ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0667/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Breach of Community law by the University of Pavia in Italy

The University of Pavia in Italy requires Greek students wishing to re-enrol on its courses to have a residence permit, which is contrary to Community law and the principle of freedom of movement between the Member States.

What steps will the Commission take to enforce Community law in this case?

Reply given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Under Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students, the Member States grant this right to all students who are nationals of a Member State and, in addition to meeting other conditions, are enrolled at an approved institution for the main purpose of taking a vocational training course.

Such students' right of residence is attested by a residence permit which may cover the duration of the course only or one year if the latter exceeds one year in length, in which case the permit must be renewed annually. Under Article 5b(3) of legislative decree No 358 of 2 August 1999, which transposes Directive 93/96 into Italian law, students' residence permits are valid for the duration of their courses only. Under this legislation, Greek students at the University of Pavia are entitled to be issued with a residence permit for the duration of their courses.

If, despite this, a student's residence permit has expired, the Italian authorities can require him or her to produce evidence of university enrolment before renewing the residence permit. Conversely, the University of Pavia cannot under any circumstances require students to produce their residence permits as a condition for re-enrolment.

If it were confirmed that the University of Pavia engages in this practice, it would be contrary to Directive 93/96 for the above-mentioned reasons.

The Commission will contact the Italian authorities to clarify the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1849/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Illegal red seabream catch proposals

In its proposal for a regulation(1), the Commission proposes that two Member States should be granted rights to catch red seabream within ICES Sub-Area X.

However, Regulation 2027/95(2), as amended by Regulation 149/99(3), states that the fishing effort of those Member States in ICES Sub-Area X shall be zero for deep-sea species (within which category the red seabream should be classified) and demersal species.

The above regulation has not been repealed and is, furthermore, cited in the recitals of the Commission proposal.

It therefore appears necessary to ask the Commission to explain its proposal.

Is the Commission aware of the serious implications which its policy concerning deregulated fishing incentives could have for fisheries sustainability in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Azores Autonomous Region?

(1) COM(2001) 764.

(2) OJ L 199, 24.8.1995, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 18, 23.1.1999, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

It is not correct that the two Member States referred to have a zero fishing effort allocation in ICES Division X under the terms of the Western Waters effort Regulation scheme (Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 149/1999 of 19 January 1999). These Member States have a zero fishing effort allocation only in the part of ICES Division X that is under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Portugal, and may legitimately deploy fishing effort in other parts of ICES Division X. Therefore, the Commission's proposal is consistent with existing legislation.

The two Member States in question have been allocated very small quotas of 10 tonnes each, to cover by-catches and to avoid discarding in exploratory fishing. These quantities are too small to have any significant effect on the sustainability of the stock.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: UK heritage regeneration grants

The UK makes available heritage regeneration grants, financed through the state lottery, to enable the restoration by private owners of listed buildings. The grants bridge the deficit between the market value of a building and the cost incurred by a private owner to regenerate it.

Fears have been expressed that these grants, which play an important role in ensuring the survival and continued use of buildings of historic importance, may now be prohibited by the Commission under state aid rules.

Is this the Commission's intention, and, if so, what suggestions has it for ensuring that in the UK it continues to be possible to bring about the costly restoration of historic properties which have a relatively low market value?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

The Commission welcomes the restoration of buildings of historic value, whereby the Member States select the eligible buildings.

State aid rules of the Treaty certainly do not stand in the way of such projects, where the costs which the market does not accept to bear, are taken over by the State.

It has to be reminded in that respect that the prohibition of State aids laid down in Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty concerns only selective advantages to undertakings, i.e. entities having an economic activity, and which distort or threaten to distort competition.

According to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid(1), aid measures are deemed not to meet all the criteria of Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty, if they don't exceed EUR 100 000 over a period of three years.

Furthermore, Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty only prohibits State aids insofar as they affect trade between Member States. It is questionable to what extent, if any, heritage regeneration grants financed through the State lottery and allowing the restoration of buildings with historic value affect trade between Member States.

In case these grants would satisfy the criteria set out in Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty Article 87 §3 (d) would provide for an exemption to the prohibition of State aids concerning aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.

(1) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1323/02

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 May 2002)

Subject: European arrest warrant

The contents of proposals for the European arrest warrant were agreed last December by the Council of Ministers. The Irish Attorney-General claimed last December at a conference in Trier, Germany that Ireland had not been consulted. On what date was Ireland first consulted about this matter?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

On 19 September 2001 the Council received from the Commission a proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States.

This proposal like all legislative proposals made by the Commission was published(1).

The Council formally adopted the Framework Decision at its meeting on 13 June 2002. The Irish delegation had two statements entered in the minutes of the meeting. As a member of the Council, Ireland took part in the (unanimous) adoption of the Decision.

(1) OJ C 332, 27.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2244/02

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Animal welfare in marketplaces

Given the examples of cruelty alleged by animal welfare groups at livestock markets in Belgium and the role that markets can play in transmitting disease between animals, does the Commission see a need for the introduction of a Markets (Protection of Animals) Directive to provide basic standards for Europe's marketplaces? Will the Commission carry out a study of the conditions in marketplaces across the EU and the regulations that govern them, in order to assess whether such action, or other appropriate measures, are needed?

If this is not the case, does the Commission foresee an extension of the Live Animal Transport Directive to cover livestock markets, following the opinion of SCAHAW in its report of March 2002 which suggested a minimisation of their use?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2161/02, P-2207/02 and E-2244/02given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The establishment of rules to prevent maltreatment of and cruelty to animals is an area where competence of the Community is limited. The Community has no general power to regulate animal welfare. However it can regulate this matter either where differing national welfare rules risk distorting competition in the internal market, or in relation to a sector (such as agriculture) where it has more extensive regulatory powers.

In this framework, the Commission is committed to use its powers to help stop unacceptable animal welfare practices.

Concerning the case mentioned by the Honourable Members, infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty have been initiated against the Belgian authorities with regard to the inadequate implementation of Community legal provisions on animal welfare. As part of this process, several inspections by officials of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office took place in Belgium regarding the implementation of European legislation on animal protection on farm, transport and slaughterhouses. This included livestock markets. The findings and recommendations arising from these inspection visits have been published on the Internet(1).

The experience of recent years has shown that there is a need to improve animal welfare in livestock markets. A forthcoming Commission proposal concerning the protection of animals during transport, will cover this area. The intention of such legislation is to ensure that Member States take the appropriate measures to ensure that animal welfare considerations are an integral part of the operation of livestock markets. It is not feasible, however, that the Commission assume responsibility for the supervision of such operations. This role is appropriate to the Member States both in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity and the resource limitations of the Commission.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/index_en.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1545/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2002)

Subject: Community financing of Madrid-Valencia high-speed rail link

The rail link between Madrid and south-eastern Spain (the Levante) is included in the proposed Community support framework for Objective 1 regions in Spain, and is, therefore, eligible for Community funding under the ERDF for 2000-2006. This high-speed train link would also be eligible for Community aid under the Cohesion Fund headings relating to the trans-European transport networks.

Under the legal basis for the funding of the trans-European networks, the total amount of Community participation may not exceed 10 % of the total cost of investment.

In its answers to Questions H-0203/00(1) and H-0612/00(2) (both by the author of the present question), the Commission said that it had still not received any proposal concerning financing of the Madrid-Valencia high-speed rail link from the Spanish authorities, and that it was not aware of the statements by the economic affairs ministry of the Valencian regional government claiming that the project would be funded almost entirely by the EU.

Can the Commission state whether it has received any proposal concerning financing of the Madrid-Valencia high-speed rail link from the Spanish authorities, and whether funds are still available under the headings applicable to this infrastructure project?

(1) Written answer of 14.3.2000.

(2) Written answer of 6.9.2000.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

The rail link between Madrid and Valencia, including the branch to Albacete, has been identified as a line to be specially built for high speed and included as such in Annex I to Parliament and Council Decision No 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for development of the trans-European transport network(1). Aid for it can be granted from the budget for trans-European transport networks (TEN-T) and the Structural and Cohesion Funds.

The Spanish authorities have at present sent an application for assistance from the TEN-T budget for planning of the high speed rail link Madrid/Castilla-La Mancha/Comunidad Valenciana/Murcia, of which the Madrid-Valencia line will be part. The Community aid for the planning work is EUR 37 000 000 for the period 2001-2006 out of a total estimated eligible cost of EUR 104 200 000.

The appropriations available from the European Regional Development Fund under measure 6,3 Railways of the Operational Programmes Comunidad Valenciana and Castilla-La Mancha are EUR 249 700 000 and EUR 156 500 000 respectively for the period 2000-2006. No project in connection with the abovementioned work has yet been notified to the Commission. However for Structural Fund assistance purposes only projects of more than EUR 50 000 000 have to be notified to the Commission for approval.

Under Cohesion Fund rules 50 % of the available budget is devoted to transport. No request for part-financing has yet been made for construction of this rail line.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1400/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: Directive 73/239/EEC

The Commission has sent the British Government a formal request concerning the transposition of Directive 73/239/EEC(1) into national law and its enforcement.

To date, the European Parliament has not been given access to the British Government's answer.

1. When may the European Parliament expect to be given access to the answer?

2. What stage has been reached in transposing the Directive? If there had been a failure to comply with the implementing legislation, what conclusions would the Commission draw, where necessary, from a delay in transposing the Directive?

(1) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2002)

1. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to written Question E-3611/01 by Mr Sakelleriou(1).

2. The requirements of the first Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, were transposed into British law by the Lloyd's Act 1982 and the Insurance Companies Act 1982. The focus of the Commission's enquiries is not on transposition but on the effective application of the Directive's requirements(2).

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 96.

(2) Further details can be found on the official Commission Press Release, IP/01/1880, 20.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2161/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Welfare of animals in livestock markets

Instances of cruelty against animals at livestock markets throughout the European Union continue to surface. Recent filmed evidence by the welfare group, Animals Angels', highlighted quite shocking animal cruelty in two livestock markets in Belgium. This sort of physical abuse and basic neglect is going unchecked at the very heart of the European Union.

Would not the Commission agree that European legislation laying down basic protection for animals at livestock markets should be drawn up as soon as possible?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2161/02, P-2207/02 and E-2244/02given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The establishment of rules to prevent maltreatment of and cruelty to animals is an area where competence of the Community is limited. The Community has no general power to regulate animal welfare. However it can regulate this matter either where differing national welfare rules risk distorting competition in the internal market, or in relation to a sector (such as agriculture) where it has more extensive regulatory powers.

In this framework, the Commission is committed to use its powers to help stop unacceptable animal welfare practices.

Concerning the case mentioned by the Honourable Members, infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty have been initiated against the Belgian authorities with regard to the inadequate implementation of Community legal provisions on animal welfare. As part of this process, several inspections by officials of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office took place in Belgium regarding the implementation of European legislation on animal protection on farm, transport and slaughterhouses. This included livestock markets. The findings and recommendations arising from these inspection visits have been published on the Internet(1).

The experience of recent years has shown that there is a need to improve animal welfare in livestock markets. A forthcoming Commission proposal concerning the protection of animals during transport, will cover this area. The intention of such legislation is to ensure that Member States take the appropriate measures to ensure that animal welfare considerations are an integral part of the operation of livestock markets. It is not feasible, however, that the Commission assume responsibility for the supervision of such operations. This role is appropriate to the Member States both in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity and the resource limitations of the Commission.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/index_en.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2240/02

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Stage reached in dealing with complaint 2000/4187

On 5 July 2000 the Directorate-General for the Environment began examining complaint 2000/4187 relating to failure to comply with Directives 79/409/EEC(1) and 92/43/EEC(2) as regards the building of various sections of the A6 motorway between Segovia and Àvila.

Can the Commission say what stage has now been reached in dealing with this complaint?

Can it say whether it has received any kind of reply from the Spanish authorities in response to the notification?

What practical measures does the Commission intend to take to settle the matter and ensure compliance with Community legislation?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

The Commission did receive a complaint in 2000 about the planned construction of a toll motorway between San Rafael and Segovia which would cross the Umbría de Guadarrama site of Community importance (SCI) for birds.

After checking whether the Spanish authorities should have declared the SCI a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds, the Commission sent Spain a letter of formal notice, the first step in infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, since the motorway construction project in question should have followed the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC(1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

However, the reply from the Spanish authorities showed that there was already dense infrastructure in the corridor that was the planned route of the motorway. It had been excluded from the protection area declared by the authorities in October 2000 because of the damage to the site by the existing infrastructure. The Spanish authorities had declared as a Special Protection Area for Birds 90 % of the SCI covered by the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/birdlife) survey.

The Commission recently sent a letter to the Spanish authorities asking them to adopt and notify measures to prevent the motorway construction operations disturbing the feeding grounds for the imperial eagle, a seriously endangered species.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0988/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Enlargement and the Austrian farming industry

A study carried out by the Austrian Institute for Economic Research forecasts that Austria's share of the market in most agricultural sectors will decline following EU enlargement. A particularly serious decline in income is expected in the cereals sector and the milk sector, which is extremely important for Austria.

Bearing in mind the study entitled Analysis of the impact on agricultural markets and incomes of EU enlargement to the CEECs, which is unfortunately available only in English, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. In the Commission's view, to what extent can the expected loss of income be attributed to possible job losses among Austrian farmers?

2. What measures will the Commission take if such job losses occur?

3. According to what time scale (post 2004) does the Commission expect a normalisation of the labour market in the agricultural sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

On the basis of its current analysis, the Commission does not share the view that Austria will suffer a serious decline in market share following Union enlargement. In particular, the Commission does not share the negative view of the Austrian study on the low competitiveness of Austrian's agriculture and food processing industries, especially for its high quality products.

Moreover, the Union's position in the enlargement negotiations is that where the acquis provides for production quotas, these should be extended to the new Member States on the basis of a recent reference period. This means that production will be maintained at recent levels.

Significant liberalisation of trade between the Union and the candidate countries in agricultural and processed agricultural products has already been agreed under the double zero agreements. A second round of bilateral negotiations for trade liberalisation of agricultural products is now underway. The Commission expects that this liberalisation process will allow for gradual adaptation to the conditions that will be faced after enlargement.

In this respect it should be noted that Austria has a trade surplus with the candidate countries in the field of agriculture and food products.

Under the current arrangements for the Common Agricultural Policy, the Commission does not expect enlargement to have a significant negative impact on trends in agricultural income and employment in the short to medium term in Austria.

In its recent Communication on the impact of enlargement on border regions(1), the Commission stressed the scope to adjust rural development programmes to help farmers and rural areas in border regions to adequately prepare for enlargement. The use of these programmes should help to avoid any potential disturbances in particular on local agricultural markets.

(1) COM(2001) 437 final.