ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2259/03

by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(1 July 2003)

Subject: Information to patients

Given that the proposed pilot scheme for patient information in the pharmaceutical review was rejected by the European Parliament and

the Council, what steps is the Commission now proposing in view of the work of the G10 Medicines group to ensure that patients receive good quality objective information about what drugs and treatments are available to them?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Under the framework of the G10 Medicines initiative, the Commission will explore with stakeholders ways to improve the provision of information on available prescription and non-prescription medicines. To take this forward, the Commission will reflect on establishing a public private partnership involving a range of interested parties including representatives from public bodies, industry, health funds, health care professionals and patients. This body could be used to advise and monitor the quality of existing information and produce guidelines in specific areas to support the work of national and Community regulatory authorities.

Commission work in this area will be supported by other projects including the work of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) is undertaking with patient organisations to consider new ways of ensuring that information on medicines takes more account of patient needs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2239/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Plague in Algeria and checks on illegal and legal immigrants from areas at risk

The total information black-out imposed by the Algerian authorities on cases of plague reported in Oran is reminiscent of the mistake made by the Chinese government in the first days of the SARS virus outbreak. The appalling health and hygiene conditions prevailing in Algeria, however, mean that there is a very real risk of a plague epidemic in European ports, in a region from which many illegal immigrants travel to the European Union Member States.

Has the Commission looked into this problem?

Does it not consider that it should alert the competent authorities of the Member States to this serious danger, so that they may take the necessary preventive measures relating to health?

Does the Commission not believe that there is an urgent need to create a health passport for non-EU citizens legally travelling to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

As of 2 July 2003 the Algerian Ministry of Health has reported a total of 10 cases of plague to the World Health Organisation (WHO) of which eight have been laboratory confirmed. These include eight cases of bubonic plague and two of septicemic plague, of which one was fatal. Eight additional cases are under investigation. Most cases were near Oran, in the town of Kehalia, 400 kilometer (km) west of Algiers. Patients have been treated with antibiotics and preventive measures have been taken.

The Commission sent an early warning message alerting Member States about the outbreak through the Union's Communicable Diseases Network, which links surveillance structures and public health authorities (Decision No 2119/98/EC(1)). This network ensures the rapid exchange of information within the Union and for the co-ordination of the responses. Candidate and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Countries fully participate in the network and there is close collaboration with the WHO for the transmission of early warnings.

The Commission considers that there is no benefit to be gained in the effort to control communicable diseases by the issuance of health passports. Plague is one of the three epidemic diseases subject to the International Health Regulations and notifiable to the WHO, and it is endemic in many countries in Africa, the Americas and Asia. Effective treatment is available (antibiotics and supportive therapy) and enables plague patients to be cured if diagnosed in time. Health passports cannot guarantee the level of health protection that is required and might even encourage a false sense of security.

(1) Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community, OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1365/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject: MEPs' salaries and public confidence

There has been a long-standing debate within the EU concerning a change in the pay structure for MEPs. A current proposal is that the present system, whereby MEPs receive the same salary as a member of the respective national parliament, should be replaced by a system in

which all MEPs would receive an average of the various levels of pay which currently exist for MEPs from the various Member States. Should such a change come about, it could mean, for example, that Swedish MEPs would receive a pay rise of some SEK 35 000. There is a risk that such a steep increase in the current salaries of Swedish MEPs would bring about a manifest crisis of confidence in Sweden, and would probably widen the gap between elected representatives and electorate.

What is the Commission's assessment of the risk that a change in MEPs' pay structure whereby Swedish Members, for example, might receive a pay rise of SEK 35 000 will result in a lack of voter confidence in their Members of Parliament?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, the draft statute for Members of Parliament continues to be the subject of intensive discussion between the Council and Parliament and therefore at present there is no specific proposal of Parliament on the table. Once the Commission is seized of a formal proposal adopted by Parliament, it will give the opinion required under Article 190(5) of the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1774/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Repatriation of the Structural Funds

How does the Council view the issue of repatriation of Structural Funds, i.e. Member States deciding to some degree on their own regional allocation of the Structural Funds?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1) of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, the administration of those funds is the shared responsibility of the European Commission and the Member States' governments working in close cooperation.

Accordingly, the Commission negotiates and approves development programmes proposed by the Member States and allocates the appropriations. These programmes are the result of the joint efforts of the national, regional and local authorities, the economic and social partners and other competent bodies.

The Member States and their regions must then administer the programmes and implement them by selecting projects, which they monitor and evaluate. For its part, the Commission participates in the follow-up of programmes and contributes to the work of the monitoring committees, it determines the commitment appropriations, makes payments to reimburse expenditure actually incurred and certified and verifies the control systems in place.

Given the legal framework in force therefore, the Member States themselves may not decide on their own regional allocation of the structural funds.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1403/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Council

(11 April 2003)

Subject: Abolition of Duty on Weapons regulation

The Council's reply to my oral question H-0043/03(1) concerning the regulation adopted by the Council on 21 January on the abolition of duties on weapons and military equipment did not address the principal issues posed in my question.

Why was this regulation adopted without debate by the Council on 21 January?

When was it debated in Council since the Commission came forward with the proposal in 1988?

What brought about the efforts to bring this matter to a final and successful outcome in the second half of 2002, as outlined in the Council's answer to Question H-0043/03?

Can the Council confirm that the provisions set out in the original proposal stating that this would be a temporary measure for three years were removed in the final regulation?

Are there estimates as to the amount of duty that will be foregone by each Member State arising out of this regulation?

Are there estimates as to the likely impact on imports of weapons into the EU?

(1) Written answer of 12.3.2003.

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Commission presented its proposal for the above Regulation on 29 September 1988. The proposal was discussed at Working Party level in the Council between 1988 and 1990. Work was suspended in 1990, and resumed in the Customs Union Working Party (Common Customs Tariff) in 1997. Between 1997 and 2002 there was no further discussion of the proposal.

Before presenting its proposal in 1988, the Commission had initiated infringement proceedings against several Member States under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the Treaty. These infringement proceedings were suspended pending the adoption of the Regulation. At the beginning of 2002, the Commission relaunched these infringement proceedings against several Member States.

Subsequently, during the second semester of 2002, the Council reopened discussion of the proposal and worked and settling an agreement at preparatory level, which lead to a political agreement, in December 2002. On this basis, the Regulation suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equipment has been formally adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003, as a point without discussion, which is entirely in accordance with established Council procedures, as preparatory levels had cleared out all the outstanding issues.

In the original Commission proposal it was foreseen that the Regulation would have a validity of three years. This provision was not included in the Regulation, as adopted, since, given the long-term duration of defence procurement contracts, assurances of suspension of import duties for the duration of the contract were required.

The Council does not possess any estimates of the amount of duties concerned or of the likely impact on imports of weapons into the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/03

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 May 2003)

Subject: Discrimination on grounds of nationality

The European Community's development is no longer confined to the economic sphere. The Community is now made up of 375 million people, who are not merely consumers in a large single market, but also citizens of the European Union who have the right to move freely within the EU and to settle in any part of that Union for personal or professional reasons and who hope they can live without fear of being discriminated against in any way.

I have been contacted by a Portuguese national who has opted for an international career with Shell Accounting Service in Glasgow, and has been living and working in the United Kingdom (Scotland) for some two years. He maintains that he has been discriminated against on account of his nationality by the Halifax Bank (a member of the Bank of Scotland group), which has rejected his request for his bank account to be upgraded on the grounds that this is only possible once a person has been resident in the country for three years. As an EU citizen, does he not have the same rights and duties as a UK national?

Article 12 of the EC Treaty stipulates that within the scope of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. Does the Council agree that the Halifax Bank's policy may be considered discriminatory in that it is contrary to the very essence of the European Union and constitutes a clear violation of the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the Treaty?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council agrees with the Honourable Member as to the importance of prohibiting all forms of discrimination on grounds of nationality, as stipulated in Article 12 of the EC Treaty.

However, it is not for the Council to comment on the situation reported in the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2147/03

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject: Renewed agreement on cooperation in science and technology

Will the renewed agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation as set out in the Proposal for a Council Decision(1) dated 27 February 2003, permit the use of Community resources in support of collaborative research in the management of plutonium as a waste, or as a component of MOX fuel; and does it permit the involvement of the European Union's nuclear fuel industry including BNFL's Sellafield plant and Cogema's La Hague and MELOX plants?

(1) COM(2003) 95 final.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

The Proposal for a Council Decision, dated 27 February 2003, refers to the Agreement on Co-operation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation under the EC Treaty. It does not concern research on the subjects mentioned in the question, which would be relevant to the Euratom Treaty.

The Euratom collaborative research activities are encompassed within the Cooperation Agreements between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Russian Federation in the fields of Nuclear Safety and Controlled Nuclear Fusion, signed on 27 September 2001. While collaborative research on the subjects included in the question is not excluded by the agreement, no such research cooperation is planned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2423/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Maximum permitted level of alcohol in the bloodstream of a driver

The European Commission has launched a project with a view to bringing the Belgian BOB campaign to the attention of the public in other EU Member States. This is a welcome move, but the problem here is that there are sharp disparities in Member States' legislation governing the maximum permitted level of alcohol in the bloodstream of a driver.

Does the Commission take the view that there is a need for European legislation on this issue? Is it planning to take any appropriate measures?

Can the Commission introduce Europe-wide harmonisation of the maximum permitted levels of alcohol in the bloodstream of a driver? If so, what is the maximum level that the Commission is considering?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

In 1988 the Commission proposed a directive harmonising legal blood alcohol content (BAC) levels for drivers. The proposal was never adopted by the Council or Parliament. On 17 January 2001 the Commission adopted a recommendation on the maximum permitted blood alcohol content for drivers of motorised vehicles(1), in order to establish guidelines at Community level.

At this stage, the Commission no longer plans to harmonise the maximum BAC levels permitted by the Member States.

Efforts to curb drunken driving require action on several fronts the maximum permitted BAC is only one aspect of this.

The United Kingdom, for example, has the highest permitted blood alcohol content level in the EU, but relatively low accident figures compared to the other Member States.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its recommendation of 17 January 2001 setting out the Commission's approach to tackling the serious problem of drunken driving.

(1) Commission Recommendation of 17 January 2001 on the maximum permitted blood alcohol content for drivers of motorised vehicles, OJ C 48, 14.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2142/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject: Accident at the Ilva Taranto plant (Italy)

A few days ago, two young men aged 24 and 27 died following an accident at the Ilva Taranto plant (Puglia, Italy).

Can the Commission state whether it intends to carry out an inquiry into the causes of this tragic event at this plant belonging to the Riva group, with a view, notably, to ascertaining what workplace safety measures were in place there?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Commission ensures safety in the workplace by strictly monitoring the application of Community law.

In this case, the protection of health and safety of workers in general is covered by framework Directive 89/391/EEC(1) and its individual Directives.

The Directives must be transposed into national law by Member States and it is up to them to ensure that the national provisions transposing Community Directives on the health and safety of workers at work (cf. Article 4 of Directive 89/391/EEC) are adequately monitored.

It is therefore up to the Italian authorities responsible for monitoring national provisions transposing Community Directives on the health and safety of workers at work to ensure that these are applied effectively and correctly.

In this case, therefore, an investigation into the causes of the accident and any measures to be taken as a result are the responsibility of the national authorities, in particular the relevant labour inspectorate in the Apulia region, which is authorised to monitor the application of the legislation transposing the Community Directives in question.

The Commission will intervene in this case only if there is strong evidence that Community legislation has not been transposed into national law or has not been properly applied.

(1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Exemptions from permit requirements of the 1975 Waste Directive

On page 7 of its report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-2000(1) published on 19 May 2003, the Commission says that it is considering initiating procedures under Article 226 of the Treaty against Member States where significant deficiencies remain in the reports submitted by Member States.

Article 11 of the 1975 Waste Directive 75/442/EEC(2) allows Member States to exempt establishments and undertakings carrying out their own waste disposal at the place of production or recovery operations from the permit requirements set out in Articles 9 and 10 of the Directive.

On page 20 of its report published on 19 May, the Commission says that Ireland, Italy and the UK had confirmed that they had adopted such rules without providing practical details. In this instance, the Commission concluded that: Disappointingly, no reason or advantages have been provided by those Member States who have done so. This remains a very underdeveloped area.

What is the Commission's view of the failure by Ireland, Italy and the UK to provide further information about their decisions to allow these exemptions under Article 11? Do these failures constitute significant deficiencies in respect of which it is considering initiating legal procedures?

(1) COM(2003) 250 final.

(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1965/03, E-1966/03, E-1967/03 and E-1968/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

All four written questions of the Honourable Member refer to items as presented in the Commission's report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-2000(1) and they are therefore considered together.

As stated in the introduction to the aforementioned report, the latter is drawn up on the basis of the replies of the Member States to questionnaires established to this effect. These replies may reasonably vary in detail from one Member State to another and often contain only an update of the situation as compared to the previous reporting period. When important information is lacking, preventing the Commission from properly fulfilling its reporting duties, this may suggest a breach of the reporting obligations of a Member State. In this context however, the cases pointed out by the Honourable Member cannot be considered as justifying the initiation of infringement proceedings.

Regarding in particular question E-1968/03 on the treatment of hazardous waste in Ireland, the comment stating that the total figure of hazardous waste reported accounts for approximately 97 % of the actual, was made by the Irish authorities in their reply to the questionnaire and only referred to hazardous waste treated outside Ireland. The information provided does not specify how the remaining 3 % was treated.

(1) COM(2003) 250 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/03

by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) and Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Council

(24 April 2003)

Subject: European driver attestation and suspected improper use of ECMT permits in road transport

On 26 March 2003 the German authorities raided branches of the Willi Betz transport company on the grounds of suspected misuse of ECMT permits and the inadmissible employment of drivers from third countries.

Does the Council agree that companies and drivers from third countries that use the ECMT permits for transport within the EU, in which they are operating virtually without restriction (in terms of time) throughout the EU's territory, are making improper use of the permit?

Is the Council prepared to place the problem of improper use of the permits on the agenda for the next meeting of ECMT ministers? And is the Council further prepared to make proposals for putting an end to this distortion of competitive relations that is undermining employment conditions in the EU and also creating a road safety risk?

Does the Council agree that it is undesirable for drivers from third countries to hire themselves out to European transport companies as independent drivers, thus evading the requirement to hold a European driver attestation? What steps can and will the Council take to put an end to such practices?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council would like to inform the Honourable Parliamentarians that the ECMT at its most recent session in Brussels (23/24 April 2003) has adopted important measures so as to curb any possible improper use of the ECMT permits. A reform of the use of permits was decided with the introduction of provisions restricting the period during which hauliers are allowed to perform road haulage, by obliging permits holders to return to their country of registration after a maximum period of six weeks. These provisions will be implemented for a probationary period of one year from 1 January 2004. An evaluation of the efficiency of this measure will take place at the end of this period.

Furthermore the ECMT, at that same session, adopted a resolution for an improved management of the ECMT multilateral quota. The resolution contains a number of measures aiming at improving the exchange of information on the actual use of the ECMT permits.