ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0558/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Education and Culture

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Education and Culture provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1722/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Error in the treatment of compensation payments for sheep farming

A sheep farmer in Vilhelmina, Northern Sweden, has been affected by a bureaucratic error concerning the rejection of his claim for compensation payments and environmental aid for open arable land. On his SAM form (a 17-page booklet) for 1999 he forgot to fill in a box requiring him to state how many head of livestock he had. The other 147 box were correctly filled in. When the farmer rang the county council to correct the mistake he was told it was too late. It is also relevant that on the same day the same sheep farmer was granted EU aid for sheep farming (the ewe premium) by the same department of the same authority. It should thus have been obvious that a mistake had been made. The same autumn in which the application was made, two inspectors had also been at the farm on two occasions and had carried out a number of checks and measurements on the sheep. The county council therefore knew how many sheep the farmer had through their other checks. The county council's acknowledgement of receipt of the application stated that the applicant would be contacted if anything was missing from the application, but the county council did not do so in this case.

The farmer complained in the first instance to the Swedish Board of Agriculture, but this was inadmissible, so the complaint was passed on to the county court. The farmer won his case there, but the county council appealed and the matter is still pending at the administrative court of appeal in Sundsvall.

Can the Commission confirm that the Swedish authorities can and should grant the current aid, since this was a small administrative error by the applicant and no real irregularity occurred?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

The case mentioned by the Honourable Member is currently under consideration by a Swedish Court. The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities and cannot intervene in a case while a judgement is expected from a national court.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1399/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 May 2001)

Subject: Fisheries protection

Can the Commission indicate how many Fisheries Inspection Officers are responsible for inspecting fish landed in each of the Member States listed below, where the officers are based, and what measures the Commission has taken to ensure that Community fishing rules are respected by fishing vessels from all Member States:

- Denmark

- France

- Ireland

- Italy

- Portugal

- Spain

- UK?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

With reference to the requested information on the number of fisheries inspection officers in the Member States listed in the question, the Commission is sending the figures direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission, would caution against simple comparisons of the figures for each Member State. A number of other factors should also be taken into account, such as the structure of the national control system, including the full or part-time nature of fisheries control responsibilities, the type of fisheries to be controlled, as well as whether the fisheries are subject to total allowable catch (TAC) and quota and how TAC and quota are allocated and managed by the Member States in question.

The figures presented in the annex represent the numbers of fisheries inspectors authorised to participate in landing inspections. In Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom these inspectors are permanently based along the coastline, predominantly in the ports most important for fisheries purposes. In Portugal, the national fisheries inspectors are based in Lisbon and thus carry out their landing inspection missions from the capital. In Spain, some of the national fisheries inspectors also are based in Madrid while the majority of them have been assigned to the delegations of central government in the coastal Autonomous Communities.

The question of measures taken by the Commission to ensure full compliance of the Community fishing rules is rather a large one to be comprehensively dealt in a reply such as this one. Commission inspectors are continuously carrying out verifications in all Member States within the framework of Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1). In order to describe more fully the circumstances in the different Member States regarding fisheries monitoring, inspection and surveillance, and also pursuant to Article 35 of the said regulation, the Commission intends to submit in the coming months a report to the Council and the Parliament on the monitoring of the implementation of the common fisheries policy. This report will in particular contain an evaluation of the relative efficiency of the different national and regional control authorities in the Member States.

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Enterprise and Information Society

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Enterprise and Information Society provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Israeli taxes

The EU cannot remain indifferent to the statements made by Faysal Al Husseini, the Palestinian Authority's Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, calling for a Holy War against Israel extending from Indonesia to Morocco, not least because the debate on the situation in the Palestinian territories not only - unfortunately - mentions violence, but also has social and economic implications.

Can the Commission therefore check every request for the reimbursement of taxes from Israel to the Palestinian Authority due to be paid in accordance with the agreements signed and to re-establish humanitarian aid only when the PA has undertaken to suspend terrorist acts and Israel has granted access for humanitarian aid workers and essential merchandise, making this dependent on an end to the Palestinian terrorist acts?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The present system of transfers of clearance revenue (VAT and custom duties receipts) from the Israel State to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is provided for in Article VI of the 1994 Israeli-Palestinian Protocol on Economic Relations (the Paris Protocol). This system was, at the time, considered by the two parties as one of the major successes of co-operation between Palestinians and Israelis, making it possible to ensure or stabilise about 60 % of the budgetary income of the PA. The monitoring of these transfers is currently being undertaken by the International Monetary Fund.

Since the beginning of the current crisis in the Middle East, the Commission has provided a total of 24,5 million in emergency aid, 14,5 million alone to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in response to its emergency appeal. Furthermore, the Commission has disbursed 57,5 million from two reimbursable facilities established for the case of Israel not transferring tax receipts and customs revenues due to the Palestinian. Finally, a package of 60 million in budgetary aid to the Palestinian Authority will be disbursed in monthly payments during the next six months.

Since the signature of the Oslo Agreement, the Union has - together with other international donors - consistently worked to support the creation and consolidation of a functioning administration for the West Bank and Gaza; in the belief that this is in the interest of the population and of greater stability in the region The assistance provided under the current crisis has been particularly crucial to meet the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population and, by allowing the Palestinian Authority's ability to pay salaries and preserving the basic functioning of the Palestinian administration, to avoid the Palestinian territories slipping further into turmoil and chaos.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0767/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: The Charter of Fundamental Rights (employers' ability to discriminate on the basis of language ability)

Can the Commission indicate whether it has fully thought through the implications of the extensive list of attributes listed in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the basis of which discrimination would be prohibited were the Charter to be incorporated into the treaties, and, in particular, the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of language? Is the Commission seriously suggesting that the ability to speak a language is not a justifiable basis for discrimination between job applicants, so that it would be unlawful for a Health Authority, for example, through language aptitude tests to ensure that doctors or nurses were able to understand and express themselves clearly to their patients, or for translators to be required by their employer to speak a particular language, and if the Commission does believe that language skills are not a proper basis for discrimination then does it intend to do away with the language requirements that form part of the competitive examination (concours) which must be sat by those wishing to join the Commission or the other European institutions?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

The Commission would point out first of all that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, seminal provisions intended for incorporation in the Treaties, was drawn up by a convention where the Commission participated along with representatives of the heads of State and government, the national parliaments and the European Parliament.

It would further point out that Article 21 of the Charter corresponds to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although the scope of the former is wider, particularly concerning the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of language, to which the Honourable Member refers.

Concerning the substance, discrimination only arises if one person is treated less favourably than another in a situation that is comparable on the basis of a specific criterion. In the examples cited by the Honourable Member, the language criterion could in any case be objectively justified on the basis of a legitimate objective.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0415/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Food safety and the WTO

Is it the Commission's view that consumer safety standards are the same for meat and meat products imported from third countries as for products produced in the EU?

How will the Commission ensure that the same standards are applied to imported products as to products produced in the EU and are such standards consistent in that case with WTO rules?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The basic Community health requirements for the production of meat and meat products also apply to imports from third countries. The Community rules include provisions on the enforcement of the requirements, such as certification, inspection and border post control. The general principle that is always upheld for importation from third countries is that the standards of hygiene and of residue monitoring in the third countries must be at least equivalent to those laid down for producers in the single market. The principle for the approval of imports of meat and meat products into the Community is the assurance from the third country's authorities that the products meet our import standards. Imports are allowed on the basis of a list of third countries approved for exports to the Community, agreed provisions on certification, and lists of establishments approved for exports to the Community. As an integral part of this system, the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office carries out inspection missions to exporting countries to verify that the Community level of protection is met.

The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) permits members to take measures to protect human and animal life and health. These should be based on international standards or, if not, the member must be prepared to provide appropriate justification for the measures, based on a scientific risk assessment. In making its provisions for import measures, the Commission endeavours to use international standards as the basis, but also consults its scientific committees for their advice. All measures covered by the SPS Agreement are notified to the SPS Committee, and the comments received are taken into account. The Commission, having followed the procedures laid down in the SPS Agreement, considers therefore that its measures are consistent with WTO rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0852/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Budgetary rigour

Will the Commission estimate the impact on GDP after one year and the impact on consumer price inflation after two years of a 1 percentage point discretionary tightening in the general government budget balance for Ireland and for Germany?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The quantitative effect of fiscal tightening on real gross domestic product (GDP) and on inflation depends on a number of factors, which do not allow attaching a single number to the economic multipliers. An important determinant is the degree of openness of an economy. Effects for small open economies such as Ireland tend to be smaller than in large economies such as Germany because a larger share of the impulse would be transmitted to the trading partners. This would apply in particular to a reduction in government procurement, where a substantial share is imported and the domestic multiplier effect in the Member State would be accordingly relatively small. If, however, the fiscal tightening were to be achieved by reducing government employment, the effect would be substantially larger, since this would more directly impact on the labour market and therefore wages. This is more so for Ireland in current circumstances, which despite its relative openness to labour migration is characterised by increasing labour shortages. The nature of the fiscal tightening and the circumstances in relation to capacity constraints are therefore crucial elements in the assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1060/01

by John Corrie (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Assistance for the development of church-based or other religious NGOs

What conditions does the Commission apply to requests for co-financing or other assistance for development projects in developing countries submitted by church-based or other religious NGOs?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The eligibility for co-financing under Budgetline B7-6000 of church - based or other religious non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is exactly the same as for all non governmental organisations and set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1658/98 of 17 July 1998 on co-financing operations with European non-governmental development organisations (NGOs) in fields of interest to the developing countries(1) - Article 3:

The agents of cooperation eligible for co-financing under this Regulation shall be NGOs satisfying the following conditions:

- they must be constituted as autonomous non-profit-making organizations in a Member State in accordance with the laws of that State,

- they must have their headquarters in a Member State and the headquarters must be the main center for decisions relating to the co-financed operations,

- the majority of their funding must originate in Europe.

In determining whether an NGO is eligible for co-financing, account shall also be taken of:

- its capacity to mobilize genuine solidarity on the part of the European public for its development activities,

- the priority it accords to development and its experience in that field,

- its administrative and financial management capacities,

- where possible, its knowledge of the sector and country concerned,

- its ability to support the development operations proposed by the partners in the developing countries and the nature and scope of its links with similar organizations in the developing countries.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0331/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Competitiveness of Spata airport

According to Greek press reports, the Spata Airport company has substantially increased rates for the use of the premises and for its services and has also set far higher airport taxes than those in rival airports. If the latter are added to the passenger taxes they will probably mean that the new airport is unable to compete in attracting air traffic.

1. Does the Commission agree that the airport may find it difficult to be competitive and viable owing to its pricing policy?

2. Are these increases in airport taxes and the new passenger charges justified?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Decisions on the level and the structure of airport charges fall under the prime responsibility of the local and national authorities concerned. Pending adoption of the Commission's proposal(1) for a Directive on airport charges, the general principles of Community law may apply to measures in this field necessitating, in particular, that charges are set in a non-discriminatory manner. No complaint has been forwarded in this respect so far. On the basis of the available information the Commission is not in the position to assess the implication of the proposed level of airport charges for the competitiveness of this airport.

In the absence of detailed information, the Commission is not in the position to evaluate whether taxes and charges to be imposed at Spata airport are justified from the point of view of the air traveller.

(1) OJ C 257, 22.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1640/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Advance distribution of euros to the general public

The action group Euro 50 Group, chaired by Mr Edmond Alphandéry, former French Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs, has just met in Berlin to assess how prepared the euro zone is for the introduction of the common currency on 1 January 2002. It was ascertained that most of the cash dispensers in the countries concerned have only two drawers for the denominations to be distributed. In real terms this means that the dispensers will not be able to supply 5 and 10 notes as well as 20 and 50 notes. It is these large denominations which will be distributed to the public. This situation is likely to lead to a shortage of small denominations at the beginning of 2002, which will make the task of commerce more difficult when the euro is introduced.

Why is the Commission not willing to allow the general public to acquire in advance, for example between Christmas 2001 and 1 January 2002, a set of two 5 banknotes and one 10 banknote, by analogy with the set of coins worth a total of 20 which the general public will be able to obtain in the various countries before the end of December 2001?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

A great majority of cash dispensers have four drawers in eight of the twelve Member States concerned and will thus be able to dispense small notes without any particular difficulty (five and/or 10 euro notes). Irrespective of the number of drawers, small notes will be available in most cash dispensers in all the Member States concerned except Finland, Greece and Luxembourg. Several Member States have also decided to take extra measures in order to provide the public with small banknotes, such as setting up specific cash points (L), paying

social security amounts in small denominations (IRL), payment in small denominations of pensions and wages by the postman (GR). The agreement concluded by the Commission and the European banking associations on 19 February 2001 also provides that ordinary withdrawals in banks will systematically be paid out in small notes.

As regards providing the public with notes in advance, the Finance Ministers and the Central European Bank decided against it at the informal Ecofin Council meeting held in Versailles in October 2000.