ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3494/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Council

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Massacre in Nigeria

The tragic events in Nigeria (which resulted in the deaths of over 200 Christians, the torching of buildings and the destruction of churches and shops) are a particularly urgent reminder of the seriousness of an international situation in which extreme violence breaks out whenever an attempt is made to impose sharia as the law of the state. Although each country is entitled to uphold its own traditions, Europe cannot ignore brutal, inhumane violations of human rights, the dignity of the individual and the freedom of belief and expression which lead to mass murder and the destruction of property, such as has just occurred in Nigeria and which could occur in the future in any other country in which Islamic fundamentalist organisations operate.

1. Does the Council not think that political sanctions should be imposed whenever similar massacres are carried out in the name of religion?

2. What action does the Council intend to take in order to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future?

Reply

(4 March 2003)

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion is enshrined in core International Human Rights Instruments including UN human rights conventions. The EU condemns persecution of people because of their faith or belief, in all circumstances. The EU takes every opportunity to urge States to pursue laws and practices, which foster tolerance and mutual respect, and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks. Specific cases of religious persecution are raised regularly with the governments concerned, both in bilateral contacts as well as in multilateral forum, such as at the annual meetings of the UN Commission on Human Rights and of the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.

In the case of Nigeria, while obviously being concerned about recent outbursts of violence, the EU nonetheless welcomes the Federal Government's efforts to ascertain that Nigerian law is in compliance with international human rights covenants. The EU is also encouraged by the peaceful and legal action taken by both Muslim and Christian human rights groups in Nigeria on these issues. The EU has conveyed to the Nigerian authorities its willingness to continue the dialogue that is taking place in the framework of its partnership with Nigeria, with a view to strengthening the existing processes in Nigeria towards a consolidation of democracy and the respect for human rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3861/02

by Barbara Weiler (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Introduction of a European Disabled Person's Pass

It would be sensible to introduce a uniform European Disabled Person's Pass during the European Year of the Disabled. This would also be an important step forward from the point of view of mobility.

A European initiative should be possible on the basis of Article 13 of the EC Treaty (prohibition of discrimination). Does the Commission intend to submit a proposal along these lines? If so, when will it do so?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

The question raised by the Honourable Member does not concern an issue pertaining to discrimination on grounds of disability. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that Article 13 cannot be used to legislate on the matter raised in the written question. Moreover, the Council has made clear its view that the rules for assigning cards to persons with disabilities are the responsibility of the Member States(1). Consequently, the Commission does not intend to make a proposal on this matter.

(1) Council Recommendation (98/376/EC) of 4 June 1998 OJ L 167, 12.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2768/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: Pay-as-you-drive

From 2004, the British insurer Norwich Union wishes to introduce a pay-as-you-drive car insurance scheme in Europe. The idea is that insurance premiums should be calculated on the basis of the actual use made of a vehicle. Cars would have to be equipped with a system which recorded locations and routes driven.

What is the Commission's view of this initiative?

Does the Commission agree with Norwich Union that this system will make insurance premiums more equitable and cheaper for people who do not use their cars so much?

Will the Commission take measures to regulate this new insurance formula, and if so, what measures?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2002)

The Commission sees no problem from the insurance perspective with an insurer introducing a pay-as-you-drive system, as mentioned by the Honourable Member, for the calculation of premiums for motor insurance contracts. Indeed, the objective of adjusting the amount of the premium to actual vehicle use may be beneficial for policyholders in general terms, provided the driver remains properly insured.

However, as the Honourable Member may be aware, the Community legislative framework for financial services including insurance products, is based on the principle of freedom of tariff. The Commission therefore believes that the cost of motor insurance premiums should be determined by the market. The Commission does not consider that its role is to take measures to impose a particular method of premium calculation, as suggested by the Honourable Member, but rather to improve the efficiency of the single insurance market as described in the Financial Services Action Plan. The Commission is persuaded that increased competition should help the consumer to find lower prices, as well as a wider and innovative choice of product.

However, the proposed method may raise data protection concerns in view of the General Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC(1) and the new Directive 2002/58/EC on Privacy and electronic communications(2), in particular with regard to the proportionality principle and the specific provisions on the use of location data. It is therefore advisable that anybody developing such an instrument should do so in close consultation with their Data Protection Authority to ensure that it is in conformity with Data Protection law.

(1) Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2) Directive 2002/58/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3830/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Medication drugs abuse

Athletes are constantly being accused of drugs abuse, having taken medication which contains ingredients included on the International Olympic Committee's official list of banned substances.

Would it not be possible to make such substances readily identifiable (for example by means of a red dot on the packaging) thereby on the one hand, facilitating matters for athletes and their managers and, on the other hand, depriving those discovered to have been taking drugs of any possible excuse?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The current Community legislation on labelling, i.e. the information on the immediate or outer packaging, and on package leaflets for medicinal products for human use is contained in Title V of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use(1).

According to Article 59(1)(c) of Directive 2001/83/EC, the package leaflet shall include among other things a list of information which is necessary before taking the medicinal product. This includes information on special warnings and on appropriate precautions for use, a specific example of which is the information that the use of the product could have an effect on anti-doping tests. In particular, the package leaflet must state whether use of the product could produce a positive analysis result in such a test. The obligation to provide this information in the package leaflet extends both to nationally-approved medicinal products and to medicinal products with a Community-wide authorisation. This means that sportsmen and their teams already get all the necessary information.

Unlike for the package leaflet, there is no provision for special warnings or appropriate precautions for use to be given on the outer packaging. Title V of Directive 2001/83/EC therefore does not permit the inclusion of any specific symbol on potential effects of the product in anti-doping tests. This is appropriate inasmuch as the information contained on the outer packaging has to be reduced to a minimum, consisting only of the main information of general importance, in order to focus the user's attention fully on it. More detailed information is reserved for the package leaflet.

As a result, the Commission considers that the provisions laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC are adequate for providing consumers with relevant information on the risks of a positive result in anti-doping tests. The Commission has no plans at present to amend the provisions in force.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3762/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Communication COM(2002) 681 final

The Commission announced on 3 December 2002, in its communication COM(2002) 681 final, its intention to submit a proposal prohibiting single-hull tankers over 15 years old passing through European waters as of 2010.

Can the Commission say how many single-hull tankers there currently are (worldwide) over 7 years old, i.e. which were built in 1995?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Following the proposals made by the Commission in its communication of 3 December 2002(1), the Transport Council of 6 December 2002 indicated its desire for single hull tankers carrying heavy oils to be banned from EU ports.

On 20 December 2002, the Commission sent Parliament and the Council a proposal for a regulation(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 II package. The two institutions were asked to examine the text as a matter of urgency with a view to its being adopted at the Transport Council of 27 March 2003.

Figures obtained from the international databases (including the Lloyds Register/Fairplay database of oil tankers(3) of more than 5 000 tonnes deadweight at mooring) show that over 2 000 single hull tankers built before 1995 are still sailing. The bulk of these are ships of less than 20 000 tonnes.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2) COM(2002) 780 final.

(3) Oil tankers: tankers as defined by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (cf. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol)).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3799/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Drug Regulatory Authorities

At present, drug firms pay the Drug Regulatory Authorities (DRA) for licences. I understand that pharmaceutical firms, thanks to the European harmonisation of pharmaceutical regulation, can choose which DRA they want to approach. They do not have to negotiate with separate national regulatory regimes. Drugs can be marketed in several states simultaneously taking advantage of these fast approval rates.

What is the Commission's stance regarding the funding of DRAs?

Does the Commission believe that companies should have to negotiate separately with each national regulatory authority in order to be able to market their drugs?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

The funding of the Drug Regulatory Agencies (DRA) in the Member States lies within the competence of each Member State.

Member States have different systems concerning the funding of the DRA: some systems are based on the in-come by granting marketing authorisations, including variations, renewals and annual fees, others DRA are funded by the government. In most of the Member States a mixed funding exists.

Pharmaceutical companies can choose, in the frame of mutual recognition procedure, in which of the Member States they want to place the medicinal product on the market. Each competent authority of the Member States concerned by this procedure will give a national marketing authorisation.

Pharmaceutical companies have to pay for each marketing authorisation given by the competent authorities of the Member States to place a medicinal product on the market. Concerning this particular issue, the Commission does not take any position; it is considered as the payment of a service to the economic operator. Information about the level of fees that each Member State is requesting for granting a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product can be found on the web-sites of the relevant authorities of Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Euro cent coins

Europeans feel that there are too many euro cent coins and that they look too similar, according to a survey by Eurostat. In practice it appears that little or no use is being made of the smallest coins of 1 and 2 euro cents. Finland, for its part, has never put coins of 1 and 2 cents into circulation.

What, in the view of the Commission, is the future for coins of 1 and 2 euro cents?

Can a country (such as Finland) refuse to accept payment with coins of 1 or 2 euro cents?

If a country decides to abolish such euro cent coins, will the Commission oppose such a measure? Does the Commission intend to take action against the rounding up of prices to 5 cents?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

The introduction of the same denominations of coins in twelve Member States necessarily entails to a certain extent the need to adapt to the new situation, as the number of denominations available has changed in various Member States. Therefore, it is comprehensible that the use and the popularity of the 1 and 2 cent coins varies from Member State to Member State. The Commission has no intention to propose a change of the current denominations. The role of the 1 and 2 cent coins will essentially be determined by the behavior of the European citizens. Moreover, it should be noted that the small denominations have played an important role in the correct conversion of prices.

The denominations of the euro coins have been laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of 3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation(1). According to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro(2), all eight denominations have legal tender status throughout the euro area. Finland cannot refuse to accept payments with 1 and 2 cent coins, as these have legal in tender in Finland as anywhere else in the euro area. Finland has actually minted a certain quantity of 1 and 2 cent coins.

No Member State can abolish any of the euro coins, as this is a matter decided at Community level. The Finnish law, which stipulates rounding up or rounding down to the nearest 5 cent refers to cash payments. It does not concern the rounding of prices.

(1) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998.

(2) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3594/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: EU measures for suitable technical and professional training of crews of vessels transporting hazardous goods in European waters

The Prestige disaster (the vessel was commanded by the captain and only two other persons, while the 22-strong crew lacked all technical training and had been recruited under highly insecure conditions) has highlighted the need to lay down strict and binding rules for all vessels present in EU waters. What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure this?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The Commission has made express allowance for the human factor in the measures it is recommending for stepping up maritime safety following the loss of the Prestige.

Accordingly, a proposal was sent to the Council and Parliament on 13 January 2003(1) for the amendment of Directive 2001/25/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the minimum level of training of seafarers(2) to introduce a Community system of assessment and recognition of certificates of competency issued to seafarers outside the Union.

(1) COM(2003) 1 final.

(2) OJ L 136, 18.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3191/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 November 2002)

Subject: Investigation into a cartel of plasterboard manufacturers

In his reply to question E-0929/02(1), Commissioner Monti repeats virtually verbatim the text of MEMO/01/149. Very recently, the Belgian construction materials manufacturer Etex announced that it was selling its 52,94 % holding in Gyproc Benelux NV to the British company BPB. The latter already held 46,1 % of the shares. At the same time it was announced that British Plasterboard intended to sell its shares in Polish and German branches of Gyproc to the French company Lafarge. Although the Commission is not officially prepared to divulge their names, the four companies were named in articles in the press in April 2001 in connection with a cartel investigation by the Commission.

Is the Commission aware of these by no means insignificant changes in the plasterboard industry, and does it consider them to be in accordance with economic legislation within the EU?

Has the formal hearing referred to in MEMO/01/149 and the answer to question E-0929/02 already taken place? If so, can the Commission provide a progress report on the investigation?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 59.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

To date, the Commission has not been informed formally or informally of any of the transactions referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

As regards the investigation into the companies mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission adopted on 27 November 2002 a decision imposing fines of EUR 249,6 million on Lafarge SA, EUR 138,6 million on BPB plc, EUR 85,8 million on Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG and EUR 4,32 million on Gyproc Benelux SA/NV, making a total of EUR 478,32 million(1). Following its in-depth investigation, the Commission concluded that between 1992 and 1998 these companies had taken part in a cartel on the plasterboard markets in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the Benelux countries, whereby they had agreed to restrict competition on these markets in line with their interests, exchanged information on sales volumes and informed one another of price increases on the German and UK markets. Lafarge, BPB and Knauf were involved

in the cartel from 1992 to 1998 and were joined in 1996 by Gyproc Benelux. Their complex and long-term agreement constituted by its nature a very serious infringement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty, lasting as it did more than six and a half years in total, hence the heavy fines. The fines on Lafarge and BPB were particularly large owing to the aggravating circumstance of this being their second infringement of Article 81. Only BPB and Gyproc cooperated with the Commission.

(1) IP/02/1744.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2316/02

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Legal basis of the framework decision on combating racism

Could the Commission please explain the legal basis of the proposal for a framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia(1), in particular in the light of Article 31(e), because this provision does not mention racism and xenophobia as a subject for legislation pursuant to that article.

Article 31(e) relates solely to organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking. Has the Commission's Legal Service given an opinion on this issue? Please attach any such opinions to your answer.

(1) COM(2001) 664, OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p. 269.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2002)

The Commission's proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia(1) is based on Articles 29, 31 and 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU).

Article 29 of the TEU, which sets out the development of common action among the Member States in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, refers in particular to the prevention and fight against racism and xenophobia as a means of achieving the Union's objective of providing citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice. That objective has to be achieved through approximation, where necessary, of rules on criminal matters in the Member States in accordance with the provisions of Article 31(e).

The Commission's proposal for a Framework Decision also contains provisions aimed at strengthening cooperation between judicial and other competent authorities as another way of contributing to the mentioned objective, in accordance with Article 31(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the TEU. In particular, a common definition of the constituent elements of the offences is a way to overcome the double criminality requirement in the context of mutual legal assistance and extradition and contributes to improving judicial cooperation. The obligation to establish jurisdiction in cases where Member States do not extradite their nationals is a way to ensure compatibility in rules applicable in Member States as required in Article 31(c). Finally, the provision abolishing political offences as a ground for refusing requests for mutual legal assistance or extradition would contribute to the achievement of the objective of facilitating extradition set up in Article 31(b).

(1) COM(2001) 664 final, OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2047/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Oil and energy intensity

Will the Commission estimate the oil and, separately, energy intensity of the average unit of EU GDP in each fifth year from 1970 (i.e. 1970, 1975, 1980, etc.)?

What is the Commission's estimate of the marginal or incremental oil and energy intensity of EU GDP growth currently, and what was it in each fifth year from 1970?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Energy intensity is the ratio of gross inland consumption to the gross domestic product (in euro at constant 1995 prices). Gross Inland Consumption is the sum of primary energy produced, plus energy imports minus exports, minus the net change in stocks, minus marine bunkers. The energy data used for this calculation are collected from national administrations on an annual basis. Figures from 1991 onwards relating to the gross domestic product were obtained from Eurostat national accounts database whilst those for 1990 and 1985 are estimates. Data before 1985 are not available for the Union.