Hence,

- the forthcoming proposal for a framework Directive on unfair commercial practices, which is programmed for adoption by the Commission before the summer, would aim at introducing an over-arching framework where no specific rules exist in the pre-contractual consumer/supplier relationship;

- the recently adopted Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006(3) announces a reform of the consumer acquis communautaire in general;

- the work the Commission has undertaken to create a single payments area should be beneficial also to consumers.

Moreover, the recent Action Plan on A More Coherent European Contract Law(4) will no doubt also have implications for the consumer/bank contractual relationship although it is too early to detail these.

(1) OJ L 271, 29.10.2002.

(2) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.

(3) OJ C 137, 8.6.2002.

(4) OJ C 63, 15.3.2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0409/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Funding for report on the subject of deregulation of electricity market in Ireland

Is the Commission aware if there is funding available at EU level for the publication of a report on the subject of deregulation of the electricity market in Ireland?

If such funding exists, can the Commission outline the criteria for qualifying for such funding?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

The Commission has to inform the Honourable Member that no funding is available at Community level for the publication of a report on the opening of the Irish electricity markets. However, the Commission has published two reports on the implementation of the internal electricity and gas market (staff working documents First Benchmarking Report(1) and Second Benchmarking Report(2)) which consider the issue of deregulation in all Member States in considerable detail. The Honourable Member might also wish to consult the publications of the Commission for Energy Regulation, the Irish Regulator for Electricity and Gas.

(1) SEC(2001) 1957.

(2) SEC(2002) 1038.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject: Intra-EU trade

Further to the answers given to my Written Questions E-1020/01(1), E-0992/02 to E-0994/02 and E-1106/02(2), will the Commission provide an updated, geographical analysis of exports of goods and non-factor services by Member State to include 2001 and 2002, and will it further express such figures as a percentage of each country's GDP for the period in question?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 149.

(2) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 244.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

The Commission provides to the Honourable Member and the Parliament's Secretariat an updated geographical analysis of Intra-Community trade in goods and services expressed both, in EUR million and as percentages of each country's gross domestic product (GDP).

It should be stated that the tables containing the analysis for trade in goods are derived from Foreign Trade Statistics(1), while the tables containing the analysis for trade in services are derived from Balance of Payments Statistics. 2002 figures shown in the tables covering trade in goods should be considered as provisional and, therefore, subject to revision in the coming months. More definitive figures will only be available at the end of the year 2003. The tables covering trade in services do not include figures for the year 2002, as the information required will only become available in December 2003.

It should be stressed that Foreign Trade Statistics collected by the Commission (Eurostat) are based on the community concept. They often differ from the data published at the national level, which are based on the national concept.

Also, as stated in the reply by the Commission to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-2464/02 and E-2465/02(2), the data provided by Member States to the Commission (Eurostat) to compile the Balance of Payments of the Union are based on a different methodology (principle of consignment) than the one used by Member States for compiling and publishing their national Balance of Payments (principle of origin). This difference should be kept in mind before interpreting the figures.

(1) See the answer provided by the Commission to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-0992/02 to E-0994/02 and E-1106/02.

(2) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 243.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0054/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: The Commission and the Committee of Enquiry into the causes and the disastrous effects of the accident involving the Prestige

Has the Commission set up a committee of enquiry into the causes and the disastrous effects of the accident involving the Prestige? What kind of committee of enquiry is it and what are the reasons for the Commission's decision?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2003)

The Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to the answer given by the Commission to priority question P-0127/03 from Mr Ribeiro E Castro(1).

(1) See page 72.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0008/03 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Importation of dog and cat fur.



Official Journal 268 E , 07/11/2003 P. 0063 - 0063



WRITTEN QUESTION P-0008/03 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (9 January 2003) Subject: Importation of dog and cat fur Further to the Commission's reply to my Written Question E-1810/01(1), in the light of revelations of the degree of cruelty involved and the debate in the Agriculture Council on 28 November 2002, will the Commission now consider a legislative initiative? (1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 108. Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (30 January 2003) The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-1810/01 by the Honourable Member, E-1203/02 by Mr Whitehead(1), E-1748/02 by Mr Lund(2), E-2748/02 by Mr Skinner(3) and the joint answer to E-2851/02 by Mr Flemming and E-3088/02 by Mr van den Bos(4). (1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 104. (2) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 89. (3) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 204. (4) See page 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1098/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection by the municipality of Pesaro

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds for the civil protection of persons and goods, whether by preventing, or at least dealing with, potential natural disasters or even so-called technological and industrial disasters, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

2. whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03,E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03,E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, over the last two years, the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Florence, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni have submitted no projects for the Community action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999(1) and that, accordingly, they have received no financial aid in that context.

The action programme is intended to support and supplement Member States' efforts at national, regional and local levels to protect persons, property and the environment in the event of natural and technological disasters. With an annual budget of EUR 1,5 million (budget heading B4-308), the programme is able to finance action relating to prevention, preparedness, response, immediate aftercare and analysis of the socio-economic implications of disasters. Only action involving all the Member States or a large number of them is eligible. Eligible action has to be in line with the priorities determined each year by the Commission with the assistance of a management committee.

The Commission can also inform the Honourable Member that a whole series of examples of projects carried out through the Community action programme in the field of civil protection can be found at the following Internet address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0970/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Utilisation of SAVE II and Altener II funds by the municipality of Pistoia

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian ministry of the economy presented its statement on the expenditure of funding made available by the European Union.

Its research showed that some local authorities were worryingly slow and inefficient in awarding projects.

The European Commission has also emphasised concern on various occasions at the under-utilisation of European funding by local authorities.

Considering that, in particular, some local municipalities such as Pistoia are in great need of European funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission indicate:

1. whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Pistoia has received funding for those projects;

3. whether that funding has been utilised?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0961/03, E-0962/03, E-0963/03,E-0964/03, E-0965/03, E-0966/03, E-0967/03, E-0968/03,E-0969/03, E-0970/03, E-0971/03, E-0972/03 and E-0973/03given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that for the Communes which are referred to in the questions: Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni, one SAVE II project receives Community Support, while one submitted Altener II proposal was not selected for support.

1. The city of Pistoia has submitted one proposal for the Altener II programme in the Calls for proposals 2001. This proposal Resred did not succeed and was not granted support.

2. The city of Perugia has submitted one proposal for the SAVE programme in the Calls for proposals 2002. This proposal Awereness Programme for Policy Makers in Energy Efficiency Low Income Housing (APPEEL) was selected for support.

The budget for APPEEL will be spent during 2003 and 2004.

The contracting part will be: city of Perugia.

The City of Perugia participates as one of in all six contractors in this successfully evaluated proposal APPEEL. The contract number will be 4.1031/Z/02-025 The total budget for the contract is EUR 484 406 and the total Community support is EUR 242 203. The city of Perugia's share of the budget is EUR 42 000 and the Community support for the city of Perugia is EUR 21 000. The contract is currently being prepared.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1067/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leonardo da Vinci programme by the municipality of Massa

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Massa, urgently need to use European funds to enhance quality, promote innovation and support the European dimension of vocational training systems and practices, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the Leonardo da Vinci programme?

2. whether the municipality of Massa has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0833/03, E-0890/03, E-1062/03, E-1063/03,E-1064/03, E-1065/03, E-1066/03, E-1067/03, E-1068/03, E-1069/03,E-1070/03, E-1071/03, E-1072/03, E-1073/03 and E-1074/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Some of the funds awarded under the Leonardo da Vinci programme are managed decentrally by national agencies, in particular the transnational mobility projects, whose total budget takes up almost 40 % of the total for the programme.

For these projects, please contact the national agency in Italy for further information:

ISFOLVia G.B. Morgagni 30/eI-00161 Romatel. (+39-06)44.59.01fax (+39-06)44.59.04.75.

With regard to the funds managed centrally by the Commission (pilot projects, thematic actions, language skills, transnational networks, reference tools), the search check for the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumincino, Ancona, Carrara, Florence, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni showed that:

- only Pesaro has submitted a proposal for a pilot project under the Leonardo programme. This project is entitled: Laboratori Tematici Virtuali: Metodologia di Supporto alla Formazione Nel Sel (Sistema Economico Locale) (virtual thematic workshops: methodology for fostering training in local economies);

- it obtained funding of EUR 264 161 for this project, which began at the end of 2002.

The Honourable Member could contact the local authorities mentioned above for more information.