ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2658/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: TETRA radio masts

When will the Commission bring forward its review of safety regarding TETRA radio masts, first due to be published in June of this year?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

On 12 July 1999, as part of its endeavours to protect the health of European citizens against the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, the Council adopted a Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)(1). This Recommendation covers the Tetra system, to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to Community legislation in ensuring that products like Tetra base stations and Tetra mobile phones are safe. In order to comply with this legislation (Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity(2) and Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits(3)), manufacturers need to ensure that products comply with strict safety standards following the latest scientific advice such as laid down in the Council Recommendation.

The Commission also asked the Scientific Committee on Toxicology, Ecotoxicology and the Environment to deliver a new opinion on the on the risks related to the development of technologies using electromagnetic radiation. In its opinion published on 30 November, the Committee confirmed that:

the additional information that has become available on carcinogenic and other non-thermal effects of radiofrequency and microwave frequencies in the last years does not justify a revision of exposure limits set by the Commission on the basis of the 1998 opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee.

In line with this opinion, any additional measures regarding the Tetra system should be taken by Member States' relevant authorities.

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

(2) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(3) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3605/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Unfair competition by Rent-a-Car firms

The fashion for displaying advertising on private vehicles, which is all the rage in American countries, is now reaching Europe, and one variation is being practised by certain car-hire firms, i.e. Rent A Car.

These firms are displaying advertising on their vehicles, which enables them to offer them for hire charging only for the fuel consumed, since the advertising carried is sufficient to pay off their investment in their respective fleets. This has naturally been the subject of complaints from most other firms in the sector.

Can the Commission say whether it considers this practice whereby car-hire agencies charge customers only for the fuel consumed, since the advertising displayed on their vehicles is sufficient to pay off their investment in their fleets of cars, to be unfair competition?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to a recent practice adopted by a car hire company which consists of displaying advertising on their vehicles. He suggests that through the advertising revenues thus generated the car rental company is able to offer extremely competitive rates to its customers. The Honourable Member asks the Commission whether it considers such practices to be a source of unfair competition in this economic sector.

The Commission does not consider this to be an unfair competitive practice. On the contrary, there is nothing preventing other companies from entering this display advertising market. The displayed advertising is regulated according to general rules and regulations that apply to billboard advertising. It should be noted that this is common practice in the competing taxi and public transport service sectors.

The Commission would also note that there are various types of customers who rent cars. For example, tourists who may seek bargain rates for such services may be attracted to hiring a car carrying advertising that costs less to rent than an unmarked vehicle. In contrast, certain business customers may prefer to drive a car that has no advertising but which costs more to rent. The development of such a niche market thus offers more choice to customers and should thus increase rather than decrease the competitiveness of this sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2766/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Warning to Sweden for late submission of maps

In November 1999 the Commission gave a warning to Sweden and three other countries for their failure to forward maps showing State regional aid on time. There was a temporary interruption of payments.

Has the error now been corrected or is Sweden still having problems in forwarding maps showing State regional aid?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

By letter dated 22 October 1999, the Swedish authorities notified the Swedish regional aid map for the period 2000 to 2006 in accordance with Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty.

The examination of the notification by the Commission showed that the notified file was incomplete. At a meeting on 12 November 1999 and by letter of 25 November 1999, the Commission asked the Swedish authorities to complete the notification. The Swedish authorities provided these elements by letters of 21 December 1999 and 8 February 2000. By letter of 17 February 2000, the Swedish authorities modified their notification (revision of the aid intensity ceiling proposed).

The Commission decided to approve the Swedish regional aid map on 29 March 2000. It informed the Swedish authorities of the decision by letter No SG(2000) D/103189 of 17 April 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3131/01

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Safeguarding the cultural heritage following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington

In view of the serious international crisis which has arisen following the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon and the military intervention in Afghanistan, and whereas Europe (Italy in particular) is home to most of the world's artistic and architectural heritage; where as over the last few

weeks, every Member State will undoubtedly have set in motion all procedures designed to provide maximum security for sensitive cultural sites which could be the target of terrorist attacks, can the Commission say whether:

1. the idea of devising special methods and strategies for monitoring and safeguarding the architectural and cultural heritage has been considered?

2. the EU Culture Ministers have met in order to promote heritage safeguard initiatives?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2002)

1. Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty provides that the Community may take action to:

- encourage cultural cooperation between Member States;

- support and supplement Member States' actions (by providing financial assistance, if necessary) in the following areas:

- improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;

- conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;

- non-commercial cultural exchanges;

- artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

The Community therefore has no basis for taking action to safeguard Member States' heritage other than the existing programmes and initiatives. It is also important to note that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States have exclusive responsibility for protection arrangements.

2. The Commission has not been informed of any meetings of EU Culture Ministers to promote specific heritage protection measures following the attacks of 11 September 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2828/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 2001)

Subject: Development of national chambers of commerce and the Secretariat for the chambers of commerce of the ACP countries

The Community and ACP institutions and the new guidelines set out in the Cotonou Agreement stress the need to strengthen civil society in the ACP countries. The chambers of commerce, industry and other economic operators in the ACP countries are an essential element in achieving this aim, as acknowledged on various occasions, for example in the resolutions of the ACP Council of Ministers meeting in Montego Bay (Jamaica) and Suva (Fiji) and the motions for resolutions adopted by the Joint Assembly in Brussels in 1997. However, the activity of the national chambers of commerce and industry has been unable to boost and develop the activities of the Secretariat for the chambers of commerce, as requested inter alia in the afore-mentioned resolutions, in order to foster the work of the private sector.

What projects does the Commission envisage to improve and step up the activities of these institutions, as an essential factor in developing the private sector, as mentioned among the objectives of the Cotonou Agreement and what resources does it intend to allocate for their achievement?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

In the context of measures to support capacity building for non-State actors in general and the private sector in particular, and in accordance with the Cotonou Convention, the Commission recognises the key role played by the national chambers of commerce of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.

The chambers may receive support from EBAS (European Business Advisory Services) which, as part of its support for capacity building in private sector intermediary organisations, has already agreed to provide co-financing of a total of 343 000 for ten chambers of commerce in six different ACP countries (Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Botswana, Bahamas, Zimbabwe and the Dominican Republic). Individual operations involve amounts ranging between 5 000 and 100 000. The types of operation also vary: a study of the impact of trade liberalisation on the local economy in Bahamas, preparation of a business guide in the Dominican Republic and Burkina Faso, a feasibility study on setting up a trade fair centre in Botswana, a preliminary audit to select companies interested in taking part in a trade fair in Zimbabwe, the organisation of training seminars for associated businesses in different fields in Côte d'Ivoire, support for public-private sector dialogue in Botswana, upgrading of the management system in Ethiopia and setting up a website in Burkina Faso.

In future another instrument, Proinvest, managed by the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE), will also be available for the assessment of requests for technical assistance submitted by private sector intermediary organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3052/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Release of hostages

Amnesty International has announced that the Israeli Government and the Hizbollah in Lebanon are holding hostages in defiance of the rules of international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What measures does the Council intend to take to put an end to the use of hostages as a negotiating chip, to give hostages access to the International Red Cross (which is a fundamental right of anyone arrested during an armed conflict), to oblige Israel to respect its commitments under the Geneva Convention and, finally, to release all the hostages?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3052/01 and E-3256/01

(18 March 2002)

The European Union remains deeply concerned by the practice of hostage-taking in the Middle East. According to the Council's information, on 7 October 2000 Hezbollah abducted three Israeli soldiers in the border area between Israel and Lebanon and, at around the same time, an Israeli businessman residing in Europe, with the objective of securing the release of Lebanese nationals and Palestinians held by Israel. Recently, Israel officially declared the three soldiers dead. Since then the Israeli government and the families of the abducted persons have been calling for the bodies to be returned.

These cases have been raised by the EU representatives, notably the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Javier Solana, and the EU Special Representative for the Middle East peace process, Mr Moratinos, with representatives of the governments of Middle-Eastern countries. They will continue to use their regular contacts with these countries to pursue these efforts, in particular with regard to the return of the bodies. The EU does not have direct contact with Hezbollah.

On 11 December 2001 Mr Solana received the families of the abducted persons and undertook to do everything in his power to find a humanitarian solution at an early date.

For its part, Israel has been detaining Lebanese citizens since 1986 (administrative detention) a practice strongly criticised by the EU and declared illegal by the Israeli Supreme Court. Israel released ten persons in May 2000 but, according to Amnesty International, is still holding twelve Lebanese nationals. The EU continues to protest strongly against this practice. At the second meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council (20 November 2001), the EU declaration referred to it in the following terms: The Union reiterates its strongly held opinion that extra-judicial killings and other violations, such as administrative detention and collective punishment, including the increasing recourse to house demolitions, are unacceptable and contrary to the rule of law. The EU calls on the Government of Israel to cease these practices.

At the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the 4th Geneva Convention on 5 December 2001, the Union reaffirmed the universality of the Convention and emphasised that there can be no ambiguity about the fact that international humanitarian law must be respected by all the parties involved in an armed conflict.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3165/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council. Sellafield and the Irish Government.



Official Journal 160 E , 04/07/2002 P. 0062 - 0062



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3165/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council (23 November 2001) Subject: Sellafield and the Irish Government Bearing in mind the Irish Government's invariable opposition to and regular and consistent attempts to forestall developments at the nuclear establishment in Sellafield, what evidential weight does the Council give to actions and submissions of the Irish Government, and does it consider the latter's activities to be consistent with accepting the Acquis Communautaire? Reply (25/26 March 2002) Actions and submissions of the Irish Government in respect of activities at the Sellafield site are a matter for that Government. The last part of the question, regarding the compatibility of the Irish Government's activities with the acquis communautaire, is a matter for the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2784/01

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: Possible provision of misleading information to the Commission in the MED affair

In its answer to my written question E-2043/01(1), the Commission states, with regard to the MED affair, that UCLAF requested the competent Belgian judicial authorities in 1996 to examine the scope for criminal action on the grounds of a conflict of interests pursuant to Article 245 of the Belgian Criminal Code.

1. When precisely was that request made, to which department of the Belgian judiciary was it addressed, and on what date was it answered?

2. Will the Commission forward a copy of this correspondence to me and state whether it is now also prepared to forward to me a copy, including all the annexes, of the letter of 13 December 1999 to Prosecutor Dejemeppe, as I requested in my question of 27 June 2001?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 170.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

In order to assess the conditions for starting criminal proceedings on grounds of conflict of interests pursuant to Article 245 of the Belgian Criminal Code, the Belgian judicial authorities were consulted informally, without correspondence being exchanged. by a magistrate seconded to the Commission (UCLAF).

At the moment, the Commission does not have sufficiently precise information relating to progress of judicial proceedings in Italy to answer the Honourable Member's question. The European Anti-fraud Office will follow-up this procedure as part of its activities of monitoring legal proceedings. It is for the Office to inform the institutions of the results of the investigation in accordance with the provisions applicable in the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3371/01

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

(6 December 2001)

Subject: CaseNo2000/2007 opened by the Commission

In its reply to my written question E-804/00(1) the Commission undertook to take the necessary steps to ensure that Community law would be upheld if the quay and the fuel and chemical storage tanks were to be built in the port of Vilagarcía de Arousa (Galicia, Spain). It subsequently opened a file under reference number 2000/2007 on the basis of that and other parliamentary questions. Can the Commission provide any information regarding the current state of that file?

Can the Commission also provide information regarding the amount of any ERDF aid and subsidy which may have been received by the Spanish Development Ministry for the purpose of building the quay at Vilagarcía de Arousa? And how much (if any) ERDF aid and subsidy has been received by the FINSA, Foresa, Granorsa, P & J and Carrasco S.L. companies?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 154.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Commission has received a number of parliamentary questions on the environmental impact of port construction work and work on fuel and chemicals storage facilities in the port of Vilagarcía de Arousa in Pontevedra province in the autonomous community of Galicia in Spain.

In response to these questions, the Commission opened a case detected by its own investigations. It has also received a complaint on the same matter. In the course of the Commission's inquiries an exchange of information took place between the Commission and the Spanish authorities, and the Commission is currently looking into the Spanish authorities' response. The complainant recently sent additional information, which is now being examined.

According to the information received from the Spanish authorities there are no plans to construct a new quay for fuel and chemicals storage in the port of Vilagarcía de Arousa.

Construction of the quay in the Arousa estuary was completed in 1997. Three concessionary firms are currently operating there, two of them engaged in timber storage and the third in the storage of hydrocarbon derivatives. This quay received 3 957 723 in cofinancing under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the total cost came to more than 6 million.

As regards any ERDF cofinancing granted to the Finsa, Foresa, Granorsa, P & J and Carrasco SL companies, the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for information, which it will pass on to the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Education and welfare of gypsies and travellers

NATT is a professional teaching organisation that deals with the education and welfare of gypsies and travellers. It is a founder member of Efecot, the European Federation for the Education of Travellers (1988) based in Brussels.

Efecot has received European funding for its programmes, and has also produced a seven-year work plan at the request of the Commission. The Commision has also asked Efecot to present its working practices and management of projects in different forums as an example of good practice.

Recently, however, the Commission has organised a system of external evaluators to assess project proposals. Since the establishment of this scheme, projects submitted to the evaluators aiming at developing and improving the education and training of gypsies and travellers have been consistently rejected, and the Commission has not intervened to correct this problem.

What action is the Council going to take to rectify this problem and ensure that these projects are given the due consideration they were formerly allocated?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The Council is aware of the improvement in systems of education for all but suggests that the Honourable Member should put his question direct to the Commission, which is competent to deal with the type of problem raised in it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2943/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Protracted settlement procedures following (road) accidents in Switzerland

In answer to question E-1080/0(1), the Council says that the Commission has taken the initiative of conducting negotiations with the Swiss Confederation on improving settlement procedures in the case of accidents in Switzerland involving, for example, a vehicle insured in Switzerland and a vehicle insured in a Member State of the Community. As the fourth directive on motor vehicle insurance affords no solution to this problem, the scope of the directive should nonetheless urgently be extended to prevent protracted claims procedures between EU victims and Swiss insurance companies in the near future.

Loop-holes in Swiss legislation enable insurance companies to withhold for a very long time the payment of damages resulting from civil liability. This source of legal uncertainty affects EU citizens who are victims of (road) accidents in Switzerland. They become caught up in a legalistic procedural wrangle with no prospect of compensation within a reasonable period of time. One of the victims is a citizen of the Belgian Federation who has been waiting for a number of years for speedy, equitable and fair compensation.

Will the Commission take the initiative with regard to negotiations with the Swiss Confederation on the above problem by making a recommendation, as set out in Article 300 of the Treaty? If not, why is it refusing to take such an initiative given that the fourth directive on motor vehicle insurance is inadequate to ensure a speedy, fair and reasonable solution for EU victims of accidents in Switzerland?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 41.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2001)

As indicated in the previous replies, the Commission has pursued further the exploratory talks with the Swiss Confederation on the extension of the protection provided by the Fourth Directive(1) on motor vehicle insurance to claims against Swiss insurance companies.

However, the analysis of the current situation has shown that the legal shortcomings as such are not substantial and that in general claims are usually settled within a reasonable timeframe. With regard to the specific case of a Belgian citizen it appears that the available legal instruments should not be blamed as the reason for the long duration of the procedure.

(1) Directive 2000/26/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive), OJ L 181, 20.7.2000.