ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0588/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE), Michiel van Hulten (PSE)and Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Investigation of fraud by construction companies

Is the Commission aware of the newspaper articles which appeared in the Haagsche Courant on 20 December 2001 (Bouwfraude is ook een zaak voor de Europese Commissie [Construction fraud is also a matter for the European Commission]) and in the Volkskrant on 14 January 2002 (Fraude met bustunnel onderzoeken [Bus tunnel fraud needs investigating] and De Zuidtangent en het vluggertje van 300 miljoen [The Zuidtangent tunnel and the 300-million quickie]) concerning fraud by construction companies in the Netherlands?

Were the public procurement procedures relating to the Schiphol rail tunnel and the construction of the Zuidtangent bus tunnel in the Netherlands carried out in accordance with European public-procurement rules?

Does the Commission still consider that a system whereby construction companies agree concerted tendering arrangements amongst themselves (such that even construction companies whose tenders are unsuccessful are compensated for the cost of tendering) violates Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty (to the extent that trade between Member States is affected)?

Would a statutory concerted-tendering system, which would make it superfluous for companies to enter into agreements with one another on this subject, likewise violate the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

The Commission is aware that various questions have been raised recently as to the legality of the behaviour of certain construction companies in the Netherlands and that the Dutch competition authority is currently examining the matter.

It has no information liable to give rise to suspicions that the public procurement procedures relating to the Schiphol rail tunnel and the Zuidtangent bus tunnel were not carried out in accordance with the Community directives on public procurement.

The Commission takes the view that agreements between construction companies setting up a concerted tendering system including compensatory payments restrict competition and, where such agreements are liable to affect trade between Member States, violate Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. In this context the Commission would remind the Honourable Members that it has already adopted a decision imposing a EUR 22,5 million fine on 28 Dutch construction-sector associations which had entered into an agreement to coordinate their competitive behaviour in the context of public or private procurement by competitive tendering or private contract (Commission Decision 92/204/EEC of 5 February 1992)(1). The Commission's decision was upheld by the Court of First Instance(2) and the European Court of Justice(3).

The Commission takes the view that national rules providing for concerted tendering could violate Community law. However, it cannot take a final position on the issue without knowing the detailed provisions laid down by such rules.

(1) OJ L 92, 7.4.1992.

(2) Case T-29/92 [1995] ECR II-289.

(3) Case C-137/95 P [1996] ECR I-1611.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1458/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Arrest of human rights activists in Cuba

Is the Commission aware of the arrest on 5 March 2002 in Ciego de Avilan of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva, chairman of the Cuban Human Rights Foundation and the Brotherhood of the Independent Blind People of Cuba?

Does the Commission know that human rights activists in Cuba are treated violently by the Cuban authorities?

What can the Commission do to prevent this kind of violence against people who work to promote human rights in Cuba, and is the Commission prepared to take action?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1458/02 and E-1467/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission is following this matter very closely: Mr Gonzalez was detained by the Cuban security forces on 4 March 2002 on charges of public disorder and contempt. Both crimes, according to Cuban law, can carry a possible sentence of one to three years. No trial has been set so far.

The Commission is very concerned about this case. The European Union Human Rights Working Group established by the Member States embassies in Havana is monitoring the case. Experience with similar cases in the past suggests that the most effective way of addressing human rights violations in Cuba is through concerted and co-ordinated action at Union level. As a rule, the Commission and the Member States closely monitor the human rights situation in Cuba, in the context of both the six-monthly evaluation of the Union Common Position on Cuba and the annual Geneva meetings of the United Nation Commission on Human Rights. Furthermore, human rights matters form an integral part of the Union's political dialogue with Cuba, which was re-launched under the Belgian Presidency in December 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0893/02

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2002)

Subject: ADP-SAB Partnership Agreement

In March 1999 a partnership agreement was signed between ADP (Aéroports de Paris) and the SAB company, which runs the Liège-Bierset airport. It appears from some of the clauses of this agreement that the Liège site could receive flights initially destined for Paris in the event of the Paris airports reaching saturation point.

Under the proposal for a directive(1) on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports, as amendment by Parliament, Roissy Airport could be included in the list of city airports (Annex 1), while Liège-Bierset would not, and therefore more severe restrictions on the use of aircraft fitted with hushkits could be adopted at Roissy. It is logical to expect that these hushkit aircraft would be diverted to Liège, resulting in an increase in the noise problem for people living near this airport.

Does the Commission not think that this is an institutionalised form of environmental dumping that would transfer a noise problem from one place to another?

Does this partnership agreement comply with the requirements of Community policy on the environment, and in particular Articles 174 and 175 of the Treaty?

(1) COM(2001) 695 final.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The question refers to a partnership agreement, signed in March 1999, between ADP (Aéroports de Paris) and SAB, which runs the Liège-Bierset airport.

The Commission has no knowledge of the details of this agreement; however, it does not appear to contain any reference to the noise characteristics of aircraft. It is clear that any aircraft diverted from Roissy airport (or from any other airport) would in any event have to meet the same noise standards as apply to all other aircraft arriving at Liège-Bierset.

Contrary to what the Honourable Member states in the second paragraph of his question regarding the proposal for a directive, Roissy airport is not included in the list of city airports.

In any case, an airport does not have to figure on the list of city airports in order for a ban to be introduced on hushkitted aircraft that are on the borderline between the two noise standards. Under the criteria laid down in the directive, other airports may also ban flights by such aircraft, i.e. those which fail to meet the certification limits, with a margin of five decibels, defined in Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

The Commission considers that this directive will give each Member State the necessary tools to deal with excessive growth in aircraft noise around airports.

For these reasons, the Commission considers that there is no risk of institutionalising environmental dumping and that the issue of compliance with Articles 174 and 175 of the EC Treaty does not arise.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1540/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Commissioners making party political speeches in national election campaigns

The EU Commission's chief spokesman has said that although Commissioners do not campaign in national elections this does not prevent them from making speeches on party political issues during national election campaigns.

This sounds like sophistry. Since Commissioners are paid by and irredeemably linked with the very institution, the EU, which must be a central subject of democratic debate during national election campaigning, and are supposed in the definition of their jobs to be politically impartial, how can they possibly justify speaking on party political platforms in national election campaigns? What is the Commission's actual position on this matter?

Should the Commission, in the light of the de Palacio affair, not be especially wary of involving itself in politics as openly as it now appears to be doing?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

As the Commission has had frequent occasion to reiterate in reply to written and oral questions by Members of Parliament(1), the Members of the Commission are politicians carrying out a political function, who, while honouring the obligations imposed by this function, remain free to express their personal opinions quite independently and on their own responsibility.

The Code of Conduct adopted by the Commission on 18 September 1999 specifically states that Commissioners may be active members of political parties or trade unions, provided this does not compromise their availability for service in the Commission.

(1) E-2459/99, E-2600/99 and E-2628/99, OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 139; E-0539/02, see page 26.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0666/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: EU funding of the trawler Atlantic Dawn

The trawler Atlantic Dawn appears to have been built in a Norwegian shipyard and launched by an Irish shipowner, yet is not registered with the EU as a fishing vessel. The trawler is currently fishing in the waters of Mauritania under an individual agreement of the shipping company with that country, and is therefore in competition with both domestic and EU fleets, who are entitled to fish there under the EU agreement with Mauritania.

1. Can the Commission confirm my information on the origin and present use of the trawler?

2. What does the Commission intend to do about the failure to register the fishing vessel?

3. How much EU money was used to fund the Atlantic Dawn?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

1. While the Commission does not hold information on the construction and use of Member State's vessels, it believes that the Atlantic Dawn was constructed in Norway and has since been fishing under a private agreement in Mauritanian waters.

2. The Atlantic Dawn has been registered on the Irish fishing vessel register and, consequently, into the fishing vessel register of the Community on 22 March 2002.

3. No Community contribution has been provided in financing the Atlantic Dawn.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1143/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Future cost of pharmaceuticals

In its answer to Question No P-0234/02(1), the Commission states that parallel imports of pharmaceuticals may have a detrimental effect on the research and development industry.

According to Ian Senior (NERA special adviser), the loss of revenue to the pharmaceuticals industry as a result of parallel imports is approximately equivalent to the cost of developing a new drug. In its decision to prohibit Glaxo Wellcome's dual pricing system, the Commission stated that the losses of revenue are too insignificant to affect these investments to a considerable extent and, indirectly, that they can be offset by reducing marketing costs. Parallel imports account for approximately 2 % of total pharmaceutical sales in the Union. On average, parallel importers buy pharmaceuticals at some 30 % less than the domestic sale price.

How is it possible that an approximate 0,6 % loss of revenue can have a detrimental effect on the research and development industry?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

The Commission confirms that, within the internal market, free movement of pharmaceutical products may be beneficial for the consumers and national social security schemes since they provide consumers with a broader choice of pharmaceutical products at a lower price through enhanced competition within the internal market. Such considerations have been taken on board in the case law to which the Honourable Member refers.

As regards the protection of industrial property rights for pharmaceutical products, the Union recalled in the context of enlargement negotiations- the importance it attaches to the existence of an equal level of protection of industrial property rights within the enlarged Union.

In its reply to written question P-0234/02 by the Honourable Member(1), the Commission indicated that the Union in the context of enlargement negotiations has proposed a specific mechanism in order to minimise potential problems resulting from the differences relating to the level of industrial property rights protection. Taking into account the date of introduction of patent protection in the candidate countries, all medicinal products which were marketed in the applicant countries before the change in the legislation took place, will remain unprotected there while they are still under patent in the Union. Therefore, this mechanism refers to the overall level of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection and will only apply to products patented in a Member State at the time when a product patent could not be obtained in candidate countries for that product.

The Union considered that this solution constitutes an objective and balanced mechanism which takes into account the legitimate interest of the patent holders within the Union whilst it does not infringe or undermine any existing rights of operators in the candidate countries.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0985/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Damaging tax competition

As part of the work of the Primarolo group, a list of 66 damaging tax measures was drawn up. The Netherlands was listed as having 10, and has now abolished 8 of them. However, it is now rumoured that other Member States have copied measures which the Netherlands has abolished (see, for example, an article in NRC Handelsblad of 18 February 2002). The countries in question are said to be Luxembourg, France and Denmark. I have also heard from people with practical experience of the matter that in Spain it is now possible to obtain a permanent-establishment financing ruling such that a permanent establishment in Switzerland is subject to a very low rate of taxation. Such rulings are no longer possible in the Netherlands.

The Member States concerned have apparently still not informed the Primarolo group of these measures.

1. Is it fair that these measures, which have been abolished in one Member State on the basis of the work of the Primarolo group, should be introduced in another?

2. Will the Commission investigate whether the above rumours are true?

3. Will the Commission take action if it becomes apparent that Member States are introducing measures which have been abolished in another Member State on the basis of the work of the Primarolo group? If so, what action?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

1. At the time of the adoption of the Code of Conduct for business taxation, the Member States made a commitment not to introduce any new tax measures that would be harmful within the meaning of the Code of Conduct. This explicit commitment, termed as the standstill clause, is clearly recorded in paragraph C of the Code.

2. The Code of Conduct Group has the mandate to report to the Ecofin Council whether the standstill clause is being upheld. In accordance with paragraphs E and F of the Code the Member States are invited to inform the Group if they have introduced new measures which might be potentially harmful. They may also ask for the opportunity to discuss and comment on any such new potentially harmful measures that may have been introduced in other Member States.

3. If it becomes apparent that Member States are introducing measures which might be harmful under the Code of Conduct the measures will have to be assessed in the Code of Conduct Group. For its part, the Commission will naturally examine any measures reported to it in this context in order to determine whether the Member State concerned is in compliance with its obligations under the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Growth hormones in dairy cattle

When does the current EU moratorium on the use of growth hormones in dairy cattle expire?

Does the Commission intend to renew this moratorium?

What is the current position of the US Administration and World Trade Organisation on this matter?

Will the Commission please formally restate the reasons for the position it takes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2002)

It is assumed that the question of the Honourable Member refers to the previous moratorium on the use of bovine somatotrophin (BST) which was replaced by a formal prohibition on its use under the provisions of Council Decision 1999/879/EC of 17 December 1999 concerning the placing on the market and administration of bovine somatotrophin (BST) and repealing Decision 90/218/EEC(1). The prohibition of the use of BST laid down in this Decision has no time limit.

Decision 1999/879/EC does not apply to food and animals imported from third countries. Consequently neither the United States nor other members of the World Trade Organisation have raised this issue.

Decision 1999/879/EC was proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council in order to protect animal health and welfare, following the opinion the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare of 10 March 1999. The Committee concluded that BST should not be used in dairy cows because it increases the risk of clinical mastitis as well as the duration of treatment of mastitis, it increases the incidence of foot and leg disorders, it can induce severe reactions at the injection site and it can adversely affect reproduction. These effects, some of which are both painful and debilitating, lead to poorer animal welfare and greater animal morbidity.

The Commission has no plans to review this decision.

(1) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1139/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(22 April 2002)

Subject: EU measures to take effective steps against continuing colonisation, destruction and eviction activities by Israel in the Palestinian territories

1. If Israel's policy which has changed under Sharon continues, as does disregard for United Nations Resolutions Nos 181, 194, 242/338 and 1397, what should the consequences be for the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel, in particular Article 2 of this agreement which deals with the infringement of human rights and the associated sanctions?

2. What consequences should Israel's altered policy have for the level at which EU Member States' diplomatic relations with Israel are continued?

3. What consequences should Israel's altered policy have for the purchase of weapons from the Israeli defence industry and for the sale of weapons by EU Member States to Israel?

4. What consequences should Israel's altered policy have for international trials of those responsible for war crimes in the occupied territories?

5. How will compensation be made for the improvement projects in the Palestinian area which have been destroyed on the instructions of the Israeli government and which were financed or co-financed by contributions from the EU or from individual Member States?

6. If no other forms of pressure are effective, what should the consequences be for transport links with Israel, namely El Al's landing rights at various airports in the EU, flights by various airlines from the EU to the Israeli airport of Lod (Ben Gurion) for scheduled services and Eilat for holiday charter flights, for the regular liner services of the Poseidon Lines and Salamis Lines from the Greek port of Piraeus via Rhodes and Limassol to the Israeli port of Haifa and for access for ships of the Israel shipping line ZIM?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member of the position it adopted when the Union was preparing the November 2001 meeting of the EU/Israel Association Council. It would point out that arms sales to Israel continue to be governed by the EU's Code of Conduct on arms exports. As the Council has stated in replies to questions by other Honourable Members, it reserves the right to claim reparation in appropriate fora for damage caused to infrastructure financed in whole or in part by the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0532/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Cession of territory by Vietnam to China

Can the Commission confirm that the Government of Vietnam has ceded approximately 800 km2 of territory to China as a result of secret negotiations between the Vietnamese and Chinese Communist Parties?

What is the background to this cession, and how many Vietnamese nationals are being compelled to move or to change their nationality?

Is this a legal cession, approved by parliaments, or has it been performed secretly, and thus illegally?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

As announced by the parties concerned, the Governments of China and Vietnam signed the Treaty between the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on Land Boundary in Hanoi on 30 December 1999.

The Treaty was ratified by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in China on 29 April 2000 and by the National Assembly of Vietnam during its 7th session on 9 June 2000. On 6 July 2000, the two countries exchanged instruments of ratification in Beijing on 6 July 2000, when the Treaty entered into force.

While the border alignment appears to concern several hundred square kilometres in the provinces of Ha Giang and Lang Son, details have not yet been made public. In these remote areas, the population speaks both the Vietnamese and Chinese languages. According to the information received so far, the people continue to live in their villages and no forced relocation is foreseen.