ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Failure to notify the Commission of State aids to Spanish electricity companies

The new wording of the Sixth Transitional Provision of the Spanish Electricity Industry Act has abolished the provisions previously applied regarding securitisation and the 4,5 % allocation based on the standard rate, a system which to date has raised some ESP 500 billion in what has to be considered State aid, as the Spanish Government itself acknowledged when it proposed to change the rules. In spite of that fact, Spanish legislation does not specify what is to be done with the amounts collected under these rules, which have been amended in accordance with the Commission's suggestions. The end result is a paradoxical situation in which the electricity companies have received sums which, in principle, constitute unnotified aids.

Does the Commission believe that it should any steps to prevent electricity companies from benefiting from what essentially amounts to unnotified State aids?

Answer given by M. Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (former Article 99) of the EC Treaty(1), and in accordance with Court of Justice case-law, the fact that aid is unlawful, i.e. that it is granted before the Commission has taken a decision on whether it is compatible with the common market, is not in itself a sufficient condition for requiring reimbursement. In each case, the Commission must also demonstrate that the aid is incompatible with the common market. The question raised by the Honourable Member will therefore be dealt with in the Commission's final decision on the case in point.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0440/01

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Treaty of Nice and changes to Article 133 concerning intellectual property and trade in services

Pursuant to the new provisions of Article 133(5), the commercial aspects of intellectual property as well as trade in services (subject to the listed derogations) will now fall within the Community's powers on the common commercial policy. However, Article 133(7) lays down further provisions which restrict the extension of those powers in relation to international negotiations and agreements on intellectual property issues not covered by Article 133(5).

Will the Commission please explain:

1. Whether there is a definitive agreement between the Commission and Member States on precisely which aspects of intellectual property are commercial and which are not? If so, will it agree to publish it? If not, how and when will this be defined?

2. Whether the Member States, who are all signatories to the TRIPs Agreement, will continue to play a direct role in the current and future negotiations on intellectual property issues at WTO level and in other international fora, and whether national consent will be required for the conclusion of any such agreements?

3. How and when the European Parliament will be consulted specifically on the proposed changes to Article 133 of the Treaty, as required by the existings provisions of Article 133(5)?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

There is no legally binding definition in Community law of the terms commercial aspects of intellectual property used in the new Article 133 (ex Article 113), paragraph 5, first indent EC Treaty as amended by the Treaty of Nice.

The competence for agreements on commercial aspects of intellectual property will be brought under Community competence for the common commercial policy by the new Article 133, paragraph 5.

In this regard, the Commission regrets that its initiative to improve the institutional position of the Parliament in the conduct of the common commercial policy was not accepted by the Intergovernmental Conference of Nice. Irrespective of this, the Commission will continue its policy of transparency and close co-operation with the Parliament in trade matters.

The enabling cause contained in the current Article 133, paragraph 5, which indeed requires a proposal from the Commission and consultation of the Parliament has not been activated. Rather, this provision will be replaced by the new Article 133 paragraph 7.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Harm to wearers of pacemakers from shop security systems

Patients wearing pacemakers have been warned by National Health Service Trusts in the UK that some security systems installed by high street shops, in the form of walk-through gates, may pose a threat to the continued functioning of this vital aid.

What are the Commission's views on making it compulsory that shops take responsibility for warning customers quite clearly that their system may pose a danger, before they enter the premises?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

To-date the Commission has not received any information on the warning by National Health Service Trusts in the United Kingdom that shop security systems may pose a threat to the continued functioning of pacemakers referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission will request information on this warning and consider its implications with Member States.

The Commission raised the question with Member States during the Low Voltage Directive Working Party in June 1999, dealing with the safety of electrical appliances.

All Member States were asked if they had any reports of incidents relating to this and whether there was a need to consider taking preventive measures. No incidents were identified and, as a consequence, Member States were of the opinion that further legislation was unnecessary.

As outlined in the reply to written question E-1595/98 by Mrs Jackson(1), the problem is, to an extent, addressed in the European standard for pacemakers, issued by the European standardisation body Cenelec, which addresses the immunity of pacemakers to certain types of electromagnetic fields.

Therefore, at present, the Commission has no plans to impose additional legislation in this area.

(1) OJ C 13, 20.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1558/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Number of MEPs and enlargement

In replying to my question H-272/01(1), the Commission representative interpreted the Treaty of Nice as meaning that, if no accession agreement has been signed by 1 January 2004, the same number of MEPs will be elected in 2003 from the 15 Member States as at present. This interpretation is undoubtedly correct, but it brings with it a new interpretation problem if, for example, only one accession agreement has been signed. In the Commission's interpretation, how many MEPs from the Member States would be elected in that case?

(1) Written answer of 3 April 2001.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Under Article 2(2) and (3) of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union annexed by the Treaty of Nice to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the European Communities(1), the exact number of representatives to be elected in each Member State to Parliament in 2004 is to be determined by a Council Decision.

To determine this number, it will first be necessary to add to the total number of representatives of the current 15 Member States (specified in Article 190 of the EC Treaty, as amended by Article 2(1) of the Protocol, i.e. 535 representatives) the number of representatives of the new Member States

arising from the accession treaties signed by 1 January 2004. If the total number of representatives is less than 732, which could be the case if all the applicant countries have not completed negotiations and signed an accession treaty by 1 January 2004, the Council will increase the number of representatives to be elected in each Member State in 2004 to be as close as possible to 732. The number of representatives to be elected in 2004 will be corrected on a prorata basis; without the number of representatives to be elected in a Member State being higher than that currently provided for.

(1) OJ C 80, 10.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Fish stock recovery plans for north-east Atlantic

Considering that two-thirds of fish stocks in the north-east Atlantic are below safe biological limits, is the Commission planning to develop recovery plans for all of these stocks?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0181/01 and E-0204/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The Commission is aware that many fish stocks in the North-East Atlantic are outside safe biological limits.

However, the Commission uses the terminology recovery plan for stocks which are in immediate danger of collapse. The stocks in question at present are cod in the North Sea, Irish Sea and to the west of Scotland and the northern hake stock. Recovery plans are either in place (Irish Sea) or are in the process of being put in place for the others.

For stocks outside safe biological limits but not immediately in danger of collapse, and indeed all other relevant stocks, the Commission has initiated a process whereby a precautionary approach to management will be applied. This is already the case for cod, haddock, plaice, saithe and herring in the North Sea where agreement has been reached with Norway, the joint managers of these stocks with the Community, to adopt such an approach. Also with Norway, agreement has been reached on application of a precautionary approach to the North-East Atlantic mackerel stock. In the Baltic and via the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission agreement has been reached to apply a precautionary approach to management of cod, sprat and salmon.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1567/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Corridor VIII

Can the Commission say whether the protocol has been signed by participating countries and the Commission and whether the technical study has been launched on the status of infrastructure and on priority requirements? What type of financial assistance, and how much, has the project already received from all participants?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Commission strongly supports the development of all of the pan-European transport corridors by negotiating with the associated parties and taking all of the political, technical and financial initiatives needed in order to promote a background that is more favourable to transport activities on the European scene.

In this connection the Commission, together with the Italian chairmanship of Corridor No VIII - the Italian Minister for Transport and Navigation - has actively participated, during the previous months in the activities enabling the memorandum of understanding of that Corridor to be finalised. Those activities have aimed, particularly, at helping the countries involved - namely Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM), Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Turkey - to reach a final compromise on the wording of the MoU.

A agreement on virtually all of the wording was reached in Rome in early July 2000. Some differences still remain and a memorandum of understanding has still not been signed despite the Commission's urging the countries concerned to do so.

In view of the absence of a memorandum of understanding it has not been possible so far to launch any specific study for Corridor III.

Hitherto each country, acting at national level, has implemented projects on Corridor VIII, which are funded from various sources. However, those projects do not currently form part of any joint effort that is coordinated by an MoU.

When the MoU has been signed and the technical study launched it will be possible to have an overall, detailed knowledge of the situation as regards the Corridor VIII projects, including the nature and amounts involved in the financial support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0859/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Commission's withdrawal of proposals

Will the Commission indicate the number of occasions on which it has withdrawn a proposal for a directive or regulation from the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament in each of the last five years, giving the reference number of the proposal and a brief description of the subject?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

Over the last five years no proposals have been withdrawn for reasons of substance. As regards proposals withdrawn for administrative reasons, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given to Question E-858/01(1).

(1) See page 210.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1942/01

by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Future regulation of human tissue products

Does the Commission consider that there should be further regulation at a European level of medical devices involving the retrieval, cultivation and application of human tissue? If so, what scope and timetable are anticipated?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

Aware of the importance and sensitivity of human tissue products, in particular their use in medical devices, the Commission is examining the need, scope and nature of a Community regulatory initiative regarding the application of human tissues in medical devices. On ethical Questions, like the retrieval and cultivation of human tissue, it is appropriate to apply the principles laid down in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0934/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: ISO and the Nordic methods

Salmonella contamination of meat can be detected using either the ISO or the Nordic method. In the EU the former has been the rule. However, on 10 March 1998 Commissioner Fischler told the European Parliament that the Council was discussing the possiblity of using the Nordic method as a reference method.

How many Member States are now using the Nordic method as the reference for ascertaining whether meat is contaminated by salmonella? What is the Commission doing to promote the use of the Nordic method rather than the ISO method as the reference method?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

According to the additional guarantees granted to Finland and Sweden in the context of their Act of Accession to the Community live animals, eggs and fresh meat from other Member States have to be tested for salmonella before dispatch to Finland or Sweden. Alternatively these animals or products have to be derived from holdings or establishments subject to salmonella control programme recognised as equivalent to those of Finland and Sweden.

The rules for the microbiological testing of meat intended to Finland and Sweden are laid down in Council Decisions 95/409/EC of 22 June 1995 laying down the rules for the microbiological testing by sampling of fresh beef and veal and pigmeat intended for Finland and Sweden(1) and 95/411/EC of 22 June 1995 laying down the rules for the microbiological testing for salmonella by sampling of fresh poultrymeat intended for Finland and Sweden(4). The method to be used for the testing of meat was originally the International organisation for standardisation (ISO) 6579:1993. Following the opinion of the Scientific Veterinary Committee of 3 June 1996 the method described by the Nordic Committee on Food Analysis (NMKL No 71) was added to the authorised methods by Council Decision 98/227/EC of 16 March 1998 amending Decisions 95/409/EC, 95/410/EC and 95/411/EC concerning the methods to be used for microbiological testing to be undertaken on meat intended for Finland and Sweden(2). This means that the food businesses in the Member States can use either the ISO method or the Nordic method when testing meat intended for Finland or Sweden. The Commission does not have complete information concerning the different salmonella methods used in the Member States for testing of meat.

Otherwise there are no salmonella criteria or analysis methods laid down for testing of fresh meat in the Community legislation. While Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994(3), lays down salmonella criteria for minced meat and meat preparations. This Directive does not fix methods to be used for the testing of salmonella.

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995.

(2) OJ L 87, 21.3.1998.

(3) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

(4) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1018/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Short-term unemployment rates

1. Will the Commission provide a time series of the short-term unemployed (defined as those seeking work for less than one year and also, if available, for less than six months) for each EU Member State for each quarter of the last ten years?

2. Will it also express this series as a short-term unemployment rate (i.e. as a percentage of the labour force)?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

Annual series on the number of long-term unemployed (those seeking work for one year or more) and the corresponding unemployment rate were compiled by Eurostat for the synthesis report presented to the Stockholm European Council, the long-term unemployment rate being one of the structural indicators shown in the annex to the report. Similar annual data on short-term unemployment (less than twelve months) can be obtained by simple calculation.

Compilation of reliable quarterly series cannot be envisaged until such time as a continuous labour force survey is introduced in all the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1903/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Youth

The Commission has recently frozen one of the major projects embarked on in the field of youth: the White Paper on youth policies in the European Union, which was to have been presented in November 2001.

A multitude of European youth groups and associations, experts, governments, etc. have been involved in the project.

Why has the Commission frozen this work in the wake of the efforts made by the above organisations?

What will be done to compensate for the severe setback which suspension of the White Paper means for society and, in particular, for young people in Europe?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1694/01, E-1733/01, E-1903/01, E-1904/01 and E-2050/01 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2001)

The Commission believes that the policy of European co-operation in the youth field should be strengthened. This is why, at the end of 1999, the Commission began to draw up a White Paper on this subject at the instigation of the Member of the Commission with responsibility for Education and Culture.

The Commission wanted a hitherto unprecedented consultation process to take place beforehand: consultations with young people in each Member State in 2000, in connection with which a European-level meeting was held in Paris in October 2000; consultations with civil society organisations and academics; discussions with the Member States. This process was completed in March 2001 in Umeå, Sweden.

The Commission, now sure of the support of young people and the Member States, has since then been in the process of drawing up the White Paper, which should be published before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1152/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Use of identity cards

Will the Commission state which Member States:

1. Issue identity cards (other than passports for international use)?

2. Legally require citizens to carry such identity cards?

3. Report on the number of inspections of such identity cards?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

1. On the basis of the information available to the Commission all Member States except Denmark, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom deliver identity cards to their nationals.

2. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E- 3070/98 by Mrs Banotti(1) and E-1303/96 by Mrs Maij-Weggen(2).

3. In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested. It is therefore unable to answer the question.

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999.

(2) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1884/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Italy)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support payments only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Italy have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Italy have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Employment rights for ministers of religion

Does the Commission take the view that its aim should be to ensure all workers have full employment rights no matter what their occupation? When does it plan to extend these rights to ministers of religion, who are currently being treated in some cases in an almost feudal manner by illiberal religious authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

Community employment law applies in principle to all employees. However, the concept of an employee is not itself defined in European employment law. As far as employment law is concerned, there therefore exists no horizontal definition of an employee, which would be universally applicable across all Member States. European Directives in the field of employment law therefore only apply to persons who, in the Member States, are protected as employees under national employment law.

In some Member States, ministers of religion are not considered to be employees according to national employment law. In such cases they are not covered by European employment law.

In its Declaration No 11 on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations, annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Union emphasises that it respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States. As the status of ministers of religion is closely linked to the status and internal organisation of churches and religious communities, the question as to whether or not ministers of religion have the status of employees under national employment law is therefore also a matter to be decided at the national level.