ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3833/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Farm Retirement Scheme

1. Why was the principle of indexation not incorporated in either the old or the current Early Farm Retirement Scheme?

2. Does the Commission accept that the monetary value of the pensions now being received by farmers who joined in 1994 has been seriously eroded and that the absence of indexation is causing a reluctance in many older farmers to hand over the reins to a younger, more productive and better educated generation on the land?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Neither the superseded Council Regulation (EEC) No 2079/92(1) nor the legislation now in force, namely Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(2), prohibit the use of indexation in the early retirement scheme. If a Member State wishes to introduce indexation into its rural development programme in order to guarantee recipients the same income in real terms throughout the support period it may do so provided that the maximum aid levels set in the Regulation are respected.

It must be noted that with introduction of the new Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 the early retirement scheme became much more financially attractive.

The maximum amount that Member States can grant per recipient has been greatly increased by comparison with the old scheme (from EUR 10 000 to EUR 15 000 per transferor per year). The total period during which compensation can be paid was raised from 10 to 15 years and the transferor can receive it up to the age of 75 years (70 years under the old legislation). Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 also allows the annual ceiling to be doubled. The overall ceiling per transferor set at EUR 150 000 cannot however be altered.

The early retirement scheme, like the other rural development measures, will be reviewed in preparation for the post-2006 period.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2079/92 of 30 June 1992 introducing a Community aid scheme for early retirement from farming, OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3666/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Accident involving the tanker Moskovskiy Festival

During the last weekend in November, the single-hulled tanker the Moskovskiy Festival, built in 1985 and flying the Maltese flag, was intercepted by Spanish and Portuguese warships as it was passing Gibraltar and escorted out of the 200 nautical mile exclusion zone.

This action stems from the intention of France, Spain and Portugal to ban single-hulled tankers from entering their territorial waters.

However, the Moskovskiy Festival had passed a thorough inspection carried out on 30 October 2002 at Santa Cruz in Tenerife, Spain !

Will the Commission therefore take measures against this unilateral decision by three Member States of the European Union which constitutes a serious breach of and lack of respect for Community law?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3666/02 and E-3667/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

In its communication of 3 December 2002(1), the Commission expressed its concern about ships that are already avoiding European Union ports in order to evade inspections and are continuing to sail off our coasts, including in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of the Member States. The Commission called on the Member States to take coordinated action and come up with solutions to protect their coastal waters, particularly the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone, against ships which are a threat to the marine environment.

The Member States must be able to defend their coast against the threat which could be posed by manifestly sub-standard ships or ships which are a major risk to the environment. In this context, and as stated in its communication of 3 December 2002, the Commission will take steps to have the International Convention on the Law of the Sea re-examined.

During its meeting of 6 December 2002, the Transport Council unanimously approved these guidelines and also confirmed its intention to ban single hull tankers transporting heavy fuel oil from European Union ports.

In this context, on 20 December 2002, the Commission sent Parliament and the Council a proposal for a regulatio(2) prohibiting the transport of heavy oil products in single hull tankers leaving or bound for ports of the Union and to speed up the timetable for phasing out single hull tankers adopted as part of the Erika-I package.

The Commission has asked Parliament and the Council to examine this text as a matter of urgency with a view to it being adopted at the Transport Council of 27 March 2003.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2) COM(2002) 780.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3835/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Procedure for designation of protected areas (ZEPAs)

The biodiversity which characterises the Canary Islands (which have the status of one of the EU's most remote regions) has consistently been recognised by the international scientific community: the islands are living museums of relictic species which once occupied the face of the earth and survived the Tertiary ice age, which so deeply affected the planet's sea and land ecosystems.

Numerous unique habitats in the Canary Islands have, in recognition of their importance for the study of nature, been declared Sites of Community Interest (SCIs) and incorporated in the Natura 2000 network, following a procedure based, in the view of the experts, on the provision of high-quality information and strict rules for declaration.

Nonetheless, certain scientists are of the opinion that those same criteria strict rules and high-quality information have been lacking in the procedure for the designation of the protected areas known as ZEPAs (special bird protection zones).

Would it not be desirable for the Commission, when designating ZEPAs, to make use of the same criteria of properly organised information, and the same procedure, as are employed for SCIs?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The Honourable Member has expressed his concern regarding the system and the criteria that the Commission uses for special protection area (SPA) designation.

According to provisions of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) a site is classified as a special protection area for conservation of the birds, SPA, by Member States and not by the Commission.

The Birds Directive states that Member States shall classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protected areas for the conservation of birds, taking into account their protection requirements in the geographical sea and land area where the Directive applies.

In relation to the criteria for classifying an area as a SPA, the Birds Directive does not specify very detailed criteria for the identification of the sites. The approach for SPAs cannot therefore be the same as for the Habitats Directive(2) where the text has included a detailed list of eligibility criteria. Nevertheless, the Birds Directive states the obligation to choose the most suitable areas. Similar measures must be taken for regularly migratory species not listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive. Finally Member States shall pay particular attention to the protection of wetlands and particularly to wetlands of international importance.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1664/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Participants in the European Conventions

Could the Commission please detail which of the organisations and networks of organisations taking part in the Forum of the European Convention are funded or part-funded, directly or indirectly, by the Commission or other European Union institution?

Supplementary answergiven by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Further to the preliminary answer sent to the Honourable Member, the Commission is sending direct to him and to Parliament's Secretariat a detailed analysis of the Union's accounts for each of the 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 financial years, which provides the requested information for each of the organisations concerned. This analysis was conducted using the Sincom2 accounting system.

The Commission has registered 1 575 payments, totalling EUR 154,5 million, to 139 organisations throughout the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Seychelles

With regard to Seychelles, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2110/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Absence of statistics for Greece

Euro-Indicators No 48/2002, published by Eurostat, lists internal trade and total exports for the Member States of the Union. The figures produced are complete and highly informative and cover the period up to January 2002 even in respect of countries which are not members of the Union, such as Russia, Poland, Turkey and others. Surprisingly, however, there are no statistics for Greece or Luxembourg (EU Member States) for 2002 in respect of their total imports and exports and their balance of trade.

What are the reasons for this absence of statistics? With particular reference to Greece, is the Commission satisfied with the flow and quality of statistics from the Greek authorities? Has it encountered problems with delays in the notification of statistics to its departments and Eurostat and with which particular data? Are there more general problems associated with the reliability of the data and, if so, what are they?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

1. With regard to Luxembourg, the absence of data for January 2002 in Euro-Indicators No 48/2002 was caused by a delay in the transmission of the data to Eurostat, resulting from a change in the data processing application at the beginning of 2002. This problem has since been resolved and the data transmission deadlines are now being respected.

In the case of Greece, a delay in the transmission of data to Eurostat also explains the absence of data for January 2002. There are two main reasons for the frequent delays: the significant proportion of declarations transmitted on paper, and the lack of suitable resources to process these declarations.

2. The Commission (Eurostat) is not happy with the transmission of data by Greece, as it is failing to meet the regulatory deadlines. Eurostat has drawn the attention of the Greek authorities to this matter on a number of occasions.

Eurostat considers the quality of the Greek data to be comparable to that of most other Member States.

3. The Commission (Eurostat) has identified delays in the transmission of both intra-Community and extra-Community statistics by Greece. With regard to the latter, it should be emphasised that the statistical declarations are collected and processed by the customs authority (Ministry of Finance), and then validated and transmitted to Eurostat by the Greek Statistical Office.

Eurostat is aware of this arrangement and is paying close attention to the efforts being made by Greece to deal with the situation regarding transmission deadlines.

Depending on the results for the coming months, Eurostat will, if necessary, step up its representations to the Greek authorities.

4. The Commission (Eurostat) has no specific comments to make regarding the reliability of the Greek data.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3722/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Vanuatu

With reference to Vanuatu, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2776/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: Seizure of the fishing vessel Viduido

On 1 September last the Community fishing vessel Viduido was seized by Moroccan patrol boats when it was returning, in accordance with its right of innocent passage under the Law of the Sea, from the port of Las Palmas through waters administered by the Kingdom of Morocco. The Viduido had been fishing in Mauritanian fishing grounds under the terms of the fisheries agreement between the EU and Mauritania. This is the sixth time a Community vessel has been seized by Moroccan patrol boats in less than a year.

Does the Commission not consider that these seizures are unlawful, in that they contravene the current provisions of the International Law of the Sea?

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take, in particular via its delegation in Morocco, to support the crew and bring about the release of the Viduido?

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take, in particular vis-à-vis the Kingdom of Morocco, to ensure that there are no more seizures of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

The seizure of Spanish vessels by a State with which the Community has not concluded a fishery agreement is an issue which falls outside the competencies of the Communities and which must find its solution in a bilateral framework. The Commission supports a solution based on dialogue. The Commission has enquired with the Moroccan authorities who have assured that they will continue to remain in close contact which their Spanish counterparts to handle individual cases as quickly and smoothly as possible.

The Commission is pleased to know that the issue has been solved in the meantime and that the vessel is released.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3719/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Tuvalu

With reference to Tuvalu, will the Commission draw up a list of the projects approved for financing under the 2001 EU budget and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1720/02

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

(13 June 2002)

Subject: European Public Prosecutor

What are the latest developments in the creation of the office of the European Public Prosecutor?

Have any Member States sent an opinion on the Green Paper to the Commission?

Will the Commission provide the European Parliament with Member States' comments as soon as they have been received?

Does the Commission feel that the creation of the European Public Prosecutor is inevitable and when does the Commission foresee its creation and implementation?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The Commission on 11 December 2001 adopted the Green Paper on the European Public Prosecutor, and over 11 000 copies of the Green Paper have been distributed. It has promoted national and international debates (16 events have taken place; about six others are planned), and a public hearing organised by the Commission is scheduled for 16/17 September 2002 in Brussels.

The end of the consultation period was 1 June 2002. However, additional answers are expected after the deadline. Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden have sent an official opinion to the Commission. Other Member States are also preparing an opinion on this matter. Comments can be reviewed on the Europa Web-site, under OLAF and the Green Paper: http://europa.eu.int/comm/anti_fraud/green_paper/contributions/date.html.

The Commission has given substantive reasons why the European Public Prosecutor is needed both in its proposal to the Intergovernmental conference at Nice and in its Green Paper. Under the EC Treaty, the Commission is responsible, before the Budgetary Authority, for implementing the budget (Articles 274 and 276 of the EC Treaty). Protection of the Community's financial interests must be effective, dissuasive and equivalent in all Member States (Article 280 of the EC Treaty). The Community must guarantee to Member States and to Europe's taxpayers that offences of fraud and corruption are effectively prosecuted in the courts. In order to create the European Public Prosecutor, the EC Treaty must be amended and secondary law must be adopted. The Commission will publish a Communication in End 2002/early 2003 on the basis of the results of the debate on the Green Paper.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2066/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Unequal treatment of Greek citizens subject to military service

Under a current Greek-German convention (Law 4187/61), Greek nationals who also hold German citizenship are exempt from the obligation to perform military service in Greece as long as they live and work permanently in Germany. In other cases, e.g. Greeks with Austrian citizenship, the law requires that they perform full military service in the Greek army even if they have already served in the Austrian army. Moreover, pursuant to Article 7 of Law 1763/88 and the transitional provisions of Law 2510/97, Greek residents holding permanent work permits in countries such as the USA, Canada and Australia with the exception of Europe are entitled to unconditional exemption from conscription and free entry into and exit from Greece until they repatriate, provided their permit was issued before 1 September 1997, which is prejudicial to Greek citizens who acquired immigrant status in those countries after that date and to those living in European countries even if, in the meantime, they have become naturalised citizens of their country of residence.

Given that the current law on military service discriminates against Greek citizens living and working permanently abroad with their families, while being blatantly contrary to the EU Treaty and Community law, will the Commission say what steps it will take

to resolve the problem of the evasion of military service in Greece, thus upholding the principle of equality before the law and the rights of European citizens subject to military service? Will the Commission intervene to secure a review of the current Greek legislation on military service?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2002)

The Commission notes that the matters raised by the Honourable Member concerning nationality and military service are the exclusive responsibility of the Member States.

In addition, it is impossible to establish the existence of a serious and persistent breach within the meaning of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union.

Consequently, the Commission takes the view that it is not entitled to take the measures suggested by the Honourable Member vis-à-vis the Greek authorities.