ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1488/02

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Emissions trading

Some electricity trade experts have pointed out that the proposed emissions trading model would lead to a substantial rise in consumer prices on the open electricity market. The Commission's Evaluation of Alternative Initial Allocation Mechanisms in a European Union Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowance Trading Scheme, NERA 2002 also states that the price of emission allowances will be passed on to prices on the open electricity market (what is termed an opportunity cost).

Has the Commission calculated the effects of emissions trading on consumer prices on the open electricity market? Of what order of magnitude are the costs arising to electricity consumers? In what relationship do the resulting costs stand to the cost advantages brought about by the emissions trading system, as set out earlier by the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2002)

The extent to which electricity prices may rise depends on the instruments chosen to address climate change. It is the objective of the Commission that the Kyoto targets are implemented in a cost-effective manner so as to ensure that costs for European consumers as a result of the Kyoto Protocol are minimised.

Emission trading is a flexible instrument that will ensure that emissions are reduced cost-effectively for all participants.

Estimating the effects of implementing the Kyoto agreement on electricity prices in the period 2008 to 2012 is subject to a lot of uncertainty, as the price development in the absence of further climate policies is also uncertain and will depend on progress in other Community policies like the liberalisation of electricity and gas markets. However, increases in electricity prices have to be seen in the perspective of the substantial lowering of electricity prices that many consumers have experienced as a result of the partial electricity market liberalisation so far.

The Commission does not consider useful the comparison of expected electricity price increases with the cost savings from using emission trading at Community level. Potential electricity price increases and the cost savings achievable from Community-wide emission trading are highly sensitive to the assumption of what alternative policies would have been chosen to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity generation sector in the absence of emission trading.

In the material accompanying the proposal for a Directive establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading the Commission has presented some estimates of likely cost savings from emission trading for the electricity and heat generation sector of more than 1 billion per annum.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0174/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Abuse of dominant market position concerning school software licences

The software company Microsoft has announced that it is to standardise its European licence fees for the basic software package Microsoft Office Professional. This move will result in considerable increases in the software licences schools have to pay in respect of each computer on which the software package is installed. The increase will be 30-40 % in Belgium's case and as high as about 250 % in the case of schools in the Netherlands.

Will the Commission state whether it regards this pricing policy to be an abuse of a dominant market position by the company concerned and whether it is taking steps to promote the use in education of cheaper alternative software which is of an equivalent quality and also compatible with international standards as regards the formats in which data is stored? Microsoft is apparently still using totally closed formats which are regularly changed, so that consumers are forced to buy new versions of their software.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The Commission has received information on this subject also from other sources. Microsoft's licensing policy towards schools of its Office suite referred to by the Honourable Member has already been brought to the attention of the Commission with regard to the German and Dutch markets.

On the basis of the 1993 Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty [now Articles 81 and 82], both the German and Dutch competition authorities are now investigating this issue on the basis of their national competition rules.

The ongoing Commission investigation on Microsoft under Article 82 of the EC Treaty which led to the issue of Statements of objections against Microsoft Corporation on 3 August 2000 and 29 August 2001 respectively, focuses on the allegation that Microsoft has abused its dominant position in the market for personal computer operating system software by leveraging this power into the market for entry-level server software. Microsoft may have withheld from vendors of alternative server software key interoperability information that they need to enable their products to talk with Microsoft's dominant personal computer (PC) and entry-level server products.

In its second Statement of objections, the Commission also alleges that Microsoft is illegally tying its Media Player product with the dominant Windows operating system.

For the time being, and in the absence of any formal complaint, there is however no open case on Microsoft's Office (XP) products as referred to by the Honourable Member, although the Commission is carefully monitoring all developments with respect to these products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0952/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Failure of Greece to comply with EU environmental legislation

Will the Commission say in how many instances Greece may be presumed to be in breach of Community environmental legislation, and in relation to which matters?

In how many instances (if any) is the Commission preparing to bring Greece before the Court of Justice, and in relation to which matters?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

At the beginning of April 2002 the Commission was dealing with 100 cases of suspected infringement of Community environmental legislation involving Greece. Of these 100 cases, 35 concern Directive 85/337/EEC(1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC(2), 20 relate to Community waste management legislation, 19 concern nature protection, 10 concern water protection, 10 concern air pollution and 6 relate to other sectors of Community environmental legislation. The Commission has decided to initiate infringement proceedings against Greece in 32 of these cases.

On 10 April 2002 the Commission had already referred 7 cases to the Court of Justice: C-371/2001 (failure to notify national measures transposing Directive 98/81/EC(3)), C-374/2000 (failure

to notify national measures transposing Directive 97/11/EC), C-33/2001 (failure to communicate any of the information required under Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC(4)), C-301/2001 (non-conformity of national measures transposing Directive 85/337/EEC), C-302/2001 (uncontrolled disposal of waste at the Epitalio landfill site), C-83/2002 (failure to communicate the information specified in Article 11 of Directive 96/59/EC(5)) and C-119/2002 (absence of a collecting system and a treatment plant for the tertiary treatment of urban waste water in the Thriassion area).

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(4) Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(5) Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terpheynls (PCB/PCT), OJ L 243, 24.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0956/02

by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Linking infrastructure funding

As Community law and Court of Justice jurisprudence currently stand, is it legal to partially finance the building of a motorway granted to a private operator by the running surplus generated by tolls on another motorway granted to the same or another operator?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Current Community legislation(1) and European Court's jurisprudence(2) requires that motorway toll rates on heavy goods vehicles (above 12 tonnes total weight) have to be related to the infrastructure costs of the relevant motorway.

The levels of motorway tolls on other types of vehicles (cars, coaches, lighter commercial vehicles) are not, however, covered by Community legislation. This means that there may be cases when the total revenue from motorway tolls (on all vehicles) could exceed total costs. The entity (government or private concessionnaire) that has right on the surplus revenue may of course use it in any way they see fit (e.g. to finance any type of investment).

(1) Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

(2) Case C-205/98 Commission vs Austria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0713/02

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

(14 March 2002)

Subject: Respect for human rights

In keeping with the spirit of the 1995 Barcelona Declaration, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms should play a key role in Euro-Mediterranean relations.

Unfortunately, in the case of Algeria, murder (with the conflict claiming some 200 lives every month), the disappearance of individuals presumably kidnapped by the security forces or armed gangs, the fact that human rights violations go unpunished, and restrictions on civil liberties, such as the right to hold meetings and the right of expression, are the order of the day.

What is the Commission's view of the current situation in the Mediterranean Basin in general, and Algeria in particular?

Does the Commission intend to incorporate a human rights control and monitoring mechanism in this and the other Association Agreements with Mediterranean states?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0602/02 by Mrs Ferrer(1).

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1055/02

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Composition of the Independent Regulators Group

1. Can the Commission inform me of the composition of the Independent Regulators Group (IRG)?

2. Will the Commission prevent the IRG's being expanded to include representatives of national governments?

3. To what extent would the participation of government representatives or officials from relevant ministries violate the framework directive, and if it would, what can the Commission do to restrict membership of the IRG purely to independent regulators?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

The Independent Regulators Group (IRG) was established in 1997 as a group of European National Telecommunications Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) to share experiences and points of views among its members on issues relating to the regulation and development of the European telecommunications market.

The Commission neither is a member nor participates at its meetings.

In applying the new Regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services and more particular the Framework Directive(1) it is envisaged establishing a European Regulators Group (ERG).

According to the draft decision establishing the ERG, the group shall provide the interface between national regulatory authorities and the Commission in such a way as to contribute to the development of the internal market and should allow co-operation between Member States and the Commission in a transparent manner as to ensure the consistent application in all Member States of the regulatory framework.

According to the draft decision, the group will comprise the heads of each relevant national regulatory authorities in charge of overseeing the day-to-day interpretation and application of the provisions of the Directives relating to electronic communications networks and services, as defined in the Framework Directive, or their representatives. The Commission shall be represented at all meetings and shall provide the Secretariat to the Group.

An initial draft of the proposed Commission Decision of establishing the ERG was made available to the Members of the Parliament.

(1) Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1961/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Management and disposal of radioactive waste

In respect of the statement included in the Commission press release IP/02/872 on 17 June 2002 which said the nuclear fission programme will focus on the management and disposal of radioactive waste and foster close research cooperation between EU national waste management agencies, will the Commission explain why it has not included independent research institutes and non-governmental experts in the list of those bodies the Commission wishes to foster close research coordination?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1961/02, E-1962/02 and E-1963/02given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

The Euratom Research Framework Programme contributes to the establishment of the European Research Area in the nuclear sector, and thereby for the efficient pooling of expertise and co-ordination of existing research activities in the Member States. The programme is open to any legal entity, that is performing research in the areas covered by the Programme, and fulfils the Rules for Participation. All legal entities fulfilling these requirements, national waste management agencies, nuclear industry, universities and other research organisations will be invited.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2171/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Competition with agricultural production in the Azores as a result of the Poseima programme

Under the terms of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001(1) the Autonomous Region of the Azores is entitled to import a large number of food products free of customs duty or with third-territory status, in particular products identical to those produced in the Azores, such as sugar, milk and meat, provided that these products are not re-exported, with a number of exceptions, including that specified in Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001.

According to this exception the re-export prohibition shall not apply to trade flows between the Azores and Madeira.

By virtue of this provision products are being sold on the Azorean market at unbeatable prices after being imported from the Autonomous Region of Madeira under the terms of the Regulation. Can the Commission therefore say whether it had this in mind when it promoted the amendment to Article 3(5) of the Poseima Regulation?

If this was not the aim, does it not consider it should explain what its aim was, and prevent unfair competition with agricultural products from the Azores, in accordance with its powers to draw up implementing regulations?

Does the Commission not consider that using the Poseima programme to prejudice the position of the Autonomous Region of the Azores compared with what it should be if the general provisions of the Treaty were applied directly is contrary to the spirit and the letter of Article 299(2)?

(1) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001, p. 26.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1327/02

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 May 2002)

Subject: Fisheries subsidies

Could the Commission tell me which companies are the beneficiaries of EU fisheries subsidies in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

For structural programme monitoring purposes the Commission receives each year an annual implementation report but this does not list the projects financed.

However in the case of projects financed from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance such a list is compulsory (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 366/2001 of 22 February 2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing the measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999(1)).

Given that for the period 1994-1999 alone some 30 000 projects were financed from the FIFG the Commission asks the Honourable Member to make his question more precise by specifying year, investment type, measure etc.

(1) OJ L 55, 24.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1763/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Capacity of the Commission staff to handle health and safety legislation

How many persons are currently employed in the Commission department dealing with health and safety legislation, and what was the change in this figure during the last 15 years?

Has the Commission conducted an evaluation on how staff are able to deal with all aspects of this legislation, in particular researching scientific evidence justifying proposals, undertaking regulatory impact assessments and, most importantly, monitoring the implementation of health and safety legislation across the EU Member States?

In the context of the Health and Safety Strategy(1), has the Commission conducted an evaluation of the workload which will be needed to deliver the strategy, and what changes are envisaged in the staff numbers for the future?

(1) COM(2002) 118 final.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

In 1992, 35 officials or temporary agents of categories A and B worked in the area of health and safety at work. Today 14 officials or temporary agents of categories A and B work in this area, plus 3 A category seconded national experts (END), out of a total staff of 25. However, it should be recalled that the Commission work is complemented by the work of the Bilbao Agency which currently employs 14 A and 10 B grade temporary agents, plus 3 A category END, out of a total staff of 45. The Agency has taken over activities concerning information, awareness-raising and collection of data since its creation. Furthermore, since 1998, the Agency has been organising the European Week on health and safety, previously the responsibility of Commission services. In addition, the budget for preparatory actions to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) during 2000 and 2001 on the initiative of the Parliament was transferred to the Agency.

This brings the total of A and B categories human resources assigned to the area of health and safety at work to 44 today.

Moreover, the scope of activities falling under the remit of Directorate General Employment and Social Affairs has greatly increased, notably in the fields of employment (with the launching of the European Employment Strategy), and social protection (launching of the open method of coordination in the fields of social inclusion and pensions). Moreover, the strengthening of the social dialogue has resulted in an increased workload, in particular in the follow up of acquis communautaire (both social partners' agreements or new legislation further to their consultation).

In this context, and taking into account the limited resources available, it has been deemed that the current assignment of staff will allow the Commission's services to duly carry out its tasks in this area. In the framework of the overall evolution of human resources assigned to the employment and social affairs area, the Commission will constantly evaluate the workload in the different specific fields and take appropriate measures as necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0943/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Road building

There have been reports in the media that, as part of a project to build a new road close to the seafront in the Parish of Jardim do Mar, the Madeira Regional Government is planning to erect a wall that will jut out at the point where the waves break.

This work, if carried out, would severely damage natural ecosystems and interfere with surfing in an area internationally famed among surfing enthusiasts.

Given that the available alternatives to the projected route would have less of an environmental impact:

1. Will Community funding be provided for the new road to be built near the seafront in Jardim do Mar?

2. If so, how does the Commission view the project submitted and the possible environmentally less damaging alternative routes?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

Under the subsidiarity principle assessment and selection of projects proposed for Structural Fund part-financing is the responsibility of the regional and national managing authorities. The Commission has not so far been informed of any part-financing for a new seafront road in the commune of Jardim do Mar and has asked the Portuguese authorities for information.

As indicated in Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), all projects part-financed from the Funds must conform with Community law, including that on environmental protection.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0394/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: European aid for development projects in the south of Monagas, Venezuela

In what way is the European Commission involved in the development programme in the south of the State of Monagas in Venezuela, including Barrancas, which is reported to be costing somewhere around 10 million, and what is the precise substance of and the Commission's contribution to that programme?

Is the Commission aware of reports that local organisations are not being sufficiently involved in the project and that the project in Barrancas is being thwarted by political forces?

Why is the project currently stalled, and what is the Commission doing to help re-start it?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

The Commission and Venezuela signed the Financing Agreement for the project Support Programme for the socio-economic Development of the southern region of Monagas at the end 2000. The total cost of the project is 10 000 000, the Community contribution being 5 000 000. The direct beneficiaries are three municipalities: Libertador, Sotillo (the capital of which is Barrancas), and Uracoa. The project includes four components: institutional modernisation and capacity building, land-use planning, strengthening of human resource training services, and social development.

Local representatives were consulted and involved in the process of identifying the project; meetings were held with neighbourhood associations, indigenous organisations, the Catholic Church, and municipal authorities. Local organisations will also be involved in all the phases of the Project Cycle as is foreseen in the Financing Agreement. The local authority is currently preparing a socio-economic analysis of the region, which will be ready before the start of implementation. The Commission is not aware of any attempts by political forces to impede grassroot participation in the project and would welcome any information the Honourable Member may have in this respect.

Project implementation is expected to begin in a few months. The Commission is in the final phase of evaluation of the offers that were made in response to its call for tender.