ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1598/02

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Levies on the purchase of motor vehicles

The application of the new regulation on the distribution of motor vehicles and the resulting increase in competition should lead to a reduction in the price of new cars and a more diversified range of vehicles. Since in a number of countries, especially Portugal, those working in the sector are forecasting price rises of up to 25 %, can the Commission say what taxes are levied on the purchase of new motor vehicles in each of the EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2002)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member of the current rates of taxes applied to new cars in the Union. The source is a study undertaken by COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners SA in November 2001. This study is available under the website address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/taxation/car_taxes/co2_cars_study_25-02-2002.pdf

Furthermore, three tables on the various taxes levied on the purchase of new cars in each of the Member States is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2503/02

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(3 September 2002)

Subject: Proposal for a framework directive on data retention

In response to a report by Statewatch concerning the existence of a proposal for a framework directive on data retention, the Danish Presidency issued a press release on 22 August 2002 denying that it had put forward such a proposal. It has not, however, denied that such a proposal exists.

Can the Council confirm the existence of a proposal for a framework directive on data retention, probably entitled Draft Framework Decision on the retention of traffic data and on access to this data in connection with criminal investigation and prosecution? And, if so, could it reveal from what government the proposal emanates and what is the status of the proposal? Has the proposal been discussed by any Council body and, if so, on what dates, and have any conclusions been reached?

If the Council denies the existence of such a proposal, does it have an explanation for why a document with this title can be found on the Statewatch web site?

The Danish Presidency acknowledges that preparatory work is being carried out in connection with European legislation on data retention. Does the Council agree that decisions in this area can encroach deeply on citizens' privacy, and that changes to the law governing privacy can create alarm, as has again been reflected in recent weeks in much of the media coverage? Does the Council also agree that it is advisable to hold a public debate on this issue before putting forward a proposal, not to mention before reaching a political agreement? How does the Council intend to conduct such a debate?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

As to the question by the Honourable Member whether there is any proposal for a Framework Decision on the retention of traffic data, the Council can assure the Honourable Member that there is at present no initiative from a Member State or any proposal from the Commission regarding a draft Framework Decision on the retention of traffic data before the Council of the European Union. The Council has no responsibility for the websites of individuals.

On 24 June 2002 however, the Danish Presidency introduced draft Council conclusions on information technology-related measures concerning the investigation and prosecution of organised crime with a view to adoption by the Council. On 8 July 2002 the Presidency presented those draft Council conclusions to the competent Council working party. At the working party meeting on 16 September 2002, the Commission gave information on the legal situation within the European Union in this respect. The Danish initiative was subsequently discussed at the working party meeting on 16 October 2002.

The proposed Council conclusions on information technology-related measures concerning the investigation and prosecution of organised crime, when adopted, would as such not directly affect the privacy of the citizens of the European Union.

Preparatory Council bodies are currently carrying out the examination of the Danish initiative with a view to concluding in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2731/02

by Mary Honeyball (PSE) to the Council

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Miss World contest to be held in Nigeria

Would the Council call on all EU Member States and applicant countries to condemn the death sentence imposed on a young Nigerian woman, Amina Lawal, for giving birth outside marriage? Would it further call upon all Member States and applicant countries to boycott the Miss World contest to be held in Nigeria later this year?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

In its Declaration of 21 August 2002, the Presidency on behalf of the European Union expressed deep concern about the decision of the court of appeal to dismiss the appeal of Ms Amina Lawal against the death sentence by stoning. The candidate countries associated themselves with this declaration.

Like in a previous case(1), the EU recalled its position on the death penalty and encouraged the Government of Nigeria to continue to work towards the abolition of the death penalty contributing thus to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. This position was reiterated in the Council Declaration on the death penalty and particularly cruel forms of execution, adopted on 30 September 2002.

The Council has not dealt with the question of boycotting the Miss World contest to be held in Nigeria later this year.

(1) Declaration of 27 March 2002 welcoming the acquittal of Safya Husseini.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2330/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Reply to question E-1474/02 Directive on investment services

The reply to my previous question (E-1474/02(1)) on the directive on investment services prompts me to request these further clarifications:

1. Who would certify authorisation to provide investment advice?

2. Why should initial authorisation be envisaged solely in the form of a licence for an investment firm? Would it not be advisable to maintain a clear distinction between those providing investment advice within company structures (banks, firms, etc.) and those operating under a different status? Or is the directive aimed at excluding the latter?

3. Which bodies would regulate advice linked to an investment portfolio and which would regulate non-portfolio based advice?

4. What kind of firewalls does the Commission intend to put in place to avoid conflicts of interest between investment advice providers and investment banking activities?

5. With a view to savers' interests, why does the Commission not intend to put in place obligations requiring the physical separation of brokerage organisations (which process stock market orders) and organisations which manage and own assets? Would it not be a good idea to learn from the front-running scandals involving Knight Trading, a large Nasdaq brokerage firm?

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 59.

Answer given by M. Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

After having received a significant number of responses during the public consultation and having carefully considered their contents, the Commission is finalising its proposal for the revision of the Investment Services Directive (Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field(1)). The proposal is expected to be adopted by the Commission before the end of this year.

The Commission is therefore unable, at present, to disclose its final position concerning the proposal and, in particular, the regulatory treatment of investment advice.

Nonetheless, the Honorable Member is reminded of the following features of the present Investment Services Directive which the Commission did not propose to modify during the recent consultation:

- the authorisation to provide investment services is granted by the competent authorities, which are appointed by Member States;

- the present definition of investment firms allows Member States to consider under certain conditions that undertakings which are not legal persons be considered as investment firms;

- there is a clear distinction between the service of individual portfolio management and the service of investment advice.

The Commission has identified the management and prevention of conflicts of interest as an important set of issues which warrant more effective operational coverage in the revised Directive.

The Commission is now considering how best to address these points.

(1) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Unpaid workers

How many unpaid workers does the Commission employ? How many people working in the Commission earn less than the minimum wage in their own country?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2002)

The Commission does not employ unpaid workers. Officials and other servants engaged under contract by the Commission earn more than the statutory minimum wage in their own country.

The Commission has 17 special advisors under contract, who are retired senior officials and receive pensions but not salaries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2289/02

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

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Elections to the European Parliament in 2004

Will the reduced allocation of seats in the European Parliament (as agreed at Nice) be introduced for the elections to the European Parliament in 2004? Will the UK's allocation therefore be cut from 87 seats to 72 for June 2004?

If the allocation of seats to the UK is to be reduced, what will be the regional basis for the reallocation of the seats?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2002)

The Treaty of Nice stipulates that the maximum number of Members of Parliament will in future be 732. Under Article 2 of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union, which is annexed to the Treaty of Nice, the number of Members for the UK as of 2004 will be 72. However, under the third paragraph of Article 2 of the said Protocol, if the total number of Members of Parliament to be elected is lower than 732, the number of Members for election in each Member State will be adjusted proportionately for the 2004-2009 term of office, so as to bring the total as close as possible to 732. The exact number of Members of Parliament to be elected in 2004 in each Member State under the above-mentioned provisions will be decided by the Council.

The allocation of seats in Parliament within each Member State is currently governed by national provisions. The Commission recalls that on 12 June 2002 Parliament gave its assent to the draft Council Decision amending the Act concerning the election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (A5-0225/2002), which provides, inter alia, that Members of Parliament are elected on a proportional representation basis, but that in accordance with its specific national situation, each Member State may establish constituencies or subdivide its electoral area in a different manner, without affecting the essentially proportional nature of the voting system. It is thus for each Member State to decide for itself, in accordance with these provisions, whether to establish regional constituencies, and, if so, on what basis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2690/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(26 September 2002)

Subject: European system of end-use certificates

Point 1.2.2 of the final report of the Subcommittee on Arms Trading (doc. 614/4 95/96, 28 April 1999) of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Belgische Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers (Belgian Chamber of Parliamentarians) reads as follows: A watertight system of controls for these transactions continues to be a necessity. In the light of this, we point particularly to the need for a rigorous joint system for the delivery and verification of end-use certificates.

Can the Council say whether it is aware of the wish expressed here and whether it shares the Belgian Federal Parliamentarians' analysis of the situation?

1. If so, what steps has it already undertaken to set up such a system, and when does it think it will become operational?

2. If not, why not? Is the Council thinking of putting this point to the members for consideration when the opportunity arises? If so, approximately when?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the answer given to his previous question E-2689/02. In addition, the Council underlines that the third annual report according to Operative provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on arms exports, issued at the end of 2001, identified a certain number of guidelines on topics requiring consideration or action in the near future. These guidelines would enable Member States and their partners within and outside the European Union to monitor and measure progress in the implementation of the Code.

Within this framework Member States undertook to continue the proceedings on standardising the information to appear on the certificates of final destination.

During the first half of 2002 Member States agreed on a common core of elements that should be found in a certificate of final destination when it is required by a Member State, concerning the export of goods included in the common list of military equipment. They also identified an additional set of elements, which might also be required in accordance with their national legislation. All such data are contained in a Compendium of Member States' agreed practices within the framework of the Code of Conduct which will be attached to the fourth annual report, due to be finalised and published before the end of 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2984/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 3 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) urges the Council to promote greater coverage of fishermen in Council Directive 93/104/EC on certain aspects of the organisation of working time, amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, so as to improve their protection.

Has the Commission taken any steps in this connection?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time(1) applies to all sectors of activity, both public and private, with the exception of air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea and the activities of doctors in training (excluded sectors).

These excluded sectors will in future be covered by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000(2), which will enter into force on 1 August 2003 (1 August 2004 for doctors in training).

For workers on board sea-going fishing vessels, Directive 2000/34/EC provides that the maximum number of hours of work or the minimum number of hours of rest shall be specified by law, regulations, administrative provisions or by collective agreements or agreements between the two sides of the industry within the limits laid down by the Directive: the number of hours of work shall not exceed 14 hours in any 24-hour period and 72 hours in any seven-day period while minimum hours of rest shall not be less than 10 hours in any 24-hour period and 77 hours in any seven-day period.

Article 3 of the Directive states that, not later than 1 August 2009, the Commission shall, after consulting the Member States and management and labour at European level, review the operation of the provisions for workers on board sea-going fishing vessels, and, in particular examine whether these provisions remain appropriate, particularly as far as health and safety are concerned, with a view to proposing any amendments felt to be necessary.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3242/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Level of EU appropriations for the funding of programmes for Roma in Greece

On 4 March 2002, the Greek government announced an Integrated action programme for the social integration of Greek gypsies with a budget of EUR 373,5 million for the period 2005-2008, which makes provision for measures in respect of housing, education, employment and social welfare for Roma and others. According to government announcements, the necessary resources will come from the Third CSF (approximately EUR 206 million) and national sources (EUR 166 million). The Greek branch of Helsinki Watch has complained that, at the beginning of June 2002, during a visit to Greece by the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Alvaro Gil Robles, the programme appeared to have a budget of only EUR 308 million.

In the light of the above, can the Commission state the actual overall level of appropriations allocated under the Second and Third CSF in Greece to programmes relating to Roma?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

The action programme for the social integration of the Greek gypsies is a national programme financed mainly by national resources. The Structural Funds may participate only for the part that is eligible for financing under the Structural Funds regulations.

In the framework of the Operational Programme Combating Exclusion from the Labour Market under the Community Structural Funds (CSF) 1994-1999 for Greece, a number of integrated projects and actions were implemented in support of the socio-economic integration of the Greek gypsies.

The European Social Funds (ESF) actions financed related to counselling, vocational orientation, vocational training and employment promotion, combined with the provision of accompanying services to facilitate their social and economic integration. The total cost of the actions implemented was approximately EUR 4,2 million.

In the framework of the Operational Programme Employment and Vocational Training under the CSF 2000-2006 for Greece, the national authorities have programmed the financing of targeted integrated interventions for the benefit of the Greek gypsies. The interventions aim at ensuring equal opportunities for the gypsies in accessing the labour market and providing the necessary conditions for their social integration.

The total cost of the above-mentioned interventions is estimated to be EUR 11,7 million. Approximately 1700 persons will benefit from the counselling, training and employment opportunities, together with the accompanying measures foreseen. A call for tenders is expected to be launched in the beginning of 2003.

However, in the framework of the third CSF the Greek gypsies can also benefit from other ESF financed integrated actions designed particularly to promote equal access to the labour market for all and especially for persons at risk of social exclusion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3389/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2002)

Subject: Progress with implementation of operational programme Competitiveness

According to information published in the Greek press concerning the operational programme Competitiveness, the contracts signed to date under that programme amount to 16,9 % of the total, while the expenditure disbursed totals 6,9 %.

Does the Commission agree with these figures? It is satisfied with the progress made in implementing this programme? What steps must be taken to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Under the rules the annual implementation report submitted to the Commission within six months of the end of each calendar year and the intermediate evaluation findings constitute the monitoring documents. It is on the basis of these reports that the Commission conveys its position on the progress of a programme.

According to the reports in question it is incumbent on the Monitoring Committee to propose what action ought to be taken to accelerate implementation of the Competitiveness Operational Programme.

The Commission has nonetheless under the partnership arrangements drawn the national authorities attention to certain possible improvements in the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3918/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: EU-wide health card

The Commission's action plan for skills and mobility(1) states (paragraph 3.2.1):

an EU-wide health card should be introduced, aimed at transforming the relevant European paper forms into an electronic card. Card holders will be able to claim access to immediately necessary health care in a Member State other than the one where they are insured, the latter being nevertheless responsible for the cost. The Commission will present a proposal for the introduction of an EU-wide health card early in 2003 for agreement by 2004.

The proposal was subsequently submitted to the March 2002 Barcelona European Council. Paragraph 33 of the latter's conclusions state that:

The European Council welcomes the Commission Action Plan

Does the Commission envisage an approximate date for the presentation of the proposal? What stage has been reached in the preparatory work? What will be the cost of introducing the EU-wide health card and how will it be financed?

(1) COM(2002) 72.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

After consulting the Member States within the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers, the Commission plans, by the end of February 2003, to adopt a communication on the introduction of the European health insurance card. This will put forward a timetable for gradually replacing the paper forms giving access to health care in another Member State under the coordination arrangements for national social security schemes provided for by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community(1).

On the question of the cost of introducing the European health insurance card, the Commission is not in a position to give a reply at this stage. The cost will depend on Member States' chosen means of introducing the card and the technology used, and will be borne by them individually. The communication referred to above, which will give details of the different options, will put the Member States in a better position to decide on the means of introducing and financing the card. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that replacing the paper forms with the European health insurance card will have major benefits for the Member States in terms of streamlining administration and accelerating reimbursement procedures. The overall cost of introducing the card should therefore also be seen against the productivity gains it will mean for the social security institutions.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.