ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0565/02

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Lisbon strategy

The Lisbon strategy for the years up to 2005 and 2010 has set employment growth targets to increase the number of women in work to 60 % and the overall rate to 70 %. The hope is that this growth will be founded simultaneously on technological innovation and social cohesion. However, the forward study by the Science and Technology Observatory on the impact of technology and structural change on employment, covering the period up to 2020, is at variance with the targets and even maintains that the future productivity gain will benefit the economy but not employment, which, on the contrary, will continue to rise in the traditional business sectors.

How does the Commission propose to respond? Will it revise the Lisbon targets or adopt more realistic employment growth strategies?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission remains committed to the achievement of the employment targets defined by the European Council in Lisbon (23 and 24 March 2000) and Stockholm (23 and 24 March 2001) and confirmed

in Laeken (14 and 15 December 2001). Its synthesis report prepared for the Barcelona meeting of the European Council states that the employment rate targets of the European Union for 2005 and 2010 must be maintained and efforts must be accelerated to create more and better jobs and get more people to work.

Industries based on information technologies and more broadly on the development of knowledge are to play a central part in achieving this objective. This is clearly indicated in research undertaken by the Commission. Employment in Europe 2001 report points out that between 1995 and 2000, 1,5 million jobs were created in the high-tech sector, and 5,5 million in the high-education sectors.

The report also showed at the same time new patterns of employment and growth in the European labour markets. Employment content of growth has risen since 1985 an elasticity of employment growth to the gross domestic product (GDP) growth twice that of 1980s.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0051/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Subject: Cyclamate

Almost half of all light products contain artificial sweeteners such as cyclamate. The European Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) standard for cyclamate is 7 mg per day per kg of body weight for children up to eight years of age.

According to the Netherlands Nutrition Centre, this means that, in order to comply with the European standard for cyclamate intake, children up to that age must not drink more than two glasses of light soft drinks a day. In the case of adults, the limit is 1,1 litres of soft drinks a day.

However, there are millions of children in the European Union who drink more than two glasses of artificially sweetened soft drinks a day.

Is it not time that the European Union following the example set by the United States in 1969 banned the addition of cyclamate (E952) as an artificial sweetener?

Is the Commission considering the compulsory introduction of a warning on soft drink containers about the maximum daily number of glasses which should be consumed by children?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Scientific Committee on Food has last evaluated the artificial sweetener cyclamate in March 2000. The former Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 11 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) body weight was lowered to 7 mg/kg body weight. The ADI is defined as the amount of a food additive that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without incurring any appreciable health risk. Therefore, the Commission does not consider a complete ban of cyclamate as justified. The Commission is however examining how to ensure that the intake of cyclamate does not exceed the new ADI, for example by amendments to authorised limits for its use and the authorisation of alternatives.

The Commission considers that for substances such as additives, for which restrictive conditions of use are laid down by the legislation on the basis of a risk assessment, additional labelling requirements are not justified. Therefore, the Commission does not wish to introduce a warning statement on the label of soft drinks as suggested by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0100/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Regional GDP figures

Will the Commission state which Member States currently provide regional price series such as to allow a regional deflation of nominal GDP and to give regional real GDP figures?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The Structural Funds Regulation(1) gives statutory responsibility to the Commission for calculating the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on a purchasing power basis at NUTS 2 level. Currently, the Structural Funds requirements are accomplished by combining regional GDP values, which are available in the framework of the regional National Accounts, and national Purchasing Power Parity (PPPs). The latter have to be used in the absence of regional PPPs, which have so far never been calculated.

National PPPs, in general, are based on PPP price surveys in the capital cities. In the Netherlands three other cities are regularly surveyed. The prices observed in the capital cities are adjusted to national levels using spatial adjustment factors. These factors come from different sources, depending on the country (e.g. from occasional regional PPP surveys in Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, United Kingdom). There are, however, no regular Community-wide regional PPP surveys allowing the calculation of regional PPPs. But it is doubtful if such surveys would be the most cost-effective way of estimating regional PPPs.

It is, however, Eurostat's intention to respond to the requirement for regional PPPs by their development over the next few years. As a first step, a study has been commissioned to examine the theoretical background from both the prices and national accounts aspects. The contractor is due to report first results in December 2002.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/2001 of 28 June 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Fund, OJ L 198, 21.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0097/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Disability benefits

Will the Commission provide a comparison of the benefits and other entitlements of disabled people in each of the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Data on disability benefits in each Member State may be found in the Missoc data base (Mutual Information System on Social Protection in the Member States), available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc2000/index_en.htm.

Since disability benefits may take the form of various types of allowances, it would be advisable to consult the following chapters:

- Chapter III: Sickness Cash Benefits,

- Chapter V: Invalidity,

- Chapter VIII: Employment injuries and occupational diseases,

- Chapter XI: Guaranteeing sufficient resources.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0378/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 February 2002)

Subject: Dangerous used spare parts for aircraft

The Italian aviation authorities have revealed that American and Italian companies were marketing old, defective and recycled spare parts for aircraft. The problem reportedly affects 2 % of aircraft and it is estimated that such unsuitable spares may be responsible for 10 % of recent aviation accidents.

1. Are there any specifications with which airlines should comply in purchasing their spare parts?

2. Are there airlines which use such spare parts?

3. What measures will the Commission take to tackle this problem in a coordinated manner?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0347/02, E-0378/02 and E-0540/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The problem of non-standard spare parts is an issue the American aeronautical authorities are already well-acquainted with; to tackle this problem, they have in the past launched various initiatives which have been taken over by several European aeronautical authorities.

Given this background, the announcement by the Italian police that Airbus A300 components resulting from the cannibalisation of out-dated aircraft had been seized, implicating three companies (Panaviation, New Tech Italia and New Tech Aerospace), is to be deplored although it did not come as a surprise.

The main components of aircraft are subject to a certification procedure and their lifespan is often limited (either in time or in terms of flight hours). Aircraft components are also documented so that their origin and history can be traced.

Unfortunately, as in any sector where important financial interests are at stake, falsification is possible. Indeed, the prices of aircraft components are such that illegal trading in non-certified spare parts or parts salvaged from out-dated aircraft can prove very lucrative.

The problem is therefore very real and aviation authorities are aware of this. Consequently, the Commission will take particular care to ensure that, when the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is set up, certification procedures for aircraft components take particular account of the falsification issue.

This will consist in a detailed review of Part 21 (aircraft and spare parts certification) of the existing Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) procedures, which will form the basis for the rules on implementing the EASA that the Commission will be drawing up.

The Commission is determined not to allow air security to be weakened in this way. This cannot, however, be a substitute for the efforts the Member States should be making, since it is they that have the penal powers in the fight against the falsification of certified parts and of documents in general.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0537/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Illegal buildings in Greece

The Minister for the Aegean, Mr Sifounakis, recently visited the islands of the Cyclades where he made speeches urging the inhabitants not to erect buildings without planning permission. 21 years have already passed since his party came to power and it has remained in government continuously except for one short break, a period marked by the erection of thousands of illegal buildings which have caused irreparable damage to the natural environment in Greece. The architectural monstrosities built during this period are an insult to Greece's cultural traditions.

Is the Commission aware of the unimaginable degradation and deterioration which the cultural and natural environment in Greece have suffered in recent years? Does it have information on illegal building in the other 14 Member States? Have other Member States encountered similar problems to Greece and managed to resolve them, unlike the Greek Government which yields to short-term party political gain and damages the environment and the architectural heritage?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2002)

The illegal buildings referred to by the Honourable Member would appear to be private dwellings built without planning permission. However, the failure of local authorities to properly apply Greek legislation on urban building is outside the scope of Community environmental law.

Moreover, as the construction projects in question are not included among the projects listed in Annexes I and II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2), this Directive does not apply. A further point is that Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment(3) will not apply until 21 July 2004 (deadline for incorporation into national law).

Attention is also drawn to Article 151 of the EC Treaty, according to which the Community is not responsible for harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States in the field of culture, which remains the exclusive competence of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/02

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Subject: School milk subsidies

On 30 August 2001 I tabled a written question to the Council (E-2478/01)(1) concerning school milk subsidies. The Council did not reply to the following questions: What is done to ensure that the funds are used only for school milk and not for other purposes? How are the funds distributed among the Member States? If some countries do not use the subsidy, might it be appropriate to increase the shares of those countries which do use it by the amount available to countries which decline to do so? In its reply of 10 December 2001, it said that the sole power of decision on this matter rested with the Commission. What is the Commission's answer to the above questions?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 139.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

The budget appropriations for school milk in a given budget year are based on the estimated expenditure for that scheme taking account of the quantities of dairy products distributed in previous years and, eventually, of developments in the aid level. It concerns a global amount for the Community as a whole, without any specification of budgetary envelopes per individual Member State. Actual expenditure on the scheme depends upon the quantities effectively distributed in each Member State. The budgetary framework therefore does not allow for the type of compensatory allocations suggested by the Honourable Member.

Moreover, the aid amount per unit of product distributed to schoolchildren should be known at the moment of distribution with a view to setting the net selling price. For this reason, the Community legislation provides for a fixed amount of subsidy for the different products distributed.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0314/02

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Airline competition

Can the Commission confirm, further to a complaint concerning Charleroi airport, that it is conducting an inquiry into distortions of competition due to state aid from the Walloon regional authority to the airline Ryanair?

Can it tell us the background to this case and inform us of the procedure being followed and the present state of the inquiry?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0314/02 and P-0434/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2002)

The Commission can confirm that it is currently examining the agreements signed, at the end of 2001, between the Walloon region, the Charleroi airport management company and the airline Ryanair.

The Commission wishes to make sure that the benefits obtained by Ryanair on setting up in the Walloon region are indeed commercial and that the agreements, a copy of which it received at the end of 2001, do not contain anything likely to contravene the rules of the Treaty on State Aid (Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty).

Examination of these agreements began following the appearance of articles in the press and complaints to the Commission. The next stage of the examination will be to send a letter to the Belgian authorities to ask for additional information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0462/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE)and Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Problems relating to set-aside in Greece

On 17 January 2002 thirty Members of the Greek Parliament tabled a topical question to the Ministry of Agriculture in which they drew attention to the host of problems relating to the programme for the long-term set-aside of agricultural land (Regulation (EC) 2078/92)(1).

Will the Commission say how many and which prefectures took part in this programme, what were in the view of the Commission services the results of this participation, whether the restitution of the subsidies provided within the framework of this programme is being considered or has already been requested and what were precisely the irregularities identified by the Commission during the implementation of this programme in Greece? What specific responsibility does the Greek Ministry of Agriculture have for the irregularities in the management of the programme alleged by the Greek Members of Parliament?

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 85.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties in implementing the long-term set-aside programme in Greece under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside(1). On 9 January 2002 it sent a letter to the Greek authorities asking for full checks on all the beneficiaries and a detailed report on the matter, including information on any penalties imposed or planned. The Commission also intends to make its own inspection visit.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0404/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Roberta Angelilli (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN),Roberto Bigliardo (UEN), Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN), Antonio Mussa (UEN),Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), Franz Turchi (UEN)and Mariotto Segni (UEN) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Italian citizens with Belgian pensions

Italian citizens who have worked in Belgian and have returned Italy with an invalidity and/or retirement pension awarded by the Belgian authorities have to face long delays and go through lengthy formalities before they receive their cheques.

The Belgian bank responsible for payments sends a bank transfer to the Italian central post office in Rome.

From Rome, the post office cheques are then sent to various localities throughout Italy, resulting in significant delays in payments and increasing the risk of pensioners being robbed when they have to collect their money from the post office.

Will the Commission:

- ensure that Italian pensioners are treated in the same way as pensioners from Portugal, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg and even Morocco, by allowing them to receive their pension payments directly from the Belgian bank concerned;

- intervene without delay to ensure the equal treatment of all European pensioners, thus preventing discrimination against Italian citizens?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Members that, according to the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72(1), social security benefits are paid to beneficiaries either directly or through a liaison body. Annex 6 to this Regulation mentions the procedure for payment of allowances chosen by the institutions responsible for payment in each Member State. Belgium opted for direct payment of allowances.

However, this Regulation does not specify what form the direct payment should take, which means that it can be paid by money order.

Nevertheless, given the disadvantages arising from payment of pensions by money order, the Commission is prepared to intervene to ensure that the Belgian authorities take measures to allow pensions to be paid into bank accounts in Italy.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ L 74, 27.3.1972, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0002/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Airport taxes at Athens airport

In my previous question, No E-0331/01(1) of 13 February 2001, I raised the issue of a possible lack of competitiveness at Eleftherios Venizelos airport, due to increased airport taxes.

On 20 December 2001, the Athens International Airport company decided to reduce aircraft landing and parking fees by between 15 and 23 %. In order to make these reductions, the Athens airport management has agreed to levy 90 % of the airport modernisation tax, instead of the 75 % it currently levies.

Can the Commission look into the nature of the subsidy resulting from the increase in the airport modernisation tax?

What will the impact be on the modernisation of Greece's remaining airports?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 93.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

Decisions on the construction, improvement or further development of airport infrastructure as well as the allocation of public funds among airports of a Member State, fall under the responsibility of the authorities of that Member State. The Commission may however examine the issue in view of possible distortions of competition in case this is requested by the specific situation. As already indicated in reply to the previous question mentioned by the Honourable Member, decisions on the level and structure of airport charges fall under the responsibility of the local and national authorities concerned.

However, the general principles of Community law apply to measures in this field and require, in particular, that charges are set in a non-discriminatory manner.

On the basis of the available information, the Commission is not in the position to assess the implication of the arrangements regarding the airport Eleftherios Venizelos for their possible distortive effect in relation to other Greek airports. No complaint has been addressed to the Commission in this respect. However, if the Commission would at any given time come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to take up the issue with the Greek authorities, it will not hesitate to do so.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0042/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Tax on the maintenance of a grave

Could the Commission confirm whether there is currently any EU legislation concerning the amount of Value Added Tax that is paid on the maintenance of a grave? Could the Commission also confirm whether there are currently any plans to change the laws on the payment of VAT on the maintenance of a grave and whether it is possible, under existing legislation, to end such payments?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

Under Community VAT legislation, Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1)) lays down that Member States may apply a reduced VAT rate to supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex H of that directive. Category 15 of Annex H covers the Services supplied by undertakers and cremation services, together with the supply of goods related thereto. Member States may therefore allocate a reduced VAT rate of no less than 5 % to these services. Furthermore, some member States are able to exempt some similar services under transitional VAT provisions set out in Article 28(3)(b) of that directive. However, unless the maintenance of a grave is supplied by undertakers, the standard VAT rate should apply to this kind of service. Some types of grave maintenance undertaken by local authorities can be treated as outside the scope of VAT, where the authorities are not in competition with private individuals.

As part of its New VAT Strategy, the Commission intends to examine the scope of Annex H and the various associated derogations and exemptions.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, Directive as last amended by Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001 OJ L 15, 17.1.2002.