ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2696/02

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: State aid to maritime transport

According to the Commission's guidelines, state aid to maritime transport should be based on the fundamental objectives of ensuring that vessels continue under Community flags and that the largest possible percentage of maritime workers employed are of Community origin.

In 1992, in its 22nd report on competition policy, the Commission reaffirmed its view that this policy should be aimed at:

- safeguarding employment in the Community (whether on-board or land-based);

- preserving the Community's maritime know-how and developing maritime skills; and

- improving safety.

However, it appears from information supplied by the representative structures of workers in the sector that in some Member States state aids are granted to undertakings which do not comply with the first objective, tending to employ maritime workers from third countries, and, therefore, at lower rates of pay, and, for the same reasons, put the two other objectives in jeopardy.

Is the Commission aware of these practices? What action does it intend to take to ensure that state aid policy for maritime transport operates in a transparent fashion, in line with the Community's maritime interests and those of workers in the sector?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The 1997 Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport provide that the Member States may help shipping companies which operate internationally to reduce their operating costs by imposing a very low level of tax on companies and by reducing or granting exemption from wage-related costs, whether those of the employer or not. Their aim is to ensure that the Community fleet has the competitiveness it needs to survive in a global market and to promote employment and maritime know-how.

In general, the guidelines demand that there must be a link with a Community flag.

Despite this demand, the guidelines do not draw any distinction between seafarers on the basis of nationality as long as they pay tax and/or social security contributions in a Member State. Measures to reduce the levels of tax and wage-related liabilities in respect of such seafarers are allowed.

As announced in its White Paper, the Commission currently plans to adjust the guidelines on the basis of an analysis of their impact on the registration of ships in the Member States, the development of the Community shipping industry and employment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2898/02

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

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Courage of convictions

The Netherlands Government is explicitly permitting cigarette manufacturers to continue to offer light and mild cigarettes in different coloured packagings after the entry into force of the European directive on the subject (October 2003).

Is the Commission aware of the article Bomhoff blijft roken tegengaan (Bomhoff continues to combat smoking) in the NRC Handelsblad of 27 September 2002?

Does not the Commission agree that the attitude adopted by Mr Bomhoff contravenes European tobacco legislation?

Will the Commission have the courage of its convictions and issue a reprimand to the Netherlands Government?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

The question asked by the Honourable Member appears to be entirely based on the information contained in an article published in the NRC Handelsblad of 27 September 2002, of which the Commission is aware. As the Honourable Member will understand, the Commission must analyse Member States' implementing legislation on the basis of the official notifications it receives, and cannot comment on a newspaper article alleging that a Member State may or may not be considering certain alternatives for the implementation of a Community Directive. Up to now, the Commission has not received any notification on the implementation of Directive 2001/37/EC(1) from the Dutch Government. In fact, according to the Commission's information, the Dutch legislation implementing Directive 2001/37/EC appears to be still under discussion in the Dutch Senate.

Directive 2001/37/EC states that texts, names, trade marks and figurative or other signs suggesting that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than others shall not be used on the packaging of tobacco products.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it attaches utmost importance to the fact that the provisions of Directive 2001/37/EC, and in particular those on misleading descriptors, are correctly implemented in all Member States. The Commission will carefully analyse all Member States' implementing legislation in this regard.

(1) Directive 2001/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products Commission statement OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3912/02

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: UEFA exclusive contracts and the right to information and press freedom

The exclusive contracts which UEFA has concluded with television companies are greatly restricting the opportunities open to regional television companies which do not have such contracts, particularly as the latter not only apply to matches themselves, but also prohibit the filming of footage of the area around stadiums and the spectators.

Are not exclusive contracts with such far-reaching provisions at odds with the freedom to gather news?

Does the Commission take the view that the provisions of such contracts represent a breach of the right to press freedom and/or the right to information?

If so, what measures does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

At this stage of development of Community law, it is up to the Member States to regulate the access to news, taking into account the relevant Community law instruments on intellectual property (which in turn take into account the fundamental right of freedom of expression as laid down by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights(1)).

In the Work Program annexed to the Commission's Fourth Application Report on the Directive Television without Frontiers(2), the Commission has announced its intention to reflect on the question of whether there are grounds for introducing, in future, provisions on access to short extracts of events subject to exclusive rights.

Bearing in mind the interests at stake (event organisers, rights holders, agencies, television broadcasting bodies, the public) and taking into account the fact that some Member States have already adopted specific provisions on the subject, this question will be adressed with a view to analysing whether the absence of Community provisions creates obstacles to the internal market.

(1) Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights reads as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

(2) Fourth Report on the Application of Directive 89/552/EEC Television without Frontiers, COM(2002) 778 final, http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/regul/twf/applica/comm2002_778final_en.pdf.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2757/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: North-East Asia Development Bank

Further to the answer to my Oral Question H-0366/02(1) regarding the importance of significant investment in North-East Asia, and in the absence of support for a North-East Asia Development Bank, can the Commission indicate how it is going to ensure that the much needed emphasis on North-East Asia is actually implemented through the existing International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the Asia Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank (WB)?

(1) Written answer dated 11 June 2002.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The fact that the Member States and not the Commission are members of the international financial institutions identified in the written question makes it essentially impossible for the Community to influence their lending decisions. The resources made available by the Union Budget remain the sole financial instrument available to the Commission to influence North-East Asia's development, in the framework set by the relevant Council Regulations. However, this situation does not prevent International financial institutions and the Commission from developing synergies and coordination between their respective cooperation strategies and activities, if and when they are active in that area.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), for example, does design and pursue regional development strategies (South Asia, Mekong Basin), while noting that such a regional approach may become more complex to design and implement when substantial heterogeneity between individual country situations exists.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3301/02

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Subject: Ukrainian wheat

As a result of the Council meeting of 15 July 2002, the option of taking into account the official price of common wheat in Odessa for certain fodder varieties was definitively dropped. These kinds of wheat are therefore now worth USD 75 per tonne, whilst US wheat, which serves as the basis for calculating import duty, is USD 110 per tonne. If no action is taken, Ukrainian wheat will continue to enter the Union at extremely competitive prices, i.e. USD 45 less.

In view of this worrying situation, what steps will the Commission take to introduce, as a matter of the greatest urgency, adequate and necessary measures to re-establish Community preference?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

To resolve the external protection difficulties in the cereal sector, inputs having risen to record levels, the Commission has decided to introduce from 1 January 2003 the new import quota arrangements for low and medium-quality common wheat and for barley that will replace the existing ceiling system. The new arrangements have been negotiated with the Union's trading partners in line with the provisions made by Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. External protection is re-established but all suppliers' possibilities of exportation to the Community are retained.

For medium and low quality common wheat a quota of 2 981 600 tonnes at EUR 12 tonne duty rate will be opened. Within it the United States and Canada will have national quotas of 572 000 tonnes and 38 000 tonnes respectively. All other suppliers, including Ukraine and Russia, will have access to the balance of 2 371 600 tonnes. Outside the quota bound duty of EUR 95 tonne applies.

For malting barley a quota of 50 000 tonnes a duty of EUR 8/tonne will be opened. Quality criteria and processing provisions will apply. For other types of barley a quota of 300 000 tonnes duty of EUR 16/tonne will be opened. Outside the quota the bound duty of EUR 93/tonne applies.

For all other cereals the present system continues whereby customs duties on importation into the Union are calculated on the basis of the American grain exchange prices considered representative of world market prices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3831/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 97/36/EC

Complaints have been made that most Greek TV channels interrupt the transmission of feature films at regular intervals. It should be borne in mind that Article 11(3) of Directive 97/36/EC(1), which amended Directive 89/552/EEC(2) on the co-ordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, provides that the transmission of audiovisual works such as feature films and films made for television (excluding series, serials, light entertainment programmes and documentaries), provided their scheduled duration is more than 45 minutes, may be interrupted once for each period of 45 minutes.

Will the Commission say whether the provision in question is being correctly implemented in Greece?

(1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.

(2) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

The Commission monitors compliance with the principles laid down in the Television without frontiers(1) directive, and in particular compliance with the rules concerning televised advertising. In this context, the Commission has been notified of problems relating to the application of Article 11(3) of the directive to which

the Honourable Member refers. The Commission in fact made mention of this in its 19th annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, pointing out that it is in the process of examining whether the alleged excesses could constitute infringements on the part of the Member State in question. On this point, Greece assured the Commission that it would set up the necessary resources to monitor application of the provision in question. Nevertheless, the procedure remains pending, since the Commission is awaiting further information before taking a decision.

(1) Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3237/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Advertising hoardings on national road networks

As the Greek media have pointed out, there is no control over the setting up of advertising hoardings on national roads. These hoardings distract drivers' attention and, in many cases, restrict their visibility, thereby putting them at risk. As regards the setting up of advertising hoardings along national roads, however, the legislation both in Greece and the rest of Europe contains strict rules governing their size and distance from the road, which appear to be ineffectively implemented.

The opinion of the Committee of the Regions entitled Priority for road safety in the European Union progress report and evaluation of actions stresses that the safety of drivers is a matter of top priority and that roads must therefore be safe for all means of transport.

Could the Commission examine the above problem and take the necessary measures to enforce the existing legislation or propose measures to improve drivers' safety? Could the Commission make the provision of subsidies for road-building conditional on the implementation of and compliance with the relevant legislation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

The placement of advertisements is Member State's responsibility. It is therefore not possible to enforce such law at Union level. Furthermore, advertisements are put in place after a stretch of road has been put into operation. As a result, making grants for construction subject to road inspection would not solve this particular problem.

In its White Paper European transport policy for 2010 Time to decide(1), the Commission set a fatality reduction target of 50 % until 2010. One of the means would be by reducing the so-called accident black spots at dangerous stretches of the road. Consequently, the Commission has announced in its Work Programme for 2003 a proposal on requirements for guidelines on black spot management.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3293/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Subject: Tourism development in a bird area in Calp, Valencian Community, Spain

In the municipality of Calp (Autonomous Community of Valencia), Spain, the local General Urban Plan was modified in 1998 in order to permit the building of hundreds of homes (Plan Parcial 4 El Saladar) within and surrounding the wetland Las Salinas de Calpe in an area previously listed as an area of

Special Protection by the Calp Urban Plan. This wetland is a Special Bird Protection Area protected by the Bird Directive (79/409/EEC(1)) as well as by the Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC(2)), and is proposed for inclusion in the Nature 2000 network by the Valencian Regional Government.

The municipality of Calp has recently approved the global project for the implementation of the plan, the so-called Plan de Actuación Integral Saladar. This urban instrument includes 497 000 square metres of land to be built on in and around the protected area, affecting the preservation of this wetland. In fact, with the approval of this plan by the local council the invasion of the wetland (140 000 square metres) is finally permitted with a high building density (no building height limits have been set up) allowed within less than 45 metres of the wetland.

Does the Commission consider that the above-mentioned EU directives have been infringed?

What measures does the Commission consider taking to ensure compliance with European law?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

The Spanish authorities have not communicated any information to the Commission regarding the classification of the wetland known as Las Salinas de Calpe as a Special Bird Protection Area. Neither have they submitted any proposal of this area as a Site of Community Interest for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. Furthermore, this wetland is not included in the inventory of Important Bird Areas of Spain compiled by the ornithology organisation SEO/BirdLife. Consequently, the Commission considers that Council Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora have not been infringed in relation to this wetland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2531/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Council

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Giving in to terrorism

The Council decided to include a series of Iranian opposition groups in the list of terrorist organisations in Decision 2002/334/EC(1) of 2 May, among them the Mujahedin-e-Khalq.

During the negotiations between the US Administration and the Iranian regime, known as the Iran-Contra case, the US Congressional Investigative Committee already recognised that one of the bargaining counters secured by the regime in the agreement was the outlawing of this opposition group.

More recently, in 1998, it was publicly acknowledged in the press that the British authorities accepted the same condition in return for the Iranian regime's promise to suspend the terrorist campaign against the British citizen Salman Rushdie. This decision was condemned by a majority of British MPs.

In these circumstances, can the Council say what proof it has that the inclusion of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq on the list of terrorist organisations was not a result of the Council's giving in to terrorist blackmail by the Iranian regime?

Is it not true that the Iranian regime was legally recognised as guilty of terrorist crimes in various Member States and that there are no suspicions of any terrorist act having been committed on European soil by the Mujahedin-e-Khalq?

Does the Council not consider that sentencing women to be stoned to death and children to be flogged for acts considered unlawful by the religious police publicly admitted in the press by Iranian officials and reported by Amnesty International is an act of base terrorism?

(1) OJ L 116, 3.5.2002, p. 33.

Reply

(4 March 2003)

The decision taken by the Council on 2 May 2002 to include the Mujahedin-e-Khalq in the EU list of persons and groups involved in terrorist acts was based on a detailed and in-depth examination of available information fully respecting the criteria laid down in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 and other relevant commitments.

The Council would like to remind the Honorable MEP that Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, which was adopted to implement UN Security Council resolution 1373(2001) laying out wide-ranging strategies to combat terrorism, applies to persons and groups involved in terrorist acts regardless of the place where those acts have been committed.

In the field of human rights referred to by the Honorable MEP, the Council has recently reiterated in a declaration on the death penalty and particularly cruel forms of execution its opposition to the death penalty in general and to execution by stoning in particular.

As regards counter-terrorism, the EU expects Iran to implement fully UNSCR 1373 and to ratify and implement all relevant UN Conventions. Moreover, the negotiations due to start shortly on a trade and cooperation agreement with Iran will be accompanied by parallel negotiations on provisions for cooperation on counter-terrorism. The trade and cooperation agreement and the counter-terrorism provisions will form an indissociable whole as regards entry into force, application and denunciation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3320/02 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council. EU competency.



Official Journal 155 E , 03/07/2003 P. 0136 - 0136



WRITTEN QUESTION P-3320/02 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council (19 November 2002) Subject: EU competency Regarding development policy can the European Union implement or support the implementation, including with financial assistance, of activities carried out by organisations working in non-EU countries on matters in which the EU does not have any legal competence? Reply (20 February 2003) The Council would refer the Honourable Member to Articles 3(1)(r) and 177 to 181 of the TEC, which set out the Community competences in the sphere of development cooperation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2701/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Protection of privacy in correspondence from Italian banks

Whereas banks in other European countries generally protect the privacy of their clients absolutely in their correspondence, Italian banks continue to use envelopes that are clearly marked with the name and/or logo of the bank itself, for their communications with clients, thus unreasonably giving strangers information about the relationship that the user has with a certain bank.

Will the Commission ask the Italian banking system to follow European banking practice by using unmarked envelopes for correspondence with their clients, thereby complying with their duty to protect their clients' privacy?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

According to the information available to the Commission, the use of envelopes bearing the name and/or logo of the bank is the normal practice in a number of Member States and in others is followed by individual banks.

In other Member States, there appears to be a clear trend towards the use of plain envelopes, either for all correspondence or for sending particular items, such as bankcards.

The Commission would suggest that if a client feels that the use of envelopes carrying the name or logo of the bank compromises his or her privacy in any way, he or she could request from the bank alternative means of communication, such as plain envelopes, e-banking services or even the collection of the documents at the bank.

The Commission is not aware of any Member State where this matter is regulated by legislation and itself has no plans for action in this area.