ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0803/02

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: Scottish environmental infringement record

Following the visit by the Commissioner for the Environment to Scotland in September 2001 there has been a prolonged debate on the Scottish environmental infringement record.

Could the Commission outline how many environmental cases are currently open in relation to Scotland and could the Commission also indicate how Scotland's record in this regard compares with other areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2002)

It should be noted at the outset that infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty, are addressed to the central authorities of a Member State, rather than particular authorities at regional or local level of that Member State. Nevertheless, the Commission is aware that there has been a debate within Scotland over recent months on the Scottish environmental infringement record.

It is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of the number of environmental cases which are currently open with regard to Scotland. Although information concerning infringement proceedings against Member States is collated by the Commission and set out in an annual report, the data relate to the national situation of Member States without a regional or local breakdown. It is clear, however, that the comparatively limited number of cases concerning Scotland are largely in the areas of nature protection, the water sector, the waste sector and environmental impact assessment. The latest Annual Report on monitoring the application of Community law (2000)(1), confirms that the United Kingdom (and Scotland) shares with several Member States the fact that these are commonly sectors in which environmental infringement procedures are ongoing.

In so far as information about how Scotland's record compares with other areas, for the reason set out above the Commission is unable to provide a comparative regional breakdown. However, having regard to infringement proceedings currently involving other Member States where there is responsibility at sub-Member State level for implementation of Community environmental law obligations, the Commission does not consider that the comparative volume of cases involving Scotland is particularly noteworthy.

(1) COM(2001) 309 final, Volume I.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1642/02

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Recycling of waste oil

I have been dealing with the issue of the regeneration of waste oil in the EU ever since I was elected to the European Parliament in 1994, when I drew the attention of the Commissioner at the time, Mrs Bjerregard, to the fact that Directive 75/439/EEC(1) was not being properly transposed in the Member States.

I am still receiving complaints that the principle enshrined in the Directive stipulating that priority will be given to the recycling of waste oil is being ignored in almost all the Member States, despite formal notifications on the part of the Commission.

What will the Commission do to tackle this problem?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-1627/02 and P-1642/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Members on the implementation of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975, on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directives 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, and 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardizing and rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment, as on the disposal of waste oils and in particular the practical implementation of Article 3 thereof.

Indeed, Article 3(1) of the Directive requires that where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, Member States shall take the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration.

On the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission has launched in 2000 and 2001, infringement actions against 13 Member States (all except Italy and Luxembourg) for failure to implement the priority that must be given to the regeneration of waste oils where technical, organisational and economical constraints so allow.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1309/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Closure of the Fontaneda biscuit factory in Aguilar de Campoo (Palencia, Spain)

The multinational United Biscuits has decided to close the Fontaneda biscuit factory in Palencia arbitrarily and without previously informing the works council of its intentions or negotiating the decision to dismiss the employees. Its argument is that the factory has ceased to be viable and is unprofitable. However, United Biscuits has decided that the production of Fontaneda biscuits is to be absorbed by its factories in Navarre and the Basque Country, where the financial incentives would bring the company larger profits. The closure is a veritable disaster for the workers and the town, which has a population of 7 000, and will bring the whole district to financial ruin. Neighbouring towns have already suffered from the crisis in mining, agriculture and industry and the population is decreasing and ageing inexorably. At least another five businesses with more than 1 500 employees closed in the Autonomous Region of Castille and Leon in 2001 and the rate of unemployment is below the national average.

The closure of the factory is due to a company relocating within the EU in search of financial incentives which in this case are having an adverse effect on employment.

Can the Commission say whether it is compatible with Community legislation that a multinational should purchase the María Fontaneda biscuit business and then close the factory and take production elsewhere?

Does the Commission consider that a viable solution might be for the workers to retain the brand name, as the Castille and Leon regional executive suggested, and turn the factory into a co-operative, which could benefit from regional, national and European aid?

What steps will the Commission take to ensure compliance with Community legislation, in particular Directive 98/59/EC(1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies and Directive 94/45/EC(2) on a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees?

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

(2) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to oral question H-312/02 by Mrs Rodríguez Ramos during question time at Parliament's May 2002 session(1).

While the Commission appreciates the contribution to employment creation and maintenance which activities in the social economy, such as co-operatives, can make, it is not in a position to comment on the specific proposal made by the Honourable Member. The question of aid for any such project would be a matter, in the first instance, for the relevant national authorities.

(1) Written reply, 14.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0995/02

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Legislative regions

Could the Commission give its definition of legislative regions within Europe and list those regions which it considers to fall within this definition?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

The Commission does not use an own definition of legislative region and is not able to give a list of such regions. Definitions and lists of this kind of regions are clearly a matter for each Member State, in accordance with their constitutional framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1015/02

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Article in the Financial Times of 27 March 2002 on planned Commission crackdown on mobile phone operators' call termination charges

Is the Commission aware of the article of 27 March 2002 in the Financial Times stating that the Commission may be planning to crack down on mobile phone operators' call termination charges, and is the Commission indeed planning to do this?

Is it true, as claimed in the article, that this action will apply not only to call termination but also to international roaming?

When will the Commission inform the European Parliament of the action planned in this field?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2002)

The Commission has noted the article in the Financial Times of 27 March 2002 concerning call termination charges on mobile networks.

As required under Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services (the Framework Directive(1)), the Commission is preparing a Recommendation on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation.

In accordance with Annex I of the Framework Directive, this Recommendation will include the markets for call termination on public mobile telephone networks and wholesale national market for international roaming on public mobile networks.

As soon as possible after the adoption of the Recommendation, national regulatory authorities in the Member States must carry out an analysis of the markets identified in the Recommendation, to decide whether there is effective competition. Where competition is not effective, national regulatory authorities impose or maintain obligations (such as transparency, non-discrimination, cost orientation) on undertakings deemed to have significant market power, as specified in the Directives.

The draft Recommendation will be subject to a public consultation, to start once the Directives have been formally published in the Official Journal. The Parliament will be kept informed. It is expected that the Recommendation will be adopted by the Commission in June 2002.

In a separate action, the Commission has sent to the Dutch telecommunications operator (Netherlands Telephone Company KPN NV) a statement of objections alleging that KPN, through its subsidiaries KPN Mobile (mobile traffic) and KPN Telecom (fixed traffic), has violated the competition rules of the EC Treaty(2).

The Commission has also launched a sector inquiry into Mobile roaming charges. It can be expected that the action on mobile termination charges will have an impact on mobile roaming charges, as the former are a substantial part of the cost of international roaming.

(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(2) See Press Release IP/02/483, dated 27 March 2002;http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guestfr.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/483|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Taxation of State pensions in the 15 Member States of the EU

Are State pensions taxed in each of the 15 Member States of the European Union?

In Member States where State pensions are taxed, what is the rate of taxation levied?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

The Commission has understood that state pensions refer to benefits from so-called first-pillar old-age pensions, which are usually financed on the Pay-as-you-go principle. The benefits from such state pensions are in principle liable to personal income taxation in each of the Member States. They are treated as labour income in most cases. However, most Member States tax such benefits more favourably than income from other sources, either by way of increased tax allowances or additional tax credits that are age-based, or by way of partial exemption of taxable income from the personal income tax. Moreover, Member States generally do not levy social security contributions on pensions, although some Member States may levy such charges for health insurance or at lower general rates for pensioners than for people of working age. Together, these measures and the effect of the system of progression of the statutory marginal income tax rates imply that the direct tax burden faced by retired people receiving State pensions is generally lower than that carried by people of working age. The effect of such measures is that the difference between net incomes of pensioners and people in employment will be significantly smaller than the difference in gross incomes.

However, it should be pointed out that usually the effective rate of taxation levied on persons with State pension benefits depends not only on the amount of the state pension benefits, but also (often crucially) on the amount of other taxable incomes (for example, supplementary pension benefits, rents, other income from savings). Furthermore, the tax and social security contribution burden on pensioners tends to reflect the generosity of state pension benefits and thus the ability to pay of pensioners. Annex 1 provides an overview of the tax treatment of State pension benefits in the Member States. This annexe is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the general Secretariat of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1660/02

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Mandatory EU accessibility standards for the built environment

In the European Commission communication Towards a barrier-free Europe for people with disabilities(1), the European Commission made a commitment to consult with industry and disabled users to identify areas where it would be appropriate to introduce EU mandatory accessibility standards to the built environment.

Will the European Commission inform the European Parliament when it will be establishing a working group on the built environment which was expected in mid-2002?

Does the European Commission not consider that this work should be coordinated by the Construction Unit of DG Enterprise working in close cooperation with the Disability Unit of DG Employment and Social Affairs and the stakeholders concerned, including representative disability organisations and industry?

(1) COM(2000) 284.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

As part of the follow-up to its Communication Towards a barrier-free Europe for people with disabilities(1), the Commission can confirm that it plans to set up a working group to identify appropriate initiatives to improve access to the built environment for people with disabilities. The composition and working methods of this group are still under discussion. However, the group's work should begin this year so that it can be completed during the European Year of People with Disabilities, in 2003. Parliament will of course be kept informed of the progress of this work.

The relevant Commission departments will be taking part in this working group. Representatives of associations of disabled people, the relevant industry sectors and experts concerned with this issue will also be closely involved in this review.

(1) COM(2000) 284 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1078/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Cross-border rail link between Groningen and Bremen; long delays in replacing the section of the track between Nieuweschans and Leer

1. Does the Commission recall my question No E-0178/00(1) of 31 January 2000 concerning suspension of the rail service between Groningen in the Netherlands and the German connecting station of Leer on the line to Bremen following the upgrading of 17 kms of track between the border towns of Nieuweschans and Weener, and your answer of 30 March 2000 with the reassuring conclusion that upgrading of the section of the track would be carried out during 2000, after which the rail companies DB Regio and NoordNed would operate the route?

2. Is the Commission aware that since its answer to my question the train service was suspended from 28 May 2000 until 1 December 2000 but that services cannot be resumed because replacing the much neglected track did not start until the second half of 2001?

3. To what extent are these delays and obstacles caused by German and Dutch plans which keep cropping up concerning the construction of a maglev line (TransRapid) linking Amsterdam, Lelystad, Groningen, Bremen, Hamburg, Schwerin and Berlin which would involve shifting existing traffic flows to a border crossing near Nieuweschans and Leer? Do these plans still play a serious role in the decisions on the future of the conventional railway between Groningen and Bremen?

4. Does this section of the track, including stations, bridges and level crossings, now comply with all the standards for improvement that were stipulated when financial aid was granted in the framework of the trans-European transport network and the Interreg programme? Have all the funds made available by the EU since been spent for the purposes for which they were intended? If not, why not?

5. Are there still any technical reasons, apart from the disputes relating to operation of the line referred to in the following questions, preventing the rail service from being resumed on this section of the track without delay?

Source: Het Openbaar Vervoer/Railnieuws, Volume 45 No 522, March 2002, rail@wanadoo.nl

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 98.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1078/02, E-1079/02 and E-1080/02given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The Commission is in the process of gathering the information required to answer the question. It will communicate its findings to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0471/02

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Treatment of European prisoners in Guantanamo

It has been confirmed that European citizens are among the prisoners being held by the United States at the Guantanamo military base. What measures will the Spanish Presidency take to verify that the conditions under which these European prisoners are being held are in line with the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war? What are the Spanish Presidency's views on the treatment received by these prisoners? Does it intend to seek information from the United States Government on the situation of these prisoners?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0374/02, E-0391/02 and E-0471/02

(22 July 2002)

The Council invites the Honourable Members to refer to the answer given to Written Questions E-0168/02, E-0236/02, E-0239/02 and E-0263/02.

The Council reaffirms the importance that every detainee be treated humanely in accordance with general standards of international law. The Council is not in a position to ascertain whether the conditions of detention at Guantánamo meet those standards solely on the basis of media reporting. The Council does not possess the information necessary to determine whether the detainees at Guantánamo should be regarded as prisoners of war. It recalls that Geneva Convention III relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War stipulates that, in case of doubt, a detainee shall enjoy the protection of the Convention until such time as a competent tribunal determines his status. In the meantime, detainees are to be treated humanely, receive proper medical care, clothing and food. The detaining power is entitled, however, to take such measures as are necessary to ensure the security of the facility and the detainees in accordance with international law. The Council welcomes the fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been

granted full access to the detainees and will be in a position to exercise its mandate, as it also welcomes the assurances given by the US authorities that they will treat all detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention. President Bush made a public statement on this subject on 31 January 2002.

In the conclusions on human rights relating to the session of the CHR in Geneva, adopted by the General Affairs Council on 11 and 12 March 2002, the Council recalled the attachment of the European Union to the permanent duty of all States to protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and humanitarian law and to comply with international engagements subscribed on these matters. While supporting the bringing of suspected terrorists to justice and reaffirming that terrorism represents a threat to Europe as well as others, the Council made a point of emphasising its full conviction, especially after the tragic events of last September, that the fight against terrorism must respect human rights and the rule of law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0997/02

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

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Development of Tajo-La Mancha waterworks following Annex II of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan

The European Commission should be aware that the Tajo-La Mancha transfer listed as Conducción de agua desde el Acueducto Tajo-Segura para incorporación de recursos a la Llanura Manchega in Annex II (investment list) of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan law is now ready for immediate execution up to 2006.

Does the Commission know that this water transfer was not included in the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Plan that was recently submitted by the Spanish Government?

The Commission should also be aware that the competent authority has just declared (EFE 03/13/13-45/02), that EIAs on two of the four parts of the project are positive and that, therefore, getting the 245,22 million (85 % of the total costs of the project) it has asked for from the EU Cohesion Fund should be a mere bureaucratic step?

What is the Commission's reaction to this claim, given also the fact that the European Parliament's Resolution for the Barcelona Summit asked the European Commission not to fund water transfer schemes?

Is the Commission satisfied that this water transfer does not violate EU law, in particular the Birds, Habitats and Water Framework Directives?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

The Commission notes the information concerning the proposed Tajo-La Mancha transfer in Spain. The Commission is aware that this proposed transfer forms part of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan. The Commission is also aware that this transfer was not included in the Strategic Environmental Assessment submitted by the Spanish authorities.

The Commission notes the statements attributed to the competent authority. However, the Commission would underline that there are set procedures for evaluating funding proposals under the cohesion fund. These procedures, which include an evaluation by the Commission, will be respected in the case of the request for financial support submitted in relation to the Tajo la Mancha transfer. As part of this evaluation, the Commission will take into account the Environmental Impact Assessments reported to have been carried out by the authorities. The Commission will pay particular attention to the need to ensure that all projects respect relevant Community legislation and policies including the directives on the protection of birds, habitats and water resources.

Finally, in relation to paragraph 12 of the resolution of the Parliament of 28 February 2002 on the sustainable development strategy for the Barcelona European Council, the Commission understands this resolution to exhort the Commission not to use Community funding to finance unsustainable water management schemes. This is not the same as refusing to finance any water transfers.