ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0785/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: The importation of fish into the EU

In 2000, 405 000 tonnes of fish were imported into Italy, 56 % of which came from EU countries. The remaining 44 % came from third countries such as Argentina, Morocco, Thailand and Colombia.

Around a quarter of the fish imported from these countries is farmed. In view of the fact that in the EU there are regulations in force designed to safeguard the hygiene of the tanks used for fish farming, can the Commission say:

1. whether quality and hygiene checks are carried out on fish imported from third countries;

2. whether in the fisheries agreements signed with third countries the European Commission has provided for measures in line with those in force in the EU in order to ensure a high standard of health protection?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The import of fishery products from third countries is regulated since 1991 by Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(1).

1. This Directive establishes the sanitary conditions and the control checks to be carried out on fishery products to be marketed in the Community. This concerns both Community production and imports from third countries. The Directive provides that the health provisions applied to imports of fishery products from third countries shall be at least equivalent to those governing the Community production.

2. To lay down the specific import conditions of fishery products from a third country the Commission is required to verify the above equivalency, taking particular account of the following:

- the legislation of the third country;

- the organisation of the competent authority of the third country and of its inspection services;

- the actual health conditions during the production, storage and dispatch of fishery products intended for the Community;

- the guarantees given by the third country regarding the compliance with the standards laid down in the Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC.

After an evaluation mission by Community inspectors in the third country, if all the conditions are fulfilled, the competent authority of the third country is recognised by a Commission Decision. The competent authority is thus empowered to inspect fishery products on the basis of Community standards, and to sign health certificates for the export of such products to the Community.

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1882/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Sweden)

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 only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

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

- how many agricultural holdings in Sweden 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-0520/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Team Europe

Can the Commission provide details of the current situation of Team Europe? How many people in Sweden are currently involved in information work? Who are they? What is the recommended lecturer's fee? How is Team Europe marketed? What was the Commission's expenditure on Team Europe for the financial year 2000 and what are the estimated costs for the year 2001?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

Team Europe has 540 speakers throughout the Member States. They tend to be academics, researchers, consultants or people from different economic sectors, specialising in various aspects of European policy. The Team members give

lectures on the various aspects of Community policy, by request only, to schools and universities, the voluntary sector and trade organisations (chambers of commerce, professional associations, agricultural organisations, etc.).

The Swedish Team Europe is made up of 25 speakers.

The members of Team Europe are not paid by the Commission and there are no hard and fast rules on the subject. Their fees, if any, are in theory agreed in advance, on a case by case basis, between the organiser of the event and the Team Europe lecturer. Some talks are given free of charge, to schools or to the voluntary sector, for example.

Team Europe is marketed in several ways. At EU level, the Europa website includes a Team Europe webpage which is updated regularly and lists speakers by national team and by specialisation. Some Representations also have their own Team Europe page on their Internet site. Brochures on Team Europe have been produced and translated into all Community languages. They may be distributed by speakers in the course of their lectures. Finally, speakers take charge of their own publicity through networks of acquaintances and contacts.

The Commission provides support for the network in particular through its Help Desk (the Team Europe Information Service or TEIS) for lecturers. Its aim is to provide them with the documentation, information and training needed to ensure a top-quality network. The TEIS budget for the financial year 2000 (December 1999 to November 2000) was 667 148.30. There was also a meeting of all network members in September 2000 (cost: 139 098,26). The current financial year covers the period from December 2000 to September 2001; the budget allocated is 525 118.39.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1510/01

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Council President's statements in North Korea

During his visit to North Korea, the President of the Council, Göran Persson, described that country's dictator, Kim Jong Il, as a lively, well-informed and open man, according to the Swedish (pro-government) newspaper Aftonbladet.

Does the Council consider this to be an apt description of a tyrant with the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people on his conscience?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council has made no secret of its concerns regarding the human rights situation in North Korea. Those concerns form an integral part of the Union's policy towards North Korea. This was clear, for example, in the lines of action which the Council adopted in November 2000. The Council therefore welcomes the agreement reached with the DPRK during the recent high-level EU visit to Pyongyang to begin discussions on human rights issues. An exploratory meeting to this end was held between the EU and DPRK in Brussels on 13 June. The Council hopes that the DPRK will be ready to enter into a substantive dialogue, which will bring early, concrete and significant improvements to the dismal human rights and humanitarian situation in the country.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1593/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Funding for car-parks in Athens under the second and third CSF

What operations under the second Community Support Framework related to the construction of carparks in Athens, what was actually achieved by comparison with the original forecasts, what sums were antincipated and what actually spent? What plans for the construction of carparks in Athens are covered by the third CSF?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

No carpark construction in Athens has been part-financed under the Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece over the 1994-1999 programming period.

As regards the CSF for the current period (2000-2006), the Greek authorities responsible for the Operational Programme (OP) for Attica have not yet determined the measures and selection criteria for projects to be part-financed under the latter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: The Primarolo Group

1. Does the Primarolo Group still exist?

2. Does it continue to hold meetings? If so please could the Commission give details of the future meetings scheduled, including date and venue.

3. The Code of Conduct Group submitted its final report in November and must therefore have fulfilled the remit granted it by the Council in January 1998. If the Code of Conduct Group is still functioning, could the Commission explain why, given that the task assigned to the Group by the Council has now been completed?

4. What further remit has been granted to the Code of Conduct Group to enable it to extend its activities beyond the scope of the Council resolution of January 1998? What further tasks has the Group been given? Which Council meeting agreed to grant the Code of Conduct Group a New mandate and remit?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The Code of Conduct Group(1) was established by the Ecofin Council of 9 March 1998(2) to assess the tax measures that may fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct for business taxation(3). Accordingly, the Code of Conduct Group is a Council Group that was set up to operate within the framework of the Council. Therefore any questions concerning its work, mandate or remit should be addressed to the Council, not to the Commission.

(1) In common parlance and notably in the press coverage the Code of Conduct Group (business taxation) has often been referred to as the Primarolo Group.

(2) Ecofin Council conclusions of 9 March 1998 (OJ C 99, 1.4.1998).

(3) Ecofin Council conclusions of 1 December 1997 (OJ C 2, 6.1.1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1461/01

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Funding earmarked for nuclear energy research in the Sixth framework programme for research

The budget of the Sixth framework programme for research is due to grow by 17 % compared with the Fifth framework programme for research. However, it is intended that Euratom's share of the Sixth framework programme will be reduced by 2,5 % compared with the Fifth framework programme.

Bearing in mind the growing importance of nuclear energy for an overall solution to the energy question in Europe, what is the Commission's reason for such a marked reduction in the resources for research into nuclear energy?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission's proposals for the next framework programmes (FP) for research(1) have been substantially restructured in comparison with the previous ones in order to make a reality of the European research area.

One of the main principles of the proposals is concentration on a selected number of priority research areas in which Community action can add the greatest possible value.

As regards research in the fields of nuclear waste treatment and storage, radiation protection and innovative concepts for new and safer processes of exploitation of nuclear energy, the level of Community funding remains as a whole roughly unchanged. The focus on nuclear waste should allow to assemble research efforts in the Community into a critical mass and to provide a common basis of knowledge available to waste management organisations.

The budget for fusion research was reduced from 788 million in the Fifth framework programme on Research and Technological Development of the Community to 700 million. The Commission proposal confirms the reactor orientation of the fusion energy research and reinforces the co-ordination at European level in the framework of the European Research Area. It gives a high priority to the realisation of the Next Step in the context of the international co-operation on the International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor (ITER) project and to the common use of the Joint European Torus (JET) Facilities. It emphasises Community support to multilateral projects with european added value and anticipates that Member States will bear a larger fraction of the programmes carried out at the national level by the associations.

The approach taken in the new Euratom framework programme proposal is in line with the Commission's Green Paper Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply(2).

(1) COM(2001) 94 final.

(2) COM(2000) 769 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0132/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Employees

1. How many full time and part-time employees have been employed by the Commission in each year for the last ten years?

2. How many self-employed people held short-term contracts with the Commission in each year for the last ten years?

3. What proportion of the total complement of the EU institutions' staff was constituted by Commission staff in each year for the last ten years?

4. What proportion of Commission staff were involved in interpretation and translation (specifying each separately) in each year for the last ten years?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

On December, 31 of each year, the Commission employed:

>TABLE>

The table comprises the officials and temporary staff in active employment, all budgets mixed (Administration, Research and Technological Development, Office for Official Publications and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)).

This question relates to a multitude of different types of contracts covering situations and tasks that are not comparable and the management of budget lines that permit the contracting of experts for short-term missions is decentralised to Directorates General. Such contracts could include short-term consultancy assignments, technical support for evaluations of proposals, conference assistance as well as many other types of technical assistance ranging from a few days to several months. Most of such assignments are carried out outside of Commission offices. Further clarifications of the specific types of contract which the Honourable Member has in mind are therefore required before any precise answer can be given.

Since the Commission does not have access to the exact staff numbers of the other Institutions, the share of posts in the Commission's establishment plan in relation to the total number of posts in the establishment plans of all the Institutions is given below:

>TABLE>

Commission: all budgets (Administration, Research and Technological Development, Office for Official Publications, OLAF, European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions)

Institutions: Commission, Parliament and European Ombudsman, Council, Court of Justice, Court of Auditors, Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions and Joint organisational structure.

The proportion of Commission staff involved in interpretation and translation is as follows:

>TABLE>

The table comprises the officials and temporary staff in active employment, all budgets mixed (Administration, Research and Technological Development, Office for Official Publications and OLAF).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/01

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

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Community budget contribution to religious faiths in the EU

Each Member State's budget includes provision for contributions from public funds to assist the various religious faiths present in that state or to support various charitable works.

This is in response to the wishes of taxpayers who want to see a certain amount of their taxes allocated to the funding either of the religious faith of which they are members or to a charitable work in the country or region to which they belong.

Has the Commission considered, as part of its social assistance measures, providing funds from the EU budget to support the religious faiths to which Community citizens belong?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2001)

The ways in which the Member States assist religious denominations are quite varied. Although in a minority of cases the fiscal system is directly used for this purpose, the more usual arrangement is that the Member States consider voluntary donations as tax-deductible, and give direct assistance for specified activities and charitable work. The religious denominations and their agents may carry out such work and in this way the religious denominations may receive a benefit. Community funds are also disbursed for many activities which religious denominations or their agents may carry out. The Commission sees no need to complement this with other budget support, neither is there any such request from the religious denominations themselves.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1560/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Recognition of the Dolomites as part of the World Heritage

Unesco is currently considering the inclusion of the Alps in the World Heritage list.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to give further support to this initiative in view of the fact that the Alpine region covers a number of the Member States and therefore official support by the Commission would in any event be justified?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Commission would welcome the inclusion of the Alps in the World Heritage List under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco's) 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Such inclusion would indeed constitute a global recognition of the importance of the Alps as a prime natural resource, which deserves to benefit from the protection and the advantages such inclusion brings about.

As the Community is not a party to the World Heritage Convention, the request to include the Alps would benefit most from appropriate official support by those Member States which are directly affected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2057/01

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Directive 1999/44/EC concerning guarantees on consumer goods: inadequate protection of shopkeepers

Directive 1999/44/EC(1) requires shopkeepers to give consumers two years' guarantee on the consumer goods they sell. Suppliers, importers or manufacturers, on the other hand, are not subject to any statutory guarantee obligation towards the shopkeeper. Consequently, shopkeepers have to rely on the good will of their suppliers when they are required to repair or replace a faulty product. In practice, retailers often have to bear the cost of repair or replacement themselves. To bring legal action often takes too long and is too expensive.

Does not the Commission consider that it is unbalanced and unreasonable to impose such stringent guarantee obligations on shopkeepers when the latter do not have the same means of redress against the manufacturer or importer of the faulty product? Has the Commission already considered this imbalance in the existing legislation, and has it received any other complaints about it? Does it not think that the legislation ought also to give the shopkeeper certain rights if he has bought a faulty product from his supplier?

(1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Article 4 of Directive 1999/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, provides the final seller with a right of redress directed against other members of the distribution chain. Article 4 stipulates that, where the final seller is liable to the consumer because of a lack of conformity resulting from an act or omission by the producer, a previous seller in the same chain of contracts or any other intermediary, the final seller shall be entitled to pursue remedies against the person or persons liable in the contractual chain. The person or persons liable against whom the final seller may pursue remedies, together with the relevant actions and conditions of exercise, shall be determined by national law.

It is therefore up to the Member States' legislation to provide effective means of redress for the final seller.

However, the contractual relationship between the final seller and the person in the distribution chain from whom he/she buys - being a contract between two traders - is governed by the principle of freedom of contract. Therefore it is possible that the legal rights of the seller are restricted by way of contract. This has been clarified by recital 9 of the Directive.

For the Honorable Member's information, the Directive is to be put into effect by means of the national implementing measures from 1 January 2002.

Disputes and complaints arising from transactions regulated by the Directive's implementing measures will have to be addressed within the scope of the national legal systems of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1490/01

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Equal treatment for schools in other Member States regarding tax deductibility

Article 10(1)(9) of the Income Tax Act states that, in the Federal Republic of Germany, thirty per cent of the fee paid by a taxpayer for attendance by a child,

in respect of which he receives child allowance or child benefit, at a substitute school approved by the State or authorised under Land law in accordance with Article 7(4) of the Basic Law may be treated as tax-deductible expenditure. This does, not, however apply in respect of schools in other Member States.

Does the Commission take the view that this is compatible with freedom of movement of services regarding school attendance?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2001)

The Commission is currently examining the problem on the basis of a recent complaint on the same issue. If necessary it will decide whether to initiate infringement proceedings under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1876/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (the United Kingdom)

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 only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom 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.