ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1408/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Rules on the use of languages in connection with the Community patent

On 10 April 2002, the European Parliament squandered its last opportunity to advise the Council to alter the rules on the use of languages in connection with the Community patent to include all official languages of the EU.

In a letter to the Flanders-Netherlands Cultural Treaty Commission, Louis Michel, the Belgian Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, has written: I fully appreciate the importance which the [Flanders-Netherlands Cultural Treaty] Commission attaches to the use of Dutch on a footing of equality with other languages at the Patent Office. At the same time, he said that as soon as the (Spanish) Presidency-in-Office of the Council makes specific proposals on the subject, my staff will convene a special coordination meeting so that Belgium's position on the matter can be formulated, and the concerns expressed in Flanders will certainly be taken into account in doing so.

1. Does the Council consider the present proposal concerning the use of languages in connection with the Community patent to be in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination among Community languages? If so, how does it justify the exclusion of Dutch, Greek, Finnish, Portuguese, Swedish and Danish? If not, what will the Council do to prevent discrimination against six official languages of the Community?

2. Will the Council also ensure that such discrimination is avoided in future, even if it appears to secure ample democratic support in the European Parliament and other EU institutions thanks to cunning selection of the languages affected?

3. Has the Spanish Presidency-in-Office made any specific proposals on the subject yet?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

1. The Council has been informed of the amendments to the proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent, including the rules on the use of languages, tabled by the European Parliament on 10 April 2002; it has not yet examined those amendments in detail.

2. With regard to the principle of non-discrimination, the Council recalls what was stated by the Barcelona European Council: The Community Patent must be an efficient and flexible instrument obtainable by businesses at an affordable cost, while complying with the principles of legal certainty and non-discrimination between Member States and ensuring a high level of quality. The Council will bear those directives in mind when examining the Community patent system, including its language aspects.

3. At its meeting on 21 May 2002, the Council examined a draft common political approach submitted by the Presidency regarding the main principles and features of the Community patent, including language aspects. It agreed to regard that common political approach as the basis for further work. The Council will review the balance of the resulting overall package to ensure that a final and global agreement will meet the criteria laid down by the European Council, reflecting the needs of business.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Projects affecting the Neda river valley

Allegations have recently been made by local authorities and individual residents in the prefecture of Messinia concerning sand and gravel extraction in the Neda river valley and the dumping of rubble from nearby roadworks for the second phase of the Messinia provincial highway No 29 (Sidirokastro-Avlona-Platania-prefectoral boundary section), which are having a serious impact on the environment and biodiversity of the area.

Given that the project is receiving EU funding, can the Commission say to what extent it is in accordance with European environmental law and whether an environmental impact assessment has been carried out in this regard?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1808/02 and E-1809/02given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The competent national or regional authorities are responsible for choosing projects under the programmes part-financed by the Structural Funds.

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, when the project in question was included in the Peloponnese Operational Programme under the second Community support framework (1994-1999), the Greek Ministry of the Environment exempted the prefecture of Messinia from the requirement to conduct an environmental impact study. This exemption was subject to a number of binding conditions on environmental protection that were clearly notified to the final beneficiary.

During project implementation, both the above Ministry and the regional authorities undertook a series of checks and on-the-spot visits to ensure that these conditions were being complied with, among other things.

The checks found that the conditions had not been satisfactorily met. So, in January 2001 the authority responsible for implementing the programme had the works in question stopped and asked the contractor to conduct a number of additional studies that would serve as a technical basis for completing the work and restoring the site.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1792/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Redevelopment of the port of Port-Vendres (F66)

The Catalan port of Port-Vendres in the Roussillon, in the French département of Pyrénées-Orientales, is the subject of a regional development project by virtue of a charter of 11 July 2000.

This project, which is said to have received European (ERDF) funding, is opposed by a large section of the Port-Vendres population, who have formed an association called Ensemble pour Port-Vendres. In a file sent to Commissioner Barnier on 28 May 2001, the association reports irreparable damage to a site worthy of protection, occasioned not least by the concreting-over of the last two beaches in the municipality.

Is the Commission able to verify whether this project has actually received European funding? If it has, could it check whether the work completed, and that planned, complies with the European directives on environmental protection?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

According to the information provided by the French regional authorities, the project referred to by the Honourable Member was not part-financed by the Structural Funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Balance sheets

Which Member States produce some sort of estimate of assets and liabilities for each sector of the economy, including the public sector?

For those Member States that produce such a balance sheet for the public sector, will the Commission give the latest available figures for assets, liabilities and net worth?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

Under the European System of Accounts (ESA95) transmission programme(1), all Member States are required to produce sectoral Balance sheets for financial assets and liabilities, consolidated and non-consolidated save for three Member States which have a derogation. The Member States that have this derogation are Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg (first transmission in 2005).

Some data on financial assets have been made available; those for general government have yet to be published by Eurostat.

(1) Table 7 of Annex B of Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community, OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1905/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Subject: Intrusive and percussive sounds affecting the hard of hearing

Is the Commission aware of intrusive or percussive sounds on television, which cause problems for the hard of hearing?

Is the Commission intending to research the subject of intrusive and percussive sounds emitted by televisions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission has not been informed of the existence of hearing impairments linked to noise emissions specifically from television sets.

The safety of these products is guaranteed by their conformity to European marketing standards. However, safety can only be guaranteed when the conditions of use specified by the manufacturer are observed.

At present, the Commission has no plans specifically to research this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1692/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: European Parliament resolution on road safety adopted on 18 January 2001

Can the Commission indicate what progress has been made on the actions and priorities set out in the European Parliament resolution on road safety adopted on 18 January 2001?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

In addition to continuing the measures already launched in previous years, the Commission has introduced a series of new measures aimed at halving the numbers of road deaths by 2010, as proposed in the White Paper on transport policy(1).

In this connection, we can mention in particular:

- proposals on speed limiters, safety belts, working hours for professional drivers and car fronts: texts on these four subjects are currently in the process of being adopted by the co-legislators;

- the development and distribution of a database on road accidents (a first series of accident statistics is now available on Europa);

- the launch of wide-ranging awareness campaigns, dealing in particular with alcohol and the behaviour of young road users;

- the reinforcement of cooperation between control bodies in the Member States through collaboration between different traffic-police forces;

- the move to the operational phase of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, covering all aspects of road safety;

- various studies on the behaviour of road users, vehicle technology, road infrastructure and technology and the fight against legal and illegal drugs.

A Community action plan on road safety, giving more details of the abovementioned measures and listing further measures to be taken, will soon be the object of a Commission communication.

(1) European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1606/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Death of dolphins

In the Commission's view, is it likely that the number of dolphins caught and killed annually in EU waters as a by-catch of commercial fishing currently exceeds the benchmark of 1,7 % of population defined in the Habitats Directive as unacceptable?

Does the Commission have concerns about the effect of pair trawling in the light of reports for albacore tuna that in 1999 a catch of 30 dolphins was recorded in a single net haul?

What research is the Commission currently undertaking in this field, and what steps does it propose to take in order to ensure that the number of dolphins caught in EU waters does not exceed sustainable levels?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

According to the reports of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, it is difficult to estimate accurately the rate of deaths of dolphins during fishing operations, due to the lack of detailed knowledge on the structure of their populations. However, these reports also point to the fact that the current deaths are not putting dolphin populations in immediate risk. The attention of the Honourable Member is called to the fact that the Habitats Directive(1) does not define acceptable death rates, but just refers to favourable conservation status or significant negative impact on the species.

This being said, even if there appears to be no immediate risk for dolphins, the Commission is highly concerned about the deaths of these animals, in particular due to the effect of pelagic pair trawls as suggested by the Honourable Member. It is taking steps to collect detailed scientific advice on this and other related questions concerning the by-catch of cetaceans in fishing operations, with a view to making legislative proposals to alleviate this problem later this year.

Although the undertaking of research in this field is a competence and an obligation for Member States, the Commission, as part of the aforementioned initiatives, is promoting this activity by putting it amongst the priorities for research funding.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1748/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Cruelty to dogs and cats

The Danish TV station, TV2, recently showed a documentary entitled Flayed alive, in which dogs and cats were caught, trussed up with steel wire in enormous pain and then skinned alive. According to the evidence, this method was used in China and Thailand.

This is an act of bestial cruelty to animals.

According to the programme, Italy and the USA have banned imports of hides and furs produced by means of this bestial and totally unacceptable method.

Will the Commission submit a proposal to introduce such an import ban throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 2002)

The question of a trade policy initiative in the field of cat and dog furs (a ban on import of cat and dog furs) should not be imposed in isolation from the more general issue of a domestic policy concerning the production and marketing of cat and dog furs in the internal market. The common commercial policy must be seen as a complement to the single market: trade restrictions in the absence of equivalent measures on domestic production and marketing might be contestable as discriminatory and an obstacle to the principle of national treatment.

Animal welfare concerns related to the production of fur in the Union is already covered by Community legislation. The Community adopted Council Directives 98/58/EC(1) and 93/119/EEC(2), which apply to all animals reared for commercial purposes, including the production of fur. Furthermore, in the framework of the Council of Europe Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, recommendations concerning fur animals were adopted in 1999. However, the applicability of these measures to third countries outside the Union and the Council of Europe is clearly limited.

Therefore, the Commission does not intend to propose regulations on the trade in dog and cat furs, leaving the decision to take measures to the individual Member States.

(1) Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2) Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing, OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2693/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Uniform registration system for weapons

A good number of arms manufacturers have a system for identifying and registering the weapons they produce. Usually serial numbers are put on one or more of the weapon's components. Exchange of information among the EU countries as to the method used is somewhat patchy. In addition, the markings used at present can sometimes be removed very easily. Each of these factors adds weight to the call for a simple, efficient and universally applicable method. The markings can be kept in a national register so that the route taken by arms found in a conflict zone can subsequently be traced.

Will the Commission take steps to draw up appropriate legislation on uniform registration of weapons within the EU? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Suitable and generalised marking and registration of firearms are essential elements in tracing them, and the Commission is fully aware of this need.

Article 4 of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons(1) and of their transfer to another Member State already requires a dealer to keep a register containing information concerning all the main categories of firearms received or disposed of by him, including such particulars as enable any weapon to be identified, in particular the type, make, model, calibre and serial number thereof and the names and addresses of the supplier and the person acquiring the weapon.

This Directive will shortly need to be revised, following the signing by the Commission on behalf of the Community and by the Member States of the UN protocol on the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms. This protocol contains specific provisions concerning the marking of firearms, and the Commission is currently studying their transposition.

It should be noted that one of the provisions of the protocol is that the signatory states will have to encourage their weapons industries to develop measures designed to prevent the alteration or removal of markings. In response to the honourable Member's concern, it should also be pointed out that the protocol increases to ten years, compared with five years in the Directive, the minimum time during which information on firearms should be kept.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2792/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 October 2002)

Subject: Monitoring epizootic diseases in Greece

The Commission has recently published reports DG(SANCO)/8551/2002 and DG(SANCO)/8505/2002 on foot-and-mouth disease and wild and farmed game and rabbit meat, respectively. These reports give a full description of the situation in Greece as regards staff shortages and the shortcomings in the treatment of samples. They also state that emergency funding available to the veterinary services is either limited or non-existent and sharply criticise the lack of modern technology (computers, fax machines, etc) and the inadequate accommodation of the state control services.

Have the Greek authorities called into question the findings of the EU controls?

Has the threat of foot-and-mouth disease and classical swine fever been completely eradicated in Greece? Are unimpeachable controls being carried out to guarantee absolutely the safety of the consumption of wild and farmed game and rabbit meat in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The Greek authorities have responded to the draft reports of these missions. They offered a small number of clarifying observations in respect of the findings of report, DG(SANCO)8551/2002, but not in respect of report DG(SANCO)8505/2002. At the same time, they provided initial information on the actions taken in response to the recommendations of both reports. These responses are reflected as appropriate in the final reports of the missions, which were sent to the Parliament on 31 July 2002 (DG(SANCO)/8551/2002) and 13 September 2002 (DG(SANCO)/8505/2002). In addition, both the final reports, and the comments from the Greek authorities, have been placed on the internet site of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General(1).

The Commission has no reason to believe that either Foot and Mouth Disease or Classical Swine Fever are present in Greece at the present time. The Greek authorities are required, under Council Directive 82/894/EEC of 21 December 1982 on the notification of animal diseases within the Community(2), to notify the Commission within 24 hours of a primary outbreak of either disease.

Following receipt of the initial Greek response to report DG(SANCO)/8505/2002, the Food and Veterinary Office reminded the Greek authorities, in a letter dated 10 October 2002, of the need to submit an action plan indicating the further measures taken to respond to the conclusions and recommendations of the report. A response from the Greek authorities is currently awaited. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the game and rabbit meat sectors in Greece to confirm that the standards laid down in Community legislation are being met.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/greece/vi_rep_gree_8505-2002_en.pdf.

(2) OJ L 378, 31.12.1982.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2149/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Madagascar

With reference to Madagascar, will the Commission draw up a list of projects approved for financing under the EU budget in 2001 and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0584/02

by Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Postal services

It may be the case that some EU postal operators are using the introduction of the euro as a pretext to increase their letter rates without good reason, as has the case been in other industries. It is of the utmost importance that the Commission ensures that European consumers do not pay more to send their letters because of the introduction of the euro.

Can the Commission show that it is taking appropriate action in order to ensure that letter rates are not raised unduly as result of the introduction of the euro?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Under the postal Directive(1), Member States are obliged to ensure that tariffs for postal services within the universal service are affordable and geared to costs. Overseeing the application of this requirement is primarily the responsibility of the Member States. This supervision is exercised through their regulatory authorities.

Although no specific mechanism has been introduced to monitor postal tariff increases at the time of the introduction of the euro, the Commission continually monitors the evolution of postal tariffs in the Member States, and could eventually intervene, either on the basis of the postal Directive or competition rules, if there are signs that any given tariff increase is not justified.

The Commission has repeatedly emphasized that the changeover to the euro should not be used for price increases. Consensus among the Member States had moreover been established on the fact that the public authorities should set a good example by not increasing the price or the cost of services under their control (e.g. tariffs, taxes and subsidies, etc.)

So far, the Commission has not seen any indications that the introduction of the euro, in itself, may have led to any undue increases in postal tariffs. However, the Commission will remain alert to this issue and, if there are any signs that such an undue increase has occurred, will raise the issue with the relevant authority in the Member State concerned.

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.