ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2223/01

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Bank charges

The cost of cross-border bank transactions is often exorbitant. No transaction, be it a credit transfer, a payment by card or cheque, or a withdrawal from an ATM, attracts the same fee when effected within a single country as when carried out between two EU Member States.

On each occasion a not-insignificant commission is charged - a practice which is regularly condemned by consumers' associations.

In response to this state of affairs, is the Commission planning to bring bank charges relating to cross-border transactions into line with those relating to domestic transactions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

On 25 July 2001 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on cross-border payments in euro(1). This introduces the principle of non-discrimination: charges for cross-border payments should be no different from charges for domestic operations.

The Commission took this decision largely for the reasons cited by the Honourable Member. The most recent studies show that transfers are still subject to extremely high charges. A study of 1 048 transfers of ECU 100 between the 12 Member States in 1993 found average charges of 23,93. A recent study, in 2001, looked at 1 480 transfers of 100 between the 15 Member States and found average charges of 23,92 (provisional finding). The costs of purely domestic transactions are much lower. The persistence of such differences, which are regularly condemned by consumers' associations, can undermine the credibility of the euro: some users will see only the practical difficulties of the currency changeover and none of the real benefits.

The Commission hopes that the two branches of the European legislature, the Council and Parliament, will reach agreement quickly, so that this text can be adopted before the end of 2001.

(1) COM(2001) 439 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1936/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Performance of Japanese pension funds

At recent meeting of the parliamentary group of the Party of European Socialists, Mr Bolkestein, Member of the Commission, expressed the view that pension funds that are free

to choose their investment strategy perform better over ten years than pension funds that are restricted in their choice of investment. Can the Commission provide specific examples in support of this statement?

Can the Commission also provide information on the performance of Japanese pension funds between 1990 and 2000?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

Recent studies conducted under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have compared the performance of pension funds between countries which use the method known as management by a prudent person (prudent management) and those which impose quantitative restrictions on investment. First of all, it should be noted that prudent management consists in applying a qualitative approach to investment rules, that is, diversification of assets to match commitments and not simply on the basis of standardised quantitative rules. Assets must be allocated in a prudent and properly diversified manner, particularly as regards the issuing institution, the type of security, the country or geographical region, the currency or the geographical sector. This is certainly not total freedom to invest.

The results of comparative performance studies were presented by, among others, Professor E. Philip Davis of Brunel University, West London, at the hearing organised by Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee on 6 February 2001. These studies cover the performance of pension funds over a fifteen-year period in a number of countries. It should be noted that even a fifteen-year period does not really correspond to the investment term of a pension fund, which is often around twenty-five years. The studies showed that between 1980 and 1995 pension funds in the countries applying prudent management methods recorded a real average performance which was 200 basis points higher than pension funds in countries imposing restrictions on investments. These differences in performance lead to cost differences, with a strong performance allowing a lower level of pension contribution.

The table below gives more detailed information broken down by country, including Japan. Unfortunately, the Commission has no figures on the performance of Japanese pension funds between 1990 and 2000.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1962/01

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Pension adjustment in Gibraltar

ALPEG, a Spanish association, based in La Línea de la Concepción, representing pensioners who formerly worked in Gibraltar, has drawn our attention to the injustice being done to 9 005 Spanish pensioners whose pensions have not been increased or subject to any periodic adjustment since 1990. According to the association's calculations, the amount currently owed by the Gibraltarian Government stands at 48 million.

The situation of these pensioners, who for many years worked in the British colony of Gibraltar, is a particularly serious matter because it constitutes discrimination compared with the treatment of pensioners living on Gibraltarian territory and is also contrary to Community pensions legislation.

Does the Commission have any evidence relating to the problem facing the 9 005 pensioners who used to work in Gibraltar?

What measures does it have in mind to mitigate this injustice?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1962/01, E-1979/01 and E-2033/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Honourable Member wishes to know the Commission's position regarding the problems encountered by numerous pensioners who formerly worked in Gibraltar, who complain that their pensions have not been increased since 1990 or subject to any periodic adjustment.

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it is in the process of examining the problem in question with regard to Community law, and in particular the principle of equality of treatment provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1) and Article 10, which waives residence clauses for the payment and calculation of pensions.

In order to be in a position to examine the complaint, the Commission has asked the British authorities to provide detailed information on the pensions adjustment scheme in Gibraltar and to give their opinion on its compatibility with Community law.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of any further action taken on the matter.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, 5.7.1971) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972, fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ L 74, 27.3.1972) (updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2191/01

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

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Principle of relative stability as regards fishing in Community waters

Is the Commission intending to propose a review of the principle of relative stability as regards fishing in Community waters (the introduction of which was agreed at the beginning of the 1980s, before the current resources policy was devised), since that principle no longer reflects the current state of the sector or the relative importance of the various EU fishing grounds following the accession of new Member States? What action is the Commission going to take in order to counter the unfair discrimination suffered by regions such as Galicia, which for that reason (and contrary to the principles upon which the EU is based) are unable to secure access on an equal footing to the fisheries resources to be found in Community waters?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture(1) stipulates that the Council is to distribute the fishing opportunities between Member States in such a way as to assure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each of the stocks concerned. The factors taken into account when distributing resources on the basis of the relative stability principle have been, in particular, traditional fishing activities in the areas covered by the distribution and the specific needs of the regions heavily dependent on fisheries. The reference to relative stability

in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 means that each annual distribution should maintain the fishing opportunities that existed prior to 1983 and ensure the continuity of that distribution over time. The Court of Justice has ruled(2) that this method is not contrary to the principle of non-discrimination.

As the Commission stated in its green paper on the future of the common fisheries policy(3), there is no need to radically change the existing system, in view of the results achieved to date in the allocation of quotas.

(1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992.

(2) Judgement of 16 June 1987, Case 46/86, ECR 1987, p. 2 671.

(3) COM(2001) 135 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0551/01

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 February 2001)

Subject: Adjustment of Slovenian nuclear policy

In his answer to my Written Question P-1659/99(1) of 14 September 1999, Commissioner Verheugen stated that the adjustment of the Slovenian nuclear policy in line with the results of the seismic risk assessment to be carried out in the surroundings of the Krsko nuclear power plant would be carried out as a matter of priority.

In November 2000 the Commission presented the findings of the study on Geophysical Research in the Surroundings of the Krsko NPP, dated September 2000. This study describes the seismic line KK-03-99 as a potential danger.

What conclusions does the Commission draw from this geophysical study on Krsko and what action does it envisage?

What measures does it intend to take as regards the adjustment of Slovenian nuclear policy?

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 66.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission would like to clarify that it was the Slovenian government that presented the results of the study Geophysical Research in the Surroundings of the Krko NPP at a meeting held in Ljubljana in late November 2000. This study had been funded from the nuclear safety programme of the PHARE financial assistance instrument.

The study considers that the feature identified along line KK-03-99 should be regarded as a potential hazard. The study recommended to improve the seismological network and to include a high-quality station in this area as the appropriate consequence of this finding.

In the meantime, the Slovenian government has declared that these recommendations of the study will be fully observed. Two additional high-quality seismic stations will be added to the existing seismological network in the area of Krko, at least one of them already in 2001.

The Commission will monitor the implementation of this measure by the Slovenian authorities and has been in contact with the Slovenian nuclear safety regulatory authority to discuss the possibility of providing support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Implementation by Member States of the Seveso II Directive

Under the Seveso II Directive, how has each Member State interpreted the expected distance of concern around:

1. A 100-tonne LPG storage?

2. A processing plant with a maximum inventory of 100 tonnes of a very toxic chemical?

3. A 30-tonne chlorine vessel?

4. A mixed chemicals warehouse with 200 tonnes of toxic chemicals stored with other flammable materials?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Article 12 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996, on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(1) (hereafter Seveso II Directive) requires Member States to ensure that the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in their land use policies and/or other relevant policies. Furthermore, they shall ensure that these policies and the procedures for implementing them take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by the Directive and residential areas, areas of public use and areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest, and, in the case of existing establishments, of the need for additional technical measures so as not to increase the risks to people.

Article 12 does not prescribe distances of concern around hazardous establishments and should therefore not be interpreted in that way that all Member States should use the same consultation or separation distances for the establishments mentioned in the question. Moreover, the Directive does not require harmonised methods for the evaluation of risk.

The requirements for land use planning are newly introduced into the Seveso II Directive; its predecessor, Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities(2) (now called Seveso I Directive) did not contain such requirements. However, several Member States already have existing established practices for achieving a degree of separation between hazardous establishments and residential population. In general, the methods used are disparate, ranging from explicit consideration of the risks of major-accidents in some cases to a generic zoning approach based on distances derived historically, normally by taking account of various environmental factors such as noise, pollution, etc. which give separation distances which are sometimes perceived to implicitly also take account of accident hazards.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(2) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2052/01

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Loans to immigrants for business activity

There is experience in the Member States of providing special forms of loan to promote business activity by women. These have, obviously, been aimed only at women and have fostered greater enterprise among them.

Do similar loan schemes exist in the Member States for business activity by immigrants?

If they do, what effect have they had on immigrants' social situation and in helping them to put down roots in their new environment?

If such schemes do not exist, would it be possible to launch a common EU project to introduce them in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2001)

The Commission is considering the opportunity to put forward new proposals in 2002 to promote the integration of immigrants. Subject to the adoption of these proposals and to the provision of the necessary resources, the suggestion made by the Honorable Member could be considered within the context of the activities to be supported.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1483/01

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Research and experiments on primates

Under the Fifth Framework Programme for Research the EU funds a great deal of research into the treatment of diseases, some of which involves tests on animals. In particular, hundreds of non-human primates are kept captive for the purpose of testing. One of the principles of scientific research on animals is the Three R's rule - replace, reduce and refine.

In what ways does the European Commission ensure that experiments funded by EU money respect such principles, are in fact necessary and do not subject the animals involved to undue cruelty? Are recipients of such funds obliged to ensure that no alternative methods of testing exist? What ethical and moral conditions, if any, are built into the contracts for funding of research?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Honourable Member will be aware that all research in Europe involving the use of animals is subject to the Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986(1) on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. The Member States have responsibility to enforce this.

The Commission has been most vigilant as regards animal experiments and animal welfare in implementing the Fifth Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development.

The annex of the Decision of the the Council(2), concerning the Quality of Life Programme specifies that funding of research involving animals is restricted under this programme with regard to animal experiments and tests on animals, which should, when ever possible, be replaced with in vitro or other alternative methods. An obligation is placed on all applicants for proposals to describe the procedures adopted to respect the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) and to protect the welfare of animals.

In addition, research on the development of alternatives to animal experiments and animal welfare is supported under this programme.

An independent ethical review has been implemented systematically under the Quality of Life Programme for proposals dealing with sensitive issues such as the use of non-human primates. The ethical review panel includes, among others, representatives of animal welfare groups. The ethical review ensures that all research involving animals are conducted in accordance with Directive 86/609/CEE. It takes account of the overall benefit

of the research proposed in relation to the possible costs in terms of animal suffering. Funding of the project will not be granted before all ethical questions has been satisfactory answered. All participants engaged themselves contractually to fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

(2) 1999/167/EC: Council Decision of 25 January 1999 adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on quality of life and management of living resources (1998 to 2002) (OJ L 64, 12.3.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2398/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: EU secession

Will the Commission describe the means by which certain geographical areas which were once within the European Union seceded from EU membership? Does it regard this as a precedent for any future Member State secession?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2001)

The only case of secession from the Union concerns Greenland, a Danish territory in which the Community Treaties have not been applicable, or have been applicable only on a limited basis, since 1985. Other territories belonging to Member States were excluded from the EC Treaty at the time of conclusion of the founding Treaties or Treaties of Accession. The Greenland question was settled by a Treaty between Denmark and the European Community in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty allowing the Community to conclude agreements. The negotiations followed a referendum in Greenland. The Greenland Treaty was ratified by the Member States. It dates from the mid-19Il est difficile de considérer lIt dates form the mid-1980s and cannot be seen as a precedent for a Member State for two reasons: first, at the time the Member States and the inotamment institutions declared that it was an exceptional situation;. second, because Greenland is not a European State within the meaning of Article 49 of the Union Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2624/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Council meeting of 10 July 2001

Will the Commission state whether any votes were taken in the Ecofin Council on 10 July 2001 and if so, how many and on what matters?

Will it further record the votes of all those who voted on each issue during the meeting?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2620/01, E-2622/01, E-2624/01, E-2626/01 and E-2628/01given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that, under Article 9 of its Rules of Procedure, it is for the Council to make public the results of votes and explanations of votes by its Members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2430/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 September 2001)

Subject: Introduction of European-level voluntary solidarity service

National military service has now been abolished in most Member States. It is therefore worth considering the introduction of European-level solidarity service for adult men and women to provide basic training in, for example, first aid, community service, environmental service and handling weapons, including awareness of the hazard they represent. This compulsory training could last for two to three months and be undertaken in any EU country and provide a pool of men and women for deployment in emergencies during that period.

Does the Commission regard this idea as feasible and useful, and, if so, does it intend to take action to put it into practice?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2001)

The matter in question does not come within its jurisdiction of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2468/01

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

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Spanish Government appeal to the Court of Justice against the recuperation plan for fisheries in Community waters

The Spanish Government's response to a question from Guilherme Vazquez, a Galician BNG member of the Spanish Congress, to the effect that it has lodged an appeal with the Court of Justice against the fisheries recovery programme adopted by the European Union, flat contradicts the government's having accepted, within the Council of Fisheries' Ministers, that in 2001 there should be a 47 % cut in catches in the sole, the Bay of Biscay and the West of Scotland, areas much frequented by the Galician fishing fleet. Is the Commission aware of the Spanish appeal to the Court of Justice, and the arguments on which it rests?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

It is true that Spain has presented an application to the Court of Justice for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 of 14 June 2001 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d and e and associated conditions for the control of activities of fishing vessels(1) which has been registered under No C-304/01.

Spain has put forward as legal grounds for its application the lack of a sufficient legal basis for the Commission to adopt the Regulation in question and, secondly, breach of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 12 (ex Article 6) of the EC treaty and the absence of justification for the measures introduced by the Regulation.

The Commission will present, within the time set, its statement of defence in respect of the application.

(1) OJ L 159, 15.6.2001.