ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3158/01

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) and Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Airbus

According to press reports, the Italian Defence Minister, Antonio Martino, has made it clear that he has no intention of buying 16 of Airbus's planned A400M aircraft because he considers them to be of little use.

Will the Commission explain, in the light of its previous communications as well as the positions adopted by the other European institutions, how important the building of this tactical and logistical military transport plane would be for the development of the European defence industry and in the wider context of the establishment of a European common defence policy?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission expressed its vision regarding the future of the European defence industries in its Communications adopted in 1996 and 1997(1).

In response to declining demand and increasing competition a restructuring process has started among the European defence industries. The European industry should be allowed to carry out the necessary restructuring process, cooperate, or merge activities where they are similar or complementary, and thereby improve its competitive position. Whilst industry must lead this process, the Member States and European Institutions and organisations should seek to establish the necessary framework to allow for the proper functioning of a European defence-related equipment market.

The focus for Commission activities is on the supply side in promoting action that will shape a European defence equipment market and allow European defence procurement to be more cost effective.

As far as the demand side is concerned, the role of Member States and other multilateral organisations is particularly important in areas such as the harmonisation in time and content of operational requirements, and the creation of a European Armament Agency to run programmes with a European dimension.

The Commission welcomes the fact that common requirements lead more and more systematically to common programs such as A400M. When launched, this major European programme, bringing together the resources of Europe's major aircraft manufacturers, will concretely give birth to Airbus Military Company.

This is in line with the political goals agreed at the Helsinki European Council where it was also agreed to seek further progress in the harmonisation of military requirements and the planning and procurement of arms, as Member States consider appropriate.

(1) COM(96) 10 final and COM(97) 583 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2910/01

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Price increases by mobile communications company Viag Interkom in conjunction with conversion to euro

In converting to the euro, the mobile communications company, Viag Interkom AG, is rounding up its prices to whole cents of a euro. This means that a ten-minute off-peak local call which cost 50 Pfennig pre-conversion will cost 30 cents (59 Pfennig) post-conversion.

Is the Commission aware of similar cases of price increases as a result of the conversion to the single currency?

Does the Commission take the view that it is not only appropriate but essential with small amounts to round off to several decimal places, particularly when companies use amounts with decimals in their advertising?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The conversion rules set out in Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro(1) apply to monetary amounts to be paid or accounted for. Since telephone units are not caught by that definition, the increase from 50 pfennigs to 30 cents in Viag Interkom AG's call units must be regarded as a pure price increase and not as an instance of the conversion rules being applied. It is for the market to sanction abusive price increases.

With regard to the general problem of converting contracts based on small unitary amounts, the Commission shares the Honourable Member's view and considers that as many decimal places as possible should be retained after conversion: there is no obligation at European level to round off the result of the conversion.

(1) OJ L 162, 19.6.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2205/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Albanian elections without EP observers

In view of the situation in Albania, where the holding of proper free and democratic elections involving the whole population is still a long way off, is the Commission willing to say why, during the second ballot stage (an extremely delicate stage because of repeated allegations of election-rigging and police intervention) no observer was sent by the European Parliament? What criterion was used to pick out the polling stations to which observers were allocated?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2001)

The decision to send or not to send Parliament observers to monitor the second round of the Albanian elections was of the exclusive competence of the Parliament itself. The Commission has no say in Parliament decisions of this nature.

In order to ensure an adequate follow up of the whole electoral process in Albania, an International Election Observation Mission under the auspices of the Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe/Office for democratic institutions and human rights (OSCE/ODHIR) has been set up. This mission has assembled a significant number of international election experts, long-term and short-term observers, members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and, during the first round, members of the Parliament. The Commission considers that this Mission is adequately performing its mandate.

The exact criteria for the allocation of observers by the OSCE/ODHIR to the various polling stations are not known to the Commission. The Commission fully relies on the widely recognised expertise and know-how of the OSCE/ODHIR in this respect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3380/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Fishing licences/registration and third-country agreements

Can the Commission state whether new fishing vessels, constituting additional tonnage to the Community fleet and which have no quota allocation in Community waters may obtain registration as fishing vessels and under what conditions such registration takes place? Can the Commission also state if registration for such vessels as part of the Community fleet actually constitutes a licence to make private agreements with third countries or to apply for a share of the Community quotas agreed with such countries? Can the Commission state how many such vessels are registered?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2090/98, of 30 September 1998 concerning the fishing vessel register of the Community(1) all Community fishing vessels flying the flag of or registered in a Member State shall be registered in the fishing vessel register of the Community.

Such registration does not automatically constitute a licence to make private agreements or to apply for a quota share. However, individuals and companies have a right to make private agreements with third countries as well as to apply for an allocation of quota under a fishing agreement concluded between the Community and the third country concerned. The latter application transmitted to the flag Member State by the fisherman is therefore forwarded by the Commission to the third country, inside the share of fishing possibilities allocated to that Member State under the conditions laid down by the fishing agreement. It is then the third country concerned which issues the licence to the Community fishing vessels wishing to fish in the waters of that country.

As regards allocation of quotas to individual vessels and issuing fishing licences pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences(2), it must be stressed that it is the flag Member State (and not the Commission) which is responsible.

(1) OJ L 266, 1.10.1998.

(2) OJ L 341, 31.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Division of cotton growers' production into eligible or ineligible for aid

By Decision 55645 of 24 September 2001 (Article 8(5)), the Greek Ministry of Agriculture is applying individual quotas to cotton production and is allowing quantities of cotton for which aid will

not be granted to be delivered to ginning plants. However, Regulation (EC) 1051/2001(1) provides only for the possibility of restricting the areas under cultivation, subject to certain conditions, and not for the division of quantities delivered into those eligible or ineligible for aid. Cotton producers do not know for which quantities ultimately aid will be granted or for which they will receive the market price only (approximately Drs 56 per kilo) or on what criteria and when their production will be reassessed. They are also pondering whether to gather in all their crop in view of the fact that the cost of harvesting is barely covered by the market price.

In addition to the above Regulation, the Commission's report to the Council On Greek requests in the cotton sector(2) also rejects the possibility of individual division of production and the notion of eligible and ineligible quantities of cotton on the grounds that the existence of two kinds of cotton at the level of producers and ginning plants alike would create serious problems with system monitoring and a risk that the rules on aid could be infringed. A substantial modification and adjustment of the basic rules governing aid for cotton would therefore be required.

1. Can both subsidised and unsubsidised cotton be delivered to ginning plants?

2. Do the reasons which led the Commission in the past(3) not to allow Greece to subsidise only a part of the quantities produced by each grower no longer apply?

3. Has the Commission examined the measures taken at the ginning plants to prevent a possible infringement of the aid rules through the simultaneous delivery of consignments of cotton which are eligible or ineligible for aid?

(1) OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 3.

(2) COM(1998) 10 final.

(3) COM(1998) 10 final.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2001)

The Commission has asked for and received a copy of the Decree of 24 September 2001 on national measures decided by the Greek authorities in connection with the new aid scheme for cotton applicable from the 2001/02 marketing year.

At present the Commission is looking carefully at the official legal texts relating to the Decree and cannot state a position on the matter.

At all events, under Article 17(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton(1), the Member States now have the right to restrict the areas eligible for the aid under environmental measures authorised for the purpose.

Cotton obtained on areas not eligible for the aid may be ginned but cannot qualify for Community aid and is not subject to the minimum price obligation.

(1) OJ L 148, 1.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2189/01

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

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Portuguese section of Galicia's and Portugal's link to the high-speed rail network

In its reply to Oral Question H-0530/01(1) (which it gave at the European Parliament's sitting of 4 July 2001), the Commission says that it is closely monitoring the planning stages of Portugal's high-speed railway programme which includes the Atlantic rail link, which is part of priority project No 8 and which will help to ensure that rail links between Spain and Portugal are able to continue in a coordinated fashion.

The reply to that question comes at a time when the Portuguese Government is already questioning the need for a high-speed line, and even the need for a line to be built at all.

In view of the fact that the Lisbon-Corunna line is part of priority project No 8 (one of a small number of projects which are to receive particular attention from the Union) and that the project will have a decisive effect on Galicia's economic development, what action is the Commission currently taking vis-à-vis the Spanish and Portuguese Governments (and Galicia's regional government) in order to ensure that the railway line in question is built by 2007, as was originally planned?

(1) Written reply of 3 July 2001.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

As it indicated in its replies to Written Questions Nos E-1046/01(1) and E-2030/01(2) by the Honourable Member, the Commission is planning to put forward revised guidelines on the trans-European transport network which will add new specific projects to Annex III. The White Paper on European transport policy which the Commission adopted on 12 September 2001(3) indicates clearly that the projects being envisaged include the interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network, based on Spain and Portugal's national plans for high-speed rail lines. Spain's national plan includes the lines in Galicia agreed between the Spanish and Galician Governments, including the link between La Coruña, Vigo and the Portuguese border.

The Commission has already contacted the Portuguese authorities, pointing out to them the desirability of ensuring continuous, interoperable rail links between Portugal and Spain via the corridor covered by priority project No 8. At the request of the Spanish and Portuguese authorities, it has also granted TEN financial aid for work and studies on the modernisation of the existing line while work and studies are carried out on a rail link between Porto and Vigo.

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 155.

(2) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 49.

(3) COM(2001) 370.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2675/01

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 September 2001)

Subject: Agreement between Portugal and Spain on water resources

Does the Commission consider that the agreement between Portugal and Spain on water resources complies with the Framework Directive on Water, which entered into force about a year ago?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The Water Framework Directive(1) entered into force on 22 December 2000 and provides for river basin management as the key principle for water management. For transboundary rivers basins, the Directive sets out the following requirements for coordination (Article 3(3) and 3(4)):

Member States shall ensure that a river basin covering the territory of more than one Member State is assigned to an international river basin district. At the request of the Member States involved, the Commission shall act to facilitate the assigning to such international river basin districts.

Each Member State shall ensure the appropriate administrative arrangements, including the identification of the appropriate competent authority, for the application of the rules of this Directive within the portion of any international river basin district within its territory.

Member States shall ensure that the requirements of this Directive for the achievement of the environmental objectives established under Article 4, and in particular all programmes of measures are coordinated for the whole of the river basin district. For international river basin districts the Member States concerned shall together ensure this coordination and may, for this purpose, use existing structures stemming from international agreements. At the request of the Member States involved, the Commission shall act to facilitate the establishment of the programme of measures.

While cooperation and coordination between Member States in relation to shared international river basins is compulsory under the Water Framework Directive, the institutional and legal form of such joint actions (formal agreement, conventions, exchange of letters etc) is left to the discretion of the Member States concerned.

The Convention between Portugal and Spain is broadly consistent with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive with regard to the need to ensure appropriate coordination. The creation of a proper framework for the management of the river basins shared between Spain and Portugal is therefore to be welcomed. Having established such a framework, the challenge for the future will be to carry out river-basin planning and develop programmes of measures for each river basin as foreseen under the Directive.

(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Exports of animal meal and imports of beef and veal

In your answer to my Question E-0804/01(1) you write Whereas the figures for exports of processed animal protein from the Community to CEEC can be derived from the available statistics, it is difficult to estimate the amount of exports of animal feedingstuffs containing such products with any precision.

As it is difficult to estimate the amount of exports of animal feedingstuffs containing animal protein with any precision, I should like to know the figures for Community exports of processed animal protein to the CEEC that can be derived from the available statistics.

The Scientific Steering Committee is continuously assessing the BSE risk in non-Community countries and has submitted a file containing export figures.

Can the Commission forward this file to me? If so, I hereby request it to do so.

In its answer to my Question E-804/01 the Commission writes that the outcome of these assessments was being made available on the Internet. At what Internet address are these results to be found?

In its answer to my Question E-0804/01 the Commission left a number of questions completely unanswered.

Hoping for a reply this time, I shall repeat them:

- How many head of cattle and tonnes of beef and veal are imported every day into the EU from the CEECs?

- How many head of cattle and tonnes of beef and veal are imported into the individual Member States?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 41.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The Commission is sending the figures concerning the exports of processed animal proteins from the Community to the Central and Eastern Europe Countries (CEEC) direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. As explained in the answer given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0804/01 these figures are also available on the Internet for those Member States and third countries for which the Scientific Steering Committee has conducted the geographical BSE-risk (GBR) assessment. These reports are published at the following Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/outcome_en.html

reports.

The Commission will also resubmit direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the statistics concerning the imports of cattle and beef from the CEEC to the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2663/01

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: Public service contracts and the Mafia in Italy

In a public statement, the Italian minister responsible for public works, Mr Lunardi, said that, given the situation in Italy, one would have to live with the Mafia when carrying out the major public works programme that had been announced by the Berlusconi government.

Leaving aside the extremely serious political and legal implications of this statement which, let it be said, refers solely to the Italian State can the Commission say:

1. whether it considers that in accepting to live with the Mafia where public service contracts are involved, the Italian Government is acting in breach of the relevant Community legislation;

2. how it intends to ensure that tendering procedures for public works contracts in Italy do not bear the taint of Mafia influence and that any company in the Union is able to take part in the safe knowledge that its bid can be rejected only on objective and wholly legal grounds?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The Commission would like to emphasize that it attaches great importance to preventing those linked to criminal organisations from participating in procedures for the award of public contracts.

In this regard, the Commission would point out that, in Article 46(1) of its proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public supply, public service and public works contracts, it introduced an obligation aimed at excluding from participation in the invitation to tender any tenderer who has been the subject of a definitive judgment for participation in a criminal organisation, for corruption or for financial fraud against the European Communities.

This proposal follows up the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Tampere in October 1999 and corresponds to the political priorities set out in the action plans to combat organised crime, which were adopted by the Council in June 1997 and March 2000, and in the Commission Communication of 1997 on the Union's anti-corruption policy(1).

Moreover, in order to render effective the provision in the above-mentioned Article 46(1), the Commission intends to propose that a new directive be adopted to introduce a new system of exchange of information between Member States and European institutions so that the awarding authorities in the Member States are able to obtain the information necessary to check whether an economic operator should be excluded from participation in an invitation to tender by reason of a conviction for one of the offences referred to in the above-mentioned Article 46(1).

In this context, the Commission notes that the Italian Government has always demonstrated its full commitment to achieving the above-mentioned objectives.

(1) COM(1997) 192.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2981/01 by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission. '100 % vegetarian' food labelling.



Official Journal 134 E , 06/06/2002 P. 0164 - 0164



WRITTEN QUESTION P-2981/01 by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission (19 October 2001) Subject: '100 % vegetarian' food labelling If a foodstuff labelled 100 % vegetarian contains animal gelatine, is that a breach of Directive 2000/13/EC(1) of the European Parliament and the Council? Article 2(1)(a) of this Directive states that labelling must not mislead as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufacture or production or by attributing to the foodstuff effects or properties which it does not possess. (1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29. Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (21 November 2001) The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2709/01 by Mrs Breyer(1) (1) See page 83.