ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0258/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure a standard level of protection for the purposes of the draft Directive on the Right of Resale to ensure that they are in conformity with the provisions of Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community in the implementation of the draft Directive by the Member States, with particular regard to tax treatment?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The Honourable Member is concerned about the possible effects on the internal market of certain aspects of the resale right left unharmonised under the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art(1).

The aim of this proposal is to set up a harmonised legal framework on the right of resale to ensure the smooth running of the market in modern and contemporary works of art within the European Community.

In order to meet its obligations under Article 5 of the EC Treaty, the Commission has taken care in its proposal to limit the planned harmonisation to cover simply the disparities in legislation which distort the running of the internal market, and to prevent the emergence of new disparities which could have the same effect. In the explanatory memorandum to this proposal, the Commission justifies its choices from a legal and economic standpoint. The Council took up and expanded this line of reasoning in its Common Position of 19 June 2000(2).

In Article 11 of its Common Position, the Council provides for the establishment of a Contact Committee, in particular, to organise consultations on all questions deriving from the application of this Directive.

The same Article stipulates that the Commission is to submit within a given period all proposals it may deem necessary in order to enhance the effectiveness of this Directive. This provision therefore makes it possible to ensure that the Directive is applied correctly and, where necessary, to put forward additional provisions. Such proposals would not affect the field of taxation insofar as this Directive is intended as a measure to harmonise intellectual property rights and does not impinge upon the tax regimes of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 178, 21.6.1996.

(2) OJ C 300, 20.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1306/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Foreign exchange charges

1. Is the Commission satisfied that customers of foreign exchange bureaux in the European Community are properly made aware of the charges which can be incurred?

2. What measures is it taking to ensure that such offices are competitive and offer value for money to consumers, particularly in smaller Member States where there may be only a few financial institutions operating in the market?

3. Given the very high charges sometimes levied, does it consider that there are grounds for the regulation of small transactions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2001)

With regard to informing customers about the charges levied by foreign exchange bureaux, the rules are different depending on whether or not the Member State is part of the euro zone:

- In the Member States belonging to the euro zone, the legislation on the euro applies for the exchange of notes from the zone. The official exchange rate must be used. The charges levied by exchange bureaux are shown separately as a percentage or as a fixed amount. There is no Community legislation, however, with regard to the exchange of non-euro notes.

- In the Member States that do not belong to the euro zone, the Community legislation on the euro does not apply unless the notes that are bought and sold come from the euro zone.

- Quite apart from their membership of the euro zone, several Member States have introduced rules so that charges are displayed to inform consumers before any transaction. At this stage, the Commission does not think that there is any need for Community harmonisation of laws on informing consumers in this field.

The Commission would point out to consumers that the use of automatic teller machines (ATMs) in the Member State of destination may be a less expensive way of obtaining cash.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0704/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 March 2001)

Subject: Human rights abuses in Pakistan

What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that the human rights abuses which are taking place in Pakistan in the name of political reform are discontinued? Since Pakistan's transition from constitutional to military rule, the Musharraf government has detained

opponents and former officials without charge, removed independent judges from the higher courts, banned public rallies and demonstrations, and rendered political parties all but powerless. The sweeping powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution conferred on the National Accountability Bureau by the National Accountability Ordinance are other causes for concern.

Reply

(16 July 2001)

In the wake of the military coup in autumn 1999, the Council suspended signature of the EC-Pakistan Cooperation Agreement and interrupted the regular political dialogue. Possibilities for direct formal interaction with the regime in Islamabad are therefore limited. However, the Council has on two occasions - November 1999 and November 2000 - sent a high-level ad hoc mission to Pakistan, which raised the various preoccupations mentioned in the Honourable Member's question during talks with General Musharraf, Government Ministers, senior officials and other interlocutors, in particular representatives of countries which share the same beliefs and of the international financial institutions present in Islamabad. The EU has put special emphasis on the need to respect human rights, on freedom of expression and on an independent judiciary. The EU has also impressed on its Pakistani interlocutors the need for a speedy and full return to representative democracy. More recently, similar concerns were raised at the Pakistan Development Forum held in Islamabad from 12 to 15 March 2001.

On behalf of the European Union, the Presidency wrote twice to the Pakistani Minister for the Interior to express the EU's concerns over the continued application of the ban on outdoor political rallies in Pakistan, in April and again in May 2001.

The Council will continue to monitor the situation closely, in particular the announced return to parliamentary democracy by means of elections to be held at local, provincial and national level by October 2002. The Council will also continue to intervene in an appropriate manner where necessary, in particular by making confidential representations. The EU Heads of Mission in Islamabad will raise individual cases in the course of their regular contacts with the authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0688/01

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

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Fisheries

On 1 February 2001 the Commission opened an investigation into a number of Member States, including Spain, on the grounds that they had provided low-interest loans to fishermen particularly affected by the continual increases in the price of the diesel fuel used by their vessels.

On the basis of what data and criteria has the Commission opened this investigation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2001)

As in the case of any aid scheme concerning the fisheries and aquaculture sector, the aid measures for fishermen in Spain following the rise in the cost of the fuel were analysed in the light of the Commission guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture(1). The basic criterion adopted by the Commission in its decision to formally open a procedure with regard to these measures is that these are operating aids which are in principle incompatible with the common market.

The guidelines have just been replaced by those adopted by the Commission on 29 November 2000(2). These new guidelines contain the same general principle that operating aids are incompatible with the common market.

(1) OJ C 100, 27.3.1997.

(2) OJ C 19, 20.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0642/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 March 2001)

Subject: The European Parliament and the proposed EU Constitution

In connection with the reform of the Treaties which was decided upon in Nice and which is scheduled for 2004, the European Parliament is, according to the Commission, the appropriate body to draw up democratically and submit the necessary texts, which may be constitutional in nature. Is the Council therefore going to take decisions acknowledging Parliament's central role in this matter?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

As the Honourable MEP is probably aware, the IGC at level of Heads of State and government adopted at Nice a declaration on the future of the Union. This declaration calls for a vast public debate under the auspices of the Swedish and Belgian presidencies, in cooperation with the Commission and involving the European Parliament. This debate was formally launched on 7 March 2001 by the Prime Ministers of Sweden, and Belgium and the Presidents of the European Parliament and the European Commission.

As far as the next steps are concerned, the declaration on the future of the Union adopted at Nice states that, following a report to be drawn up for the European Council in Göteborg in June 2001, the European Council, in its meeting in Laeken/Brussels in December 2001, will agree on a declaration containing appropriate initiatives for the continuation of the process. In these circumstances, the Honourable MEP can easily understand why the Council cannot add anything new at this time on the specific content of the procedure as such procedure will have to be defined. In any event, the final step of this process will be an IGC in application of Article 48 of the TEU.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1925/01

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Export licences for cereals

On a number of occasions in the past marketing year the Commission has refused grain export licences despite the fact that these exports require no export refund from the European Union. This has had the effect of depressing prices on the European cereals market.

Why does the Commission not give licences automatically for cereals exports with zero refunds? Is the Commission aware that refusing licences has the effect of lowering prices on the European cereals market? Is the Commission prepared to do something about this?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

On only one occasion has the Commission rejected an application for an export licence not attracting a refund under an invitation to tender for export refunds, and that was on technical grounds. In that instance, moreover, the exporters were able as always to apply for and obtain export licences not attracting refunds outside the scope of the invitation to tender. Licences without refunds valid for 30 days are issued unrestrictedly by the Member States on the day the operators submit their applications.

Since the Agenda 2000 reforms have come into force, the Commission can apply restrictive measures in trade with non-member countries solely in the event of serious disturbance that is likely to upset the balance of the internal market in cereals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1421/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Organised crime and the exploitation of animals

A report drawn up by LAV (the Italian Anti-Vivisection League) paints a disturbing picture of the exploitation of animals (dog fights, illegal horse-racing, trading in exotic animal species, etc) which in Italy alone brings in around Lit 5 thousand billion annually for criminal organisations.

In view of the lack of provisions to restrict and stop this phenomenon, can the Commission say whether it is at least aware of it?

If it is, can it offer any explanations concerning the steps it intends to take to combat it?

How does it intend to justify its long silence on the subject, which in effect leaves criminal organisations free to operate undisturbed?

Does it not consider that stricter checks on stock farms, kennels and frontiers, as regards trafficking in exotic animals, might constitute an initial response to those who exploit animals as a form of illegal business?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As far as the protection of animals is concerned, the competences of the Community are limited to certain areas that do not cover all the activities mentioned in the question of the Honourable Member. Cruelty to animals involved in dog fighting or illegal horseracing is a domain that falls under the sole responsibility of the Member States.

In addition, it should be noted that, when the Community competences cover an activity such as the protection of endangered species, the role of the Commission is primarily to secure the adoption of appropriate legislation and ensure its application by Member States. Member States are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement of Community legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0976/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Shellfish hygiene directive

Could the Commission confirm when and if the main shellfish-producing countries such as France, Ireland and the Netherlands are intending to implement Annex III, paragraph 2, (of COM(2000) 438 final of 14 July 2000) of the new sanitary survey provisions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Council Directive 91/492/EEC of 15 July 1991, lays down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs(1).

The document referred to by the Honourable Member is one of several proposals for a recast of Community hygiene rules which are now the subject of consideration by the Parliament and by the Council. The final text of the recast proposals will only be known upon completion of the co-decision process now underway.

The present requirements in relation to determination of the faecal contamination level of a production area for live bivalve molluscs are set down in Chapter I of the Annex to Council Directive 91/492/EEC and all the Member States must apply these rules.

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0994/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Application of the Landfill Directive

Does the Commission believe that it is realistic to expect Member States to comply with the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC(1)) when landfill acceptance criteria will not be adopted until April 2001?

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2001)

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, must be transposed into national law by Member States by 16 July 2001.

The Commission and the Member States are working on a uniform waste classification and acceptance procedure.

The Directive takes into account that the uniform waste classification and acceptance procedure will not enter into force on 16 July 2001 and provides general principles and a preliminary acceptance procedure in its Annex II to be applied in the meantime.

For these reasons the Commission does not consider the difference in these dates as a possible problem for the implementation of the Landfill Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0555/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Competition

AT the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Competition provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1294/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: EU plan to designate the Severn estuary as a Special Area of Conservation

Could the Commission explain why it is planning to designate the entire Severn estuary in the south west of England as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive?

This could have a major impact on the continued development of the port of Bristol, which lies on the Severn estuary. In other EU Member States, only specific parts of estuaries are designated as SACs, and the navigation channels are excluded, allowing ports to cater for larger ships.

Will the Commission confirm that it will treat the port of Bristol in the same way as other EU ports?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) is a matter that is under the competence of the Member States. The procedure leading to site designation is described in Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1). Each Member State must propose a list of sites for protection under the Directive. The Commission then establishes a list of sites of Community importance in agreement with the Member States. Member States then designate these sites as Special Areas of Conservation. Therefore, the proposal and, if included on the Community list, ultimate designation of the Severn Estuary as a Special Area of Conservation falls under the responsibility of the United Kingdom.

The selection of Natura 2000 sites, including the definition of site boundaries, is exclusively based on scientific criteria. Economically sensitive areas, such as navigation channels, should not be excluded if they form part of a site on the basis of scientific evidence. In cases where the Commission receives complaints, with clear evidence that these provisions have not been respected by a Member State, it will carry out the necessary investigations.

The management and protection of sites in Natura 2000 is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The Directive provides clear procedures for dealing with proposed plans and projects, not necessary to the management of the Natura 2000 site, but that are likely to have a significant effect on it. These provisions apply to developments in any port that may adversely affect a Natura 2000 site, even if they take place outside the site.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1954/01

by Gianni Vattimo (PSE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Violation of the principle of equality of access to Mount Athos

Since the 11th century women have been prohibited from entering Mount Athos and its monastery. Law 2623 of 1953 recognises the legitimacy of this ban and imposes penalties in the event of its violation.

The whole area of Mount Athos has been declared a world heritage site by Unesco, but the ban nonetheless continues, despite the fact that cultural sites should be open to the whole of society. Within the European Union there is now a substantial body of legislation to combat discrimination on grounds of gender including the recent 2001-2006 action programme against discrimination.

Does the Commission not consider that this ban is a violation of the individual rights of women and is in breach of Community legislation? Are there any plans to remedy this situation, bearing in mind that Mount Athos receives Community funds for its upkeep?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1055/01 by Mr Ford(1).

(1) See p. 194.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0861/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Implementing committees

Will the Commission provide a list of all EU implementing committees set up under Article 202, together with their terms of reference (and the legislation from which they derive), the frequency of their meetings, the names of the current members, the availability of its papers and minutes, and indicate whether meetings are open to the public?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

The Honourable Member will find most of the information he requests in the List of committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing

powers(1). The frequency of meetings varies depending on the committee and whether or not any implementing measures need to be taken; it would be impossible to provide any reliable information on this point. Nonetheless, partial information for 2000 will be available in the annual report which the Commission will submit in June 2001, in accordance with Council Decision 468/1999 of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(2). Delegates to meetings are appointed by Member States, sometimes for a fixed period and sometimes depending on the subjects to be discussed. Consequently, it is impossible to provide a meaningful and complete list of those attending. The availability of committee documents is governed by Article 7 of the above Decision, the agreement between Parliament and the Commission reached in implementation of the latter, and, where these are not applicable, by the framework agreement between the two institutions. The meetings are not public.

(1) OJ C 225, 8.8.2000.

(2) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999.