ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1155/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: European quick-claims procedure

Consumer confidence is crucial if a modern and competitive internal market is to function properly. The former is, however, severely undermined by non-payment in cross-border transactions with other Member States, where debt recovery is slow, expensive and uncertain.

In the light of this, and the creation of the European Extra-judicial Network, Community internal market specialists have proposed introducing quick-claims courts at which the judicial authorities, having been provided with the necessary supporting evidence by the vendor, can reach on-the-spot decisions.

Does the Commission believe that, in order to revitalise the single European market and overcome the lack of confidence in the current slow judicial processes, it should initiate a European quick-claims procedure which would allow vendors with genuine claims to recover their debts immediately?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

The Honourable Member raises the question whether the Commission considers to take initiatives aimed at overcoming the obstacles for vendors who want to enforce their clearly justified claims in cross-border cases which are caused by slow, expensive and uncertain judicial procedures. More specifically, the Honourable Member asks whether the Commission envisages the creation of a European Injonction de payer procedure.

The Union faces the challenge of ensuring that in a genuine European Area of Justice individuals and businesses are not prevented or discouraged from exercising their rights by the incompatibility or complexity of the legal and judicial systems in the Member States. The European Council meeting in Tampere (15-16 October 1999) called for initiatives to establish special common procedural rules for simplified and accelerated litigation in several areas, notably with regard to small consumer and commercial claims and uncontested claims. Also the Council programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters recognises that in some areas the abolition of exequatur might coincide with the establishment of a specific, uniform or harmonised procedure laid down within the Community and envisages the areas of uncontested claims (European Injonction de payer procedure) and small claims as examples of such an approach.

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that it is currently exploring the possibilities of legislative initiatives in these two areas. The Commission is working on a Green Paper the adoption of which is foreseen for 2002 which should launch a wide public consultation on the subject. In order to prepare the Green Paper, the Commission has held an expert meeting with representatives from the Member States on 28 May 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1523/02

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Beef self-sufficiency in the EU

Can the Commission state what is the level of self-sufficiency of beef in the EU and what is being done with any surplus production?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

The level of self-sufficiency of beef in the Union varied in the period 1999-2001 between 101 % and 108 %. Whereas most of the beef production was destinated for internal Union consumption, part of it was exported to third countries (between 500 000 and 870 000 tonnes per year).

As a result of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-crisis, several measures were taken with a view to restore the market balance. Around 250 000 tonnes were put into public storage. Furthermore, several exceptional support measures were adopted that allowed considerable quantities of beef to be taken off the market, i.e. 240 000 tonnes under the Purchase for Destruction Scheme; 205 000 tonnes under the Special Purchase Scheme; 185 000 tonnes under various BSE and Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) culling schemes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Modernisation of N2 motorway in Switzerland

Modernisation work has been in progress for a numbert of months on the Swiss N2 motorway, between Bern and Basle, along an important section of the European road network. Work is being carried out in particular on the Oberburg tunnel and viaduct, and the long Belchen tunnel (3,2 km).

The latter has, for some time now, been operating as a single-tube tunnel, with two-way traffic, but no safety distances, no restrictions on heavy goods traffic and no other active or passive safety measures.

In the context of agreements with Switzerland, does the Commission have any information on this subject?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

The Commission does not have any information on the matter raised by the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member refers to measures taken following the meeting of European ministers of the Alpine region in Zurich on 30 November 2001.

The declaration adopted in Zurich and the measures recommended in it are outside the Commission's area of responsibility.

However, the joint committee on the EU/Switzerland agreement is able to handle all matters relating to the difficulties being encountered by EU transport firms in transit across Switzerland as well as those to do with the fluidity of Alpine traffic, in cooperation with the traffic observatory provided for in Article 45 of that agreement.

The next meeting of the joint committee is to take place in July 2002, and will provide an opportunity to discuss the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0079/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(24 January 2002)

Subject: Removal of lines marking borders from US charts

The USA's removal of the lines marking borders on American digital charts of the eastern Aegean at the same time as Turkey has issued a NOTAM requiring all national aeroplanes passing through air corridors G-18 to Rhodes and R-19 to Nicosia to submit their flight plans to the Turkish authorities, or be intercepted, represent another attempt to revise the operational and legal status of the Aegean.

Given that the removal of the borderlines affects the Union because the borders in the Aegean are also its own borders:

1. can the Council confirm that the borderlines are marked on the Union's charts, and

2. will the Council make representations to Turkey concerning the fact that the Turkish NOTAM creates further tension in the Aegean, does not promote good neighbourly relations with a Member State and is contrary to Turkey's obligation under the partnership agreement to take a constructive approach to finding a solution to the problem of Cyprus?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

In general, the borders between Member States and third States are clearly marked on European Union charts published by the Commission, including the borders between Greece and Turkey. Concerning specific information on digital air traffic charts, the Honourable Member is invited to consult Eurocontrol, which is the competent body for air traffic management in Europe.

The need for all candidate countries including Turkey to resolve any outstanding border disputes and other related issues was clearly stated in the Helsinki European Council conclusions on 10-11 December 1999. This was also specified in the Accession partnership. The need for Turkey to promote good relationship with its neighbour in the Aegean is regularly stressed by the Council in the framework of the political dialogue, most recently at the level of the political directors troika meeting in Madrid on 8 January.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1168/02

by Ruth Hieronymi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Post of head of Commission Representation in Bonn vacant

The post of head of the European Commission Representation in Bonn has been vacant for two and a half years. In other cases the post of head of representation hass remained vacant for a maximum of three months.

When will the post of head of the European Commission Representation in Bonn be filled?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

As the Honourable Member has already been informed by the Secretary-General in letter No 30262 of 19 February 2001, the Commission would stress that it is in its interests to maintain an office in Bonn for two reasons: the continuing presence of certain federal ministries there and the importance of the region of North Rhine-Westphalia.

At present, the Commission does not have any vacant post which it could allocate to the Bonn regional office. It had also informed the Honourable Member in the above-mentioned letter that the situation would be reviewed immediately in the event of an increase in the activities of that office which could not be handled by the staff working there.

However, the Commission notes that, to date, the workload in the Bonn office has not increased to that extent and is being handled efficiently by the staff, with the support of the Head of the Commission Representation to Germany in Berlin, who performs a valuable liaison function with the federal and local authorities.

The situation will be reviewed regularly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1943/02

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: EU subsidies for Rhineland-Palatinate between 1999 and 2002

What European Union subsidies were paid to recipients in Rhineland-Palatinate between 1999 and 2002, broken down by EU programme? Who were the recipients and what funding was made available under cofinancing arrangements with the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate or the Federal Republic of Germany?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/02

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: The classification of greyhounds

Given the growing popularity of greyhound racing and breeding across the EU, can the Commission please clarify the situation regarding the legal status of greyhounds. Specific issues such as eligibility for rural development funding hinge on whether these animals are deemed to be agricultural or domestic or belong in another category.

At present there appears to be variation between Member States (i.e. The UK Government classifies them as domestic animals and yet no VAT is charged on their food; the Irish as agricultural). Would the Commission address this grey area.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Although falling within the legal scope of the agricultural articles of the EC Treaty and Council Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 of 28 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in certain products listed in Annex II of the EC Treaty(1) (now Annex 1), greyhounds have not in practice been allocated funding from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) as agricultural products.

However, for the period 1994 to 1999, under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2085/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guidance Section(2), it was possible to fund measures to achieve diversification, especially those providing multiple activities or alternative incomes for farmers of either sex, if their financing was not ensured by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in a Community support framework. Under an Operational Programme in the period 1994-1999 investment aid was thus available to improve the housing of greyhounds in Ireland. However, subsequently, the Irish authorities agreed that no Community aid would be paid for that purpose under the relevant programme. No Community aid is available at present for greyhound rearing.

As regards value added tax (VAT), the Commission acknowledges that there are differences between Member States in the application of tax to supplies of food for dogs kept for racing and breeding. This may depend upon the fact that, according to the Sixth VAT Directive(3), Member States may apply either a standard rate or a reduced rate to foodstuffs for animal consumption, or even (under certain specific circumstances and on a transitional basis) a zero rate. Thus, in the Sixth Directive, the VAT treatment does not depend upon the greyhounds being classified as agricultural or domestic animals.

The variation between Member States which the Honourable Member refers to, reflects the present degree of harmonisation of Community law.

(1) OJ L 151, 30.6.1968.

(2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(3) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/02

by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE)and Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Environmental impact of the La Marca waste dump

This question concerns the fact that there used to be a waste dump in the village of Sardone di Giffoni Valle Piana (Salerno) called La Marca, which was closed down in 1978 because there were no safety measures (sealing it off from the soil, compacting of the waste mass, daily covering of the waste, the application of substances to reduce harmful effects, devices for the elimination of biogas or the storage of percolate in special tubs). The situation is unchanged and, in particular, the percolate leaking out of it is absorbed by the surrounding agricultural land in the vicinity of the river Picentino and by the groundwater.

Can the Commission check the documentation relating to this serious state of affairs, ascertain the environmental impact and take all possible measures to eliminate the serious danger posed to public health and farming in the area and the damage caused to the town where the International Film Festival for Children and Young People is held?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Members, the landfill situated in Sardone di Giffoni Valle Piana (Salerno) could be relevant under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(1), as modified by Council Directive 91/156/EC of 18 March 1991(2), which has the objective of protecting human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste. In particular, under this Directive, Member States shall take measures to ensure that waste is recovered and disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment. Member States shall also take the necessary measures to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste.

Not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Members, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of Community law, pursuant to Article 211 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1684/02

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Free movement of hunting weapons

According to oral statements by the Italian authorities, the Italian laws Decreto Legge Nr. 527/92 of 30 December 1992 and Decreto Ministeriale Nr. 635/96 of 30 October 1996 do not permit the temporary importation of hunting weapons into Italy from another Member State, for example for them to be shown to potential customers.

To what extent does the Commission view this as non-compliance with the implementation of Directive 91/477/EEC(1) and as an obstacle to the free movement of goods?

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The Commission is grateful to the honourable Member for the information provided, to the effect that the temporary importation of hunting weapons into Italy from another Member State, for example for them to be shown to potential customers, is not allowed.

As the transfer of firearms from one EU Member State to another is governed by Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, the Commission has contacted the authorities in the Member State in question to request clarification of the circumstances.

The Commission will certainly inform the honourable Member of the outcome of its approach.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1470/02

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Actions connected with sport

In its answer to my written question E-0512/02(1) the Commission does not in fact respond to my request, which I therefore repeat:

- Will the Commission provide a detailed list of all measures and actions connected with sport or with sportsmen and women during the current term of office?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 206.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

Since the beginning of the current legislative period, the Commission has earmarked EUR 10 million for projects relating to the fight against doping in sport. It also funded a project entitled Sport: promoting Olympic values at school to the tune of EUR 0,2 million and earmarked EUR 2,5 million for the Special Olympics planned for June 2003 in Dublin. In the 2002 budget, EUR 5 million was allocated to preparatory measures for a Community policy in the field of sport.

However, the Commission has not performed a general survey of all the sport-related initiatives undertaken during the current legislative period. This would be difficult to do, given the wide range of policies and initiatives concerned.

As the Commission stated in its answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-0512/02, many Community policies have had a direct impact on the organisation and development of sport and have therefore affected the sports world and sportsmen and women.

Most of the regulatory activity concerned the application of competition rules to the sports sector. A Commission press release(1) described the situation in detail.

Other activities came under the application of internal market rules, in particular those pertaining to the free movement of workers and the freedom to provide services.

(1) IP 02/806 of 3.6.2002 on The application of the EU's competition rules to sports.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0826/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: State of OLAF inquiries

Would the Commission provide details of the OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) inquiries concluded and still in progress in the period January to December 2001 and in 2002.

For each of the inquiries, these details should include:

- the name of the body which is the subject of the inquiry;

- the date the inquiry was opened (and, where appropriate, closed) and the amount thought to have been defrauded (and, where appropriate, the amount found to have been defrauded);

- the action taken on inquiries which found that fraud affecting the interests of the European institutions had taken place.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999(1) provide in Article 12, paragraph 3 that the Director of OLAF shall report regularly to the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors on the findings of investigations carried out by the Office, whilst respecting the confidentiality of those investigations, the legitimate rights of the persons involved and, where appropriate, national provisions applicable to judicial proceedings.

Pursuant to the above legislation, the Director of OLAF is supplying such information either on an ad hoc basis, that is as regards the Parliament to the Budgetary Control Committee, or in OLAF's annual activity report for the period 1 June-31 May in which it provides a statistical breakdown of cases that are in evaluation, investigation or closed during that period.

For cases in evaluation, investigation or closed during the period 1 January 2001-31 May 2001, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to OLAF's annual activity report for the period 1 June 2000-31 May 2001. For cases in evaluation, investigation or closed during the period 1 June 2001 to date, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that OLAF's annual activity report for the period 1 June 2001-31 May 2002 will be published in early autumn 2002.

With respect to the Honourable Member's request for the name of the body which is subject to the inquiry and the date, OLAF is unable to provide such information as it may compromise ongoing investigations or prejudice the rights of economic operators and/or individuals, who have been or are being investigated for the detection of irregularities.

In the event that it has been determined that an economic operator has infringed a provision of Community law which has the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or budgets managed by them, the Member States, on behalf of the Communities, or in case of direct financing, the Commission shall recover the amount unduly paid and may impose, in certain cases, administrative penalties. Furthermore, in accordance with the above regulations, OLAF shall submit the matter to the national competent authorities, which may, eventually, commence criminal proceedings.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.