ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1704/03

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

(22 May 2003)

Subject: Youth solidarity in the Community

The solidarity shown by young people from Spain, other Member States and candidate countries in mitigating the consequences of the ecological disaster caused by the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige has served to underline that the youth of Europe have embraced the culture of voluntary activity and can play an important role in disaster and emergency situations. Although youth policy falls within the sphere of competence of the Member States, major progress is now being made towards standardising approaches through the open method of coordination.

Will the Commission move beyond the YOUTH Programme and foster the creation of instruments to support voluntary youth activities in the Community that would encourage young people to work together towards common goals, such as, for example, cooperation in disaster situations?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

The European Union already has at its disposal an instrument for supporting voluntary activities by young people. The European Voluntary Service (EVS), part of the Youth programme (2000-2006), allows young people to become involved in various areas of activity, such as the social field or the environment, while at the same time acquiring skills thanks to pedagogical supervision. Each year, some 3 500 young European volunteers take part in EVS.

In certain circumstances the EVS allows young volunteers to participate individually in solidarity activities following disasters. However, it is not designed for rapid, collective and effective intervention in environmental or humanitarian crisis situations.

For this reason, as part of its reflections on the new generation of programmes to run from 2007, the Commission is currently considering the changes and improvements which could be made to the EVS in this respect.

The European Convention, at the present stage of its work, is also proposing the creation of a body of young European volunteers in the field of humanitarian aid. If these proposals are confirmed, the Commission will examine how this new service can be set up and how it can be linked to the EVS.

Finally, as part of the open method of coordination in the field of youth, proposed by the Commission in its White Paper A new impetus for European youth(1) and adopted by the Council in its Resolution of 27 June 2002(2), the Commission will table objectives in 2004 with a view to generally reinforcing voluntary activities by young people.

(1) COM(2001) 681 final.

(2) OJ C 168, 13.7.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0032/03

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Customs authorities

The response to my question E-3264/02(1) is not explicit. Do customs authorities at Palma Airport have the right to confiscate cigarettes from outbound travellers when those cigarettes have been purchased with the duty paid? I assume the previous answer implies no, can this be confirmed?

(1) See page 44.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The principle of free movement of goods, which is a corner-stone of the Internal Market, entails that private individuals should be allowed the unimpeded transfer of duty-paid tobacco products from one Member State to another.

Nevertheless, situations can be envisaged in which the authorities of a Member State may be justified to interfere with the movement of goods, e.g. in cases involving potential tax fraud or other irregularities. However, the compatibility of such measures with the principles of the Community Law has to be assessed in the light of the circumstances of each particular case.

The Commission is investigating complaints concerning the seizure in Spain of tobacco from outbound travellers. When these enquiries are complete, the Honourable Member will of course be informed of the outcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1870/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Collateral

With the discussions on the draft consumer credit directive in mind, will the Commission publish its own or independent estimates of the average duration of proceedings to recover defaulted consumer debt in each Member State, and the average proportion of such debt that is recovered for the lender?

Joint answerto Written questions E-1870/03 and E-1871/03given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

Recovery difficulties can indeed constitute a barrier to cross-border lending to consumers. However, the proposed Directive on credit for consumers(1) is focussed on the rules applying to the consumer credit agreement. It has no ambition to harmonise either general procedures for recovery of debts or national enforcement procedures for claims. Consequently, the Commission has no current plans to prepare the estimates suggested by the Honourable Member.

However, as most defaulted debts in the field of consumer credit are uncontested claims, the Commission addresses the issue through its 2002 proposal for a Council Regulation on uncontested claims(2).

Moreover, the Commission issued in 2002 a Green Paper on the creation of a uniform or harmonised procedure for a European order for payment (injonction de payer)(3). The objective is to create a specific and fast procedure for the settlement of uncontested litigations, available in all Member States. The consultation on this Green Paper closed on 31 May 2003. A public hearing was organised on 26 June 2003 in Brussels(4), the outcome of which is currently being examined.

(1) Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning credit for consumers, OJ C 331 E, 31.12.2002.

(2) Proposal for a Council Regulation creating a European enforcement order for uncontested claims, OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002.

(3) COM(2002) 746 final.

(4) Bâtiment Charlemagne Rue de la Loi, 170 1040 Bruxelles Registration form: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/consulting_public/docs/regis_form_260603_en.doc.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1503/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: Insurance according to astrological star sign

L'Equité, a French insurance company belonging to the Generali group, has launched an unusual trial project. People whose star sign is Leo, Cancer or Aquarius are eligible for a rebate on car insurance premiums, while those whose sign is Gemini, Libra or Virgo have to pay a supplement. According to the insurer, the latter are responsible for more accidents.

Is the Commission aware of this initiative by l'Equité, and what is its view of the matter?

Is it permissible for insurance companies to divide up their customers by star sign?

If not, what action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

According to the information received by the Commission, the insurance company indicated by the Honourable Member has effectively launched a motor insurance product whose features were linked to the zodiacal sign of the policyholder. Apparently the tariffs were calculated in a traditional way, the zodiac element being used mainly for advertising purposes. As suggested in the information the initiative has not had much success (only 300 of these insurance contracts have been signed up to now) and the insurer is considering the possibility to withdraw the product in a short time.

The Commission believes that in an efficient Insurance Market the role of the actuarial techniques in the assessment of risks should in no way be replaced by or based on astrology criteria. However, it should be noted that the Community legislative framework for financial services in general and insurance in particular is based on the principle of freedom of tariffs. Insurance undertakings should freely assess their risks and fix their premiums in a competitive market, in accordance with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1438/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Reform of the disciplinary procedure

As part of the reform of the Staff Regulations, the Commission has proposed changes to the disciplinary procedure.

At present, disciplinary proceedings that have been concluded can be reopened, at the request of the official concerned, and also on the initiative of the Appointing Authority, if there are new facts, supported by relevant evidence, that cast a different light on the official's behaviour.

Under the Commission proposal, only the official concerned will in future be able to have disciplinary proceedings reopened.

In practice this would mean that the Appointing Authority's hands would be tied if it came upon new, incriminating evidence of misconduct by an official who previously had been cleared and not subject to any disciplinary measures.

Does the Council consider that this is a well-advised change to the current regulations? If so, why?

If not, will it ask the Commission to withdraw its proposal?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with Article 283 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of those Communities are laid down by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the other institutions concerned.

The proposal for a Council Regulation amending the Staff Regulations of officials and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (Revision of the Staff Regulations) is currently being examined by the Council's subordinate bodies. Under the procedure provided for, the European Parliament will have an opportunity to put its position on this point.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2179/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: EU/Korea Scientific and Technological Agreement

When does the Commission intend to sign the EU/Korea Scientific and Technological Agreement? Would the Commission agree that it would be a positive step to have such an agreement as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The possibility of an Union/Korea scientific & technological cooperation Agreement was first discussed, on request of Korea, during the meeting between the Korean science Minister, H. Park and the Member of the Commission responsible for Research in Brussels on 16 May 2003.

Korea as a major industrialised country and an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Member has notable scientific and technological capabilities in selected areas; it spends close to 3 % of its gross domestic product (GDP) on research, 3/4ths of which stemming from the private sector.

While it has developed a noteworthy and vibrant scientific cooperation with the different Member States (Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom, etc.), Korea wishes to develop its scientific cooperation with the Union as such so as to more evenly balance its cooperation with its other partners such as the United States and Japan.

The Commissioner and the Korean Minister, recognising that the Union and Korea have similar scientific thematic priorities (biotechnology, nanotechnology, environment, space, information technologies and sustainable energy Korea has just decided to participate in the International Thermonuclear Experiment Reactor (ITER) project), as well as similar scientific policy challenges, agreed to examine the conditions for a scientific and technological cooperation Agreement.

The assessment of the feasibility for such an Agreement (which would offer a general framework for cooperation and facilitate Korean participation in the Union Research programmes and vice versa) is ongoing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1899/03

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Dolphins in trawler nets

Each year, large numbers of dead dolphins are washed up on the shores of the English Channel, and there would appear to be some connection between this and the fact that large, mid-water trawls also fish the areas. Post-mortems of these dolphins show that nearly all of them were in fact victims of by-catch. As the number of dolphin bodies washed ashore may represent less than 5 % of the actual total dead, it is imperative that something be done about this.

Will the Commission be establishing a mandatory observer scheme on European pelagic boats to facilitate the gathering of data thus enabling something fuller and long-term to be done about the problem?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the problem of dead dolphins being washed ashore on the beaches of Member States, in particular during winter around the English Channel.

According to the Habitats Directive(1), Member States shall take measures for the protection of small cetaceans and to ensure a favourable state of conservation of these species (including population assessment, monitoring of incidental killing, mitigation measures and habitat protection).

The Commission is, however, convinced that additional Community measures are needed to increase conservation of small cetaceans, in particular in the fisheries sector, in a consistent and co-operative manner at Community level.

The setting of mandatory observer schemes for different fisheries is part of a package of measures under consideration. A Commission proposal on this issue is expected to become available in a few weeks.

In addition, the Commission also launched on 22 May 2003 an open call for tender for a study on the impact of pelagic trawls on cetaceans through an on board observer programme(2), with the view of having this study beginning by the end of 2003 if all the necessary conditions for engaging such a contract are met.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) Open call for tender FISH/2003/09, OJ S 98, 22.5.2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2461/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Approval of funding and construction of the Thessaloniki underground project

According to the Commission's answer to my previous question on the Thessaloniki underground (H-0824/02(1)), the Greek authorities have notified it that their negotiations with the contractor and the banks to finalise the project have been concluded, that the parties concerned have agreed on an amended text of the concession contract as regards the construction of the Thessaloniki underground and that they have submitted the agreed text to the Commission. On 30 April 2003 the Commission came to a decision on the basis of the information which it had at its disposal and after a thorough investigation that there was no indication that the contract violated Community legislation.

Why is approval of the funding of the project by the Commission being delayed? What are the reasons for the delay in the approval and commencement of the project, given that negotiations on funding through a loan from the contractor, the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the commercial banks have been completed and that 11 years have now elapsed since an invitation to tender was issued for the construction of the project with co-funding from Community funds?

(1) Written answer of 17.12.2002.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission has not at this stage received a formal application from the Greek authorities to confirm the level of assistance of the Structural Funds to the project mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As the Honourable Member has noted, the Commission decided on 30 April 2003 that the public procurement procedure leading up to the award of the Concession contract for the Thessaloniki metro had not violated Community rules on public procurement. This decision was however without prejudice to other aspects of Community law, such as the rules on State aid.

Subsequently, on 4 June 2003, the Greek Authorities notified to the Commission, according to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty on State aids, the financial arrangements relating to the concession contract for the Thessaloniki Metro.

The Commission is currently examining these arrangements on the basis of the legislation of the Community on State aids, and a Commission decision with regard to Community funding for the project will be dependent on the outcome of this examination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1956/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Council

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Use of a Spanish single-hull oil tanker in the war in Iraq

The Spanish Government decided to send a military oil tanker, the Marqués de la Ensenada, to assist allied troops during the war in Iraq. The Marqués de la Ensenada, a single-hull oil tanker, was built in 1990.

In view of the fact that:

- the Commission is currently engaged in commendable work to eliminate single-hull oil tankers, especially through its proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 417/2002(1),

- the aforementioned Regulation does not apply either to warships or to auxiliary warships,

- in wartime there is a heightened risk of attack resulting in the sinking of such ships and, consequently, in an oil slick,

would the Council be willing to take steps to urge its component Member States to withdraw single-hull tankers from their naval units and replace them with double-hull tankers, as proposed in Community legislation?

(1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 1.

Reply

(7 October 2003)

It is correct, as stated in the question, that the Community legislation(1) aimed at the accelerated phasing-out of single-hull tankers does not apply to ships owned or operated by a State and used on government non-commercial service, among them warships and naval auxiliary ships. This exemption is to be found in other parts of Community maritime legislation as well, and is fully in line with international rules, in casu Marpol.

Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 is currently under revision under the co-decision procedure, with the adoption of the legislative act in first reading expected on 22 July 2003, following the Council's approval of the amendments to the Commission proposal voted by Parliament on 4 June 2003. This revision will continue to exclude warships and auxiliary navy ships, from the scope of the Regulation.

However, according to Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers, Member States shall, as far as reasonable and practicable, endeavour to respect Community legislation on this matter.

It can be added that currently a single-hull tanker covered by EC Regulation built in 1990 shall be phased out before 2007 (tankers belonging to category 1) or 2015 (tankers belonging to categories 2 and 3). Once the Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 417/2002 has entered into force, a 1990 single-hull oil tanker in category 1 will be phased out in 2005 and category 2 and 3 tankers in 2010. Such a single-hull tanker would however be banned from transporting heavy grades of oil with immediate effect if it of more than 5 000 tons deadweight or in 2008, at the latest, if it is of less than 5 000 tons.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94, OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1818/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Particulates

Will the Commission state whether there is a European framework for the assessment of air pollution near to roads, and if so what it is? Will it further describe the principal limits for the substances regarded as most damaging to health? What is the process of testing and assessment of compliance with such limits? What plans if any does the Commission have to revise such limits in the light of recent scientific research?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

The current framework for assessing air pollution is the Framework Directive 96/62/EC (Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management(1)), which provides for the monitoring of a range of air pollutants and foresees the adoption of limit values. Limit values have been adopted for a range of key pollutants (Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air(2), and Directive 2000/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air(3)); together with a target value for ozone (Directive 2002/3/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2002 relating to ozone in ambient air(4)). A further Directive is foreseen covering the remaining pollutants listed in the Framework Directive (polyaromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals). All limit and target values apply everywhere in the ambient air, including road-sides. Each Directive contains provisions relating to the quality of monitoring systems, and reporting procedures to verify compliance with the limit values. The Directives are being reviewed in the context of the Clean Air for Europe programme, which will lead to a thematic strategy on air pollution as foreseen in the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

Further information concerning the Community's air quality policy, both existing legislation and development of further policy, can be found on the Europa web-site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/).

(1) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

(2) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999.

(3) OJ L 313, 13.12.2000.

(4) OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1789/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Fuel poverty

Fuel poverty is the inability of citizens to afford adequate heating and light because of energy pricing policies and low incomes.

Does the Commission have a view, or has it undertaken any research on the issue of fuel poverty in EU countries?

Is the Commission aware that multinational companies like Electricité de France have different pricing policies, and different policies on disconnection following non-payment of electricity bills in the cities of London and Paris, for example?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

For the Commission the question of fuel poverty enters into the bigger debate of public service aspects under energy policy. The Commission in its proposals amending the Electricity and Gas Directives(1) has substantially strenghtened the public service aspects of the existing Directives to ensure that vulnerable customers will be sufficiently protected in a market that will be completely open to competition. Thus, the Electricity Directive obliges Member States to ensure that all consumers have the right to be supplied with electricity. In both the Electricity and Gas Directives a provision is contained obliging Member States to protect final customers and to ensure in particular that there are adequate safeguards to protect vulnerable customers, including measures to help them avoid disconnection. It is up to Member States to implement this provision in a way that suits their particular situation best.

As already mentioned, the policies concerning the non-payment of electricity bills are relevant of the national authorities. Each Member State implements its own rules to protect the vulnerable consumers in case of disconnection following non-payment of electricity bills. Multinational companies have to comply with each national legislation; these legislations are each different, which requires for a multinational company different policies on pricing and disconnection following non-payment of bills.

(1) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.