ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Fishing in the EU's western waters

Recently (on 4 June) the European Parliament voted to ensure that Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93(1) and (EC) No 685/95(2) would remain in force for a 10-year period, and it did so in connection with its vote on its legislative resolution on a proposal for a Council regulation on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93.

Parliament's position was supported by an overwhelming majority of 334 to 108, with 48 abstentions.

Notwithstanding the allocation of powers and responsibilities amongst the various EU institutions, such a clear and eloquent expression of a political view by those elected to represent the people of the various EU Member States (more than an absolute majority of Parliament's total membership and over two-thirds of the votes cast) cannot be ignored either by the Commission or by the Council.

However, it continues to be reported that new rules on access to the EU's western waters (in particular those along the Portuguese coast) are being drawn up in blatant contradiction to Parliament's vote. Furthermore, the new rules would allow access in certain cases within the 12-mile limit and, in others, within the 50-mile limit. This would jeopardise not only the conservation of valuable resources in those waters but also the social and economic balances which have been preserved by means of the CFP and the objectives thereof.

Does the Council not think that it should scrupulously respect the wishes expressed by the European Parliament to the effect that the substance of the two above-mentioned regulations, the current status quo and all the effects stemming therefrom (with particular reference to the EU's western waters) should remain unaltered for the next 10 years? If it does not think so, in what way and on what basis does it plan to ignore them?

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 71, 31.3.1995, p. 5.

Reply

(13 October 2003)

The Council would like to remind the Honourable Member of the European Parliament that it has always scrupulously respected the decision-making rules of the Treaty, taking due account of the opinions of the European Parliament.

Concerning the proposal for a Council Regulation on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) 2847/93, discussions are still on-going within the Council. At its last meeting in June 2003, the Council instructed Coreper to continue work on this file with a view to its adoption as soon as possible. Therefore, at this stage the Council cannot pre-empt its final decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Incineration of Irish clinical waste in the UK

On page 7 of its report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-2000(1) published on 19 May 2003, the Commission says that it is considering initiating procedures under Article 226 of the Treaty against Member States where significant deficiencies remain in the reports submitted by Member States.

In relation to Article 7(2) of the 1975 Waste Directive 75/442/EEC(2), which deals with the issue of collaboration on waste between Member States, the Commission states on page 13 that, in its previous submission, the UK referred to collaboration between it and Ireland concerning the incineration of clinical waste in the UK but that Ireland did not supply any details.

What is the Commission's view of Ireland's failure to supply details about the export to and incineration of Irish clinical waste in the UK? Does this constitute one of the significant deficiencies in respect of which it is considering initiating legal procedures?

(1) COM(2003) 250 final.

(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1965/03, E-1966/03, E-1967/03 and E-1968/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

All four written questions of the Honourable Member refer to items as presented in the Commission's report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-2000(1) and they are therefore considered together.

As stated in the introduction to the aforementioned report, the latter is drawn up on the basis of the replies of the Member States to questionnaires established to this effect. These replies may reasonably vary in detail from one Member State to another and often contain only an update of the situation as compared to the previous reporting period. When important information is lacking, preventing the Commission from properly fulfilling its reporting duties, this may suggest a breach of the reporting obligations of a Member State. In this context however, the cases pointed out by the Honourable Member cannot be considered as justifying the initiation of infringement proceedings.

Regarding in particular question E-1968/03 on the treatment of hazardous waste in Ireland, the comment stating that the total figure of hazardous waste reported accounts for approximately 97 % of the actual, was made by the Irish authorities in their reply to the questionnaire and only referred to hazardous waste treated outside Ireland. The information provided does not specify how the remaining 3 % was treated.

(1) COM(2003) 250 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2335/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Practice of the Greek authorities in informing the public about projects co-funded by the EU

In his reply to my Written Question E-1712/03(1) Commissioner Barnier states that the Union is contributing, by means of the European Investment Bank (EIB), to the renovation of the Olympic Stadium in Maroussi and the press centre located nearby and a series of other projects (extension of the subway line, the construction of tram lines, the construction of the suburban railway, the completion of the Attiki odos ring road etc.) connected to the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. He also states that the Union is co-funding the renewal of the Athens bus and trolley fleet (EUR 79 million) and that concerning the co-funding of the renewal of the Athens bus and trolley fleet, the normal requirements relating to information and publicity apply.

Will the Commission confirm that foremost among these normal requirements is the obligation to indicate clearly that the new bus and trolley fleet is co-funded by the EU? Why has the Commission not yet asked the Greek authorities to put up the relevant signs? Have any signs been put up in the Olympic Stadium and press centre?

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 156.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

In addition to its reply to Written Question E-1712/03 by the Honourable Member, the Commission confirms that the obligation to indicate the European co-funding is among the normal requirements relating to information and publicity concerning co-funded projects.

However, as concerns the renewal of the Athens bus and trolley fleet, the Commission already stated in its previous answer that this project was approved in May of this year and its implementation has only just got underway. So far, no busses or trolleys co-funded under the current Community Structural Funds (CSF) have been delivered for circulation. On the busses running on liquid natural gas that were co-funded under the previous CSF, the European co-funding is correctly mentioned.

Concerning the Olympic Stadium and press centre, the Commission stated in its previous answer that the Community contributes to this project by way of an European Investment Bank (EIB)-loan and that it is not co-funded by the Structural Funds. Therefore, the information and publicity requirements of the Structural Funds do not apply.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2095/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Construction of high voltage power station by the Greek PPC in the Argyroupolis Ilioupolis area

The planning and construction of a high voltage power station (HVPS) by the Greek PPC was approved in accordance with Article 24 of the Greek law L. 2516/1997 in an area that belongs to the B protection zone of mount Imittos. The stipulations of this article were judged non valid by the High Administrative Court, due to infringement of the Article 24 of the Greek Constitution referring to protection of the environment. Objections (referring to the construction licence and the environmental impact assessment study) were submitted by the mayor of the city of Argyroupolis and a few citizens to the High Administrative Court against the construction of the HVPS, but the trial has been postponed three times (1 November 2002, 7 February 2003 and 9 May 2003). Three public schools are situated less than 50 metres from the area where the HVPS will be constructed.

Although the construction of the HVPS violates the Greek Constitution, the Government has adopted a new law L. 2947/2002 for Olympic works, which includes the construction of the HVPS. Referring to this law, the Minister of Public Works issued another construction licence, No 59365/25.7.2002. The PPC and the Government never examined alternative solutions, contrary to the provisions of Greek Law.

Furthermore, the Government has refused to give access to interested parties to the new construction plans, and policemen present in the neighbourhood since the beginning of May 2003 have refused access to the wider area to the general public.

Do the present works on the HVPS by the PPC in Argyroupolis-Ilioupolis comply with Directive 97/11/EC(1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment?

Under which authorised planning and construction licence are the works on the HVPS being continued?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Reply

(13 October 2003)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is not competent to answer these questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1879/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Price alignment in the euro-area

Will the Commission examine the evidence of any price alignment for similar goods and services within the euro-area compared with the EU as a whole and the non-euro EU Member States? How significant has this alignment, if any, been? How much further is it likely to go?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

The evidence on prices for individual products suggests that price dispersion is generally lower in the euro area than in the Union as a whole, although the difference depends on the particular product which is under examination. The continuing large differences in prices for individual products found in many surveys suggests that price alignment has further to go. The extent to which price alignment continues depends not only on the beneficial effect of the euro but also on other factors such as progress in reducing barriers to trade through the Internal Market and the extent of differences between national taxation systems.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1904/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Increase in Greek public debt

According to official figures the Greek public debt rose by EUR 7,3 billion to EUR 173,1 billion in the first quarter of 2003, already exceeding the ceiling figure of EUR 171,05 billion for the end of 2003.

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this sharp increase in the Greek Government's debt? Was it caused by state guarantees to various organisations (which organisations and how much) or by fresh loans? What measures are being envisaged by the Commission in cooperation with the Greek Government?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring the developments in the Greek Government finances as the debt ratio of Greece is among the highest in the Union. In fact, the Commission has repeatedly stressed the need for more decisive policy actions aiming at a rapid reduction in the government debt, given the strong real output growth enjoyed by the Greek economy for several years. In the 2003 State Budget and the 2002 Stability programme the central government debt is projected to be equal to EUR 171,05 billion, whereas the general government consolidated gross debt is estimated to be EUR 150,4 billion, representing 100,2 % of the gross domestic product (GDP). According to the Commission Spring forecasts, the Greek general government debt ratio is projected to stand at 101 % of GDP at the end of 2003.

Concerning the state guarantees to various organisations, it should be noted that they are not counted in the general government debt unless they are called.

In order to assess the government indebtedness, what is relevant is the level of the general government consolidated gross debt at the end of the year and the evolution of the debt to GDP ratio. As the general government debt ratio is influenced by several factors (like the primary balance, the rate of growth of nominal GDP and other autonomous factors including financial operations and privatisation proceeds), the results from the implementation of the budget as well as the level of borrowing of the State in the first quarter of the year do not give a reliable indication on the government debt ratio at the end of the year.

As quarterly government accounts are not yet available, checking the reasons of the observed increase is not possible. However, the observed increase in the central government borrowing in the first quarter of 2003 does not necessarily indicate unexpected overruns in the level of the general government debt to GDP ratio at the end of the year. In fact, as it might be the specific case, it may reflect a front-loaded borrowing strategy based on certain market conditions and therefore a normalisation of the borrowing profile in the course of the year should not be excluded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2395/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Implementation of the Anti-Discrimination at Work Directive Directive 2000/78/EC

Could the Commission name the Member State(s) that has(have) applied to make use of the additional period allowed under Article 18 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC(1) to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination or have indicated that they are considering making use of this period? What is the Commission's view of the failure of Member States to indicate their reasons for making use of this period?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

Article 18 paragraph 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation states: In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States, may, if necessary have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of 6 years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination. In that event they shall inform the Commission forthwith. Any Member State which chooses to use this additional period shall report annually to the Commission on the steps it is taking to tackle age and disability discrimination and on the progress it is making towards implementation.

According to this provision the choice to make use of this additional period for the transposition of the Directive as regards age and disability discrimination belongs to the Member States. The Commission's authorisation is therefore not needed. Nevertheless, when informing the Commission of its choice, the Member State concerned must provide information on the particular conditions which make it necessary to defer the implementation date. Member States are, therefore, under a legal obligation to provide the Commission with information on these particular conditions which justify an additional period to transpose the provisions on age and disability discrimination. Should Member States choose to make use of this additional period, they are required to report annually to the Commission on the steps taken in order to tackle age and disability discrimination. Taking account of the need to give an effet utile to this provision, a first report has to be sent by the implementation date of the Directive, i.e. 2 December 2003.

To date, only Denmark has formally indicated that it wishes to make use of an additional period of one year until December 2004 to implement the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC on the grounds of age and disability.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1606/03

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Revision of Directive 91/157/EEC

The Commission's programme of work for 2003 states that the revision of Directive 91/157/EEC(1) will be subject to an extended impact study so as to highlight the economic, social and environmental implications of the strategic options selected for that revision.

Belgium, designated as rapporteur under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93(2), is currently finalising a report on the risk evaluation specific to the cadmium used in the manufacture of batteries and accumulators.

Will the Commission take the findings of that report to constitute a decisive element for the extended impact study and, hence, for the political choices which will be made when the future proposal for a directive on batteries and accumulators is being drawn up?

Will the extended impact study deal with the various metals used in the manufacture of batteries and accumulators in the same way?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38.

(2) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

As follows from the answer to Written Question E-1442/03 by Mrs Jackson(1), the Commission intends to take the results of the existing draft reports of the Targeted Risk Assessment on cadmium (oxide) used in batteries, which is currently being prepared by Belgium, into consideration for the preparation of the Extended Impact Assessment. The political choices for the future proposal for a directive on batteries and accumulators will be based on the final results of the Extended Impact Assessment.

The Extended Impact Assessment does not deal with various metals used in the manufacture of batteries in the same way, but will pay particular attention to different policy options for batteries and accumulators containing cadmium, in view of their risk of ending up in the municipal solid waste stream.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 183.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1014/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Prato

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 Prato, urgently need to use European funds to combat the abuse of women and children,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the Daphne programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1004/03, E-1005/03, E-1006/03,E-1007/03, E-1008/03, E-1009/03, E-1010/03, E-1011/03,E-1012/03, E-1013/03, E-1014/03, E-1015/03 and E-1016/03given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

The Daphne programme received the following proposals in 2003 alone:

- two proposals from the muncipality of Florence Assessorato Pubblica Istruzione e Politiche Giovanili, Direzione Istruzione;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Pesaro Servizio sociale;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Siena Comitato di ente per le pari opportunita.

The Commission has not yet assessed these proposals and is, therefore, unable to provide the Honourable Member with details of the selection or funding at this stage. Information on the outcome of the assessment process will be sent in July 2003 to all parties which applied to the Daphne programme in 2003.

No proposal was received between 1997 and 2003 for the other municipalities referred to by the Honourable Member (Ancona, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato and Terni).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1686/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(21 May 2003)

Subject: Torture and ill-treatment of women in Turkish jails

On 13 June, the first trial will be held in Turkey involving two women, Mrs Naziye Tsogaltaf, 22 years of age, and Mrs Sounai Yesildag, 28 years of age, who were tortured whilst in prison in Istanbul. The two women were arrested on 23 September 2002 for alleged membership of an illegal organisation. During their imprisonment they were tortured as confirmed by forensic medical examination. Specifically, the women were beaten, subjected to electric shock treatment and then obliged to open their mouths into which their torturers spat and to swallow the spittle.

The barbaric treatment received by these prisoners in Turkey is contrary to fundamental human rights and directly violates international agreements and the principles of democracy and freedom. Does the Council intend to intervene to end torture in prisons, humanise the prison system in Turkey, an applicant country, giving priority to respect for the human rights of women?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Council regularly receives information about cases of torture and ill-treatment in Turkey. Recent reports from international human rights organisations and UN bodies tend indeed to indicate that torture and ill-treatment including sexual violence against female detainees are still ongoing, and while decreasing, are still widespreead in Turkey, in particular in police custody, in relation with alleged political crimes and in the Southeast. This raises very serious concern.

The Council attaches priority importance to the issue of torture and ill-treatment in Turkey. In the meetings in the framework of the Association Agreement and of political dialogue, the Council constantly urges Turkey to address effectively the problem, both through the adoption of further targeted measures and by ensuring full implementation and proper enforcement. Adequate punishment of perpetrators of torture and training of law enforcement officials on human rights issues have been identified as being of particular relevance. While Turkey has made some progress in these areas, notably in training officials, further efforts are needed.

The revised Turkey Accession Partnership contains specific priorities relating to the fight against torture and ill-treatment. Turkey's progress towards compliance with the political accession criteria will be measured against the requirements set out there.