ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2229/01

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Status of Hong Kong

According to press reports, the Hong Kong authorities may be about to pass a law which will empower the Government of the People's Republic of China to dismiss the territory's leader. This would put Hong Kong at risk of losing the autonomy which it enjoys by law and is contrary to the undertakings given at the tie of the transition just a few years ago.

This state of affairs is apparently the outcome of negotiations between the Government of Peking and the Hong Kong authorities and (again according to the press) is giving rise to serious concern and to protests at grassroots level. The new law is due to be adopted on Wednesday, 18 July 2001.

Is the Commission aware of these reports and is it able to confirm or deny them? And is it aware of anything similar in the case of Macau? If the reports are true, what effect could they have on relations between China and the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The European Commission was aware of the press reports referred to and is aware that the Hong Kong authorities passed a law on 19th July, known as the Chief Executive Election Ordinance (Ordinance No. 21 of 2001).

The Commission took note of the reassurances given by the Hong Kong authorities that this new provision is in line with the Basic Law. It has also noted the views of the Hong Kong Law Society and the Hong Kong Bar Association.

The European Commission remains fully committed to supporting the Sino-UK Joint Declaration, the One Country, Two Systems principle and the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

The Commission will continue to monitor developments in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region very closely in keeping with its commitment to support Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy, particularly with regard to constitutional arrangements as set out in the Basic Law.

The Commission is not aware of any similar proposal in relation to Macao.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2556/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 September 2001)

Subject: European law enforcement unit

Following the events of the Genoa Summit, the German Minister of the Interior, Mr Otto Schily, and his Italian counterpart, Mr Claudio Scajola, recommended the creation of a European law enforcement unit (similar to the European cross-border police forces) and the setting up of a database listing the particulars of violent protestors. The idea has recently received support from the German Chancellor, Mr Schröder, as reflected by the proposed creation of an operational police unit with executive authority within Europol. The individual proposals, however, have caused great confusion and met with an unfavourable response in all Member States.

Does the Council intend to include this project as part of overall Community anti-terrorist strategy and table the matter immediately at a forthcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers responsible or, on the contrary, does it take the view that the measures currently being envisaged to further develop direct operational cooperation between the Member State police forces and give greater powers to Europol will provide a sufficient response to increased crime and violence?

What measures does the Council think it can take to strengthen law enforcement at European level without prejudice to individual rights?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

1. The Council draws the attention of the Honourable Member of the Parliament to the reply given to the written question P-2352/01. This reply referred to the conclusions of 13.7.2001, adopted by the Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, on security at meetings of the European Council and other comparable events (10608/01 Presse 281).

2. In the light of the attacks in the United States on 11.9.2001 and following on from the decisions taken since the Tampere European Council, the Council met on 20.9.2001 to take the necessary measures to maintain the highest level of security and any other measure needed to combat terrorism. The Council has decided to harness all the measures already adopted at European Union level to combat terrorism.

The seriousness of recent events has led the Council to speed up the process of creating an area of freedom, security and justice and to step up cooperation with its partners, especially the United States.

3. To this end, the Council has agreed on certain measures to be taken with respect to judicial cooperation, cooperation between police and intelligence services, financing of terrorism, border control, civil protection and cooperation with the United States.

As concerns Europol, the Council is examining a list of possible amendments to the Europol Convention as well as an extension of Europol's mandate to deal with the serious forms of international crime in general.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2479/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: Abolition of duty-free goods

Those campaigning against the abolition of duty-free goods prophesied that the measure would result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

Is the Commission able to estimate what has in fact been the net loss in jobs, if any, across Europe as a result of the measure?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Regarding the impact of abolition of intra-Community duty-free sales on employment, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to it's answer to Written Question P-403/00 by Mr Langen(1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1874/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (France)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

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

- how many agricultural holdings in France have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1849/01

by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Welfare of chickens kept for meat production

Can the Commission confirm whether or not the practice of skip a day feeding, i.e. the poultry industry's term for when a limited ration of feed is given only every other day, is in compliance with Council Directive 98/58/EC(1) on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes?

The Commission stated last year in an answer to parliamentary question E-1848/00(2) that, following the conclusion of the report from the SCAHAW and in the light of the above Directive, it was working on a proposal to establish the welfare requirements for keeping broiler chickens in the Community. What progress has been made on this proposal?

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

(2) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 89.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes addresses the welfare requirements to be applied for the protection of animals kept for different types of production, including the keeping of chickens for meat production.

The scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare (SCAHAW) adopted on 21 March 2000 an opinion on the welfare of chickens kept for meat production. The scientific committee points out that severe feed restrictions result in unacceptable welfare problems. It also indicates that allowing breeding birds to reach a high body weight through free access to feed leads to other serious welfare problems.

Following the conclusions of the opinion from the SCAHAW and in the light of the above-mentioned Directive, the Commission will address this situation by taking appropriate measures once work on a range of other priorities on animal welfare, including animal transport and the welfare of pigs, has been completed.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2146/01

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 2001)

Subject: Evaluation of the URBAN programme in el Albayzin

In connection with the historic city centre El Albayzin and the cofinancing for the programming for the period 1997-1999 via the pilot programme URBAN, which expired on 30 June 2001, can the Commission specify the subject, name and quantity of projects benefiting from this funding? Does it know that some of these projects have not been carried out? For example, the Santa Isabel la Real museum has not yet opened although expensive Community publicity posters announced that it was about to open years ago and the supposedly underground carpark is a monstrosity rising up above ground level.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2001)

The table below lists the projects which have been part-financed under the urban pilot project Revitalising the historic centre of El Albaicín and the portion of the budget committed and paid on 31 December 2000.

>TABLE>

In the case of the El Albaicín museum, which is being installed in the monastery of Santa Isabel la Real, the urban pilot project allocated a budget for the conversion of the building, as shown in the above table, which was fully spent in 1998. The monastery was opened for a visit at the end of the seminar Piloting historic urban assets: viable alternatives, held in Grenada in November 1998. The other works which began in January 1999 under the supervision of the

Consejería de Cultura of the Andalusian government, such as the renovation of the roof, were not part of the pilot project. The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to contact the Spanish authorities for the precise schedule of these works, on the completions of which depends the reopening of the museum.

The steepness of the area (5 metres) prevented the carpark from being fully underground. According to information from the Spanish authorities, construction of the carpark received all the permits required. In addition, at the request of the Concejalía de Planificación Urbanística y Obras Municipales of the Grenada town council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) issued a report through the Spanish National Committee of the International Council for Monuments and Sites (Icomos) whose recommendations were, according to the Spanish authorities, included in the plans for the carpark.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2568/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(21 September 2001)

Subject: EU assistance for hydrological projects in Spain

Has the Commission verified that any EU assistance provided under the Structural Funds for hydrological projects in Spain is in support of projects which are environmentally sound and which meet the requirements of the Water Directives?

Is the Commission aware of the criticisms that have been made of extraction plans for the river Ebro made by the Platform for the Defence of the Ebro (PDE)? What is the Commission's view of these criticisms, and will that view have an influence on the decisions taken?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund(1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(2), any project part-financed from these Funds must conform with Community legislation, including the rules on environmental protection.

The Commission is aware of the criticism about the extraction plans for the Ebro and has met representatives of the associations opposed to the scheme. It has taken note of the concern expressed in this connection and will examine the matter in the light of the relevant Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, as amended by Council Regulations (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21.6.1999 and (EC) No 1265/1999 of 21.6.1999, in OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2660/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: Fines imposed on Member States and the destination of the monies collected

Could the Commission say whether it is true that a fine imposed on a Member State (such as the recent fine imposed on Greece) does not become part of the EU's own resources but is instead credited to the net contribution of the state in question, thus making a mockery of the whole system of fines?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

For the Honourable Member's information, fines imposed under Community law constitute one source of revenue in the general budget of the European Union (Chapter 7.1). In accordance with the principle of budgetary universality, they are used, along with the other categories of revenue (particularly own resources, which account for the largest share), to finance the expenditure entered in the budget. Revenue from fines is not used for a specific purpose and cannot in any way be refunded or credited to the Member State which paid the fine.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3012/01

by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2001)

Subject: CE mark on torture instruments

Human rights groups have raised concerns that certain companies are using the CE mark as an endorsement for products such as stun guns which can be used as instruments of torture.

Can the Commission confirm that the CE mark is not intended as a selling point in the advertising and marketing of products, and can it give some reassurance that action will be taken to ensure that any misuse of the CE mark stops?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2934/01, E-2965/01, P-3012/01, E-3108/01 and E-3191/01given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Honourable Members are referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question P-2783/01 from Mr Ford(1).

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2599/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Operation of Olympic Airways: privatisation and State aid

After the failure of the two programmes aimed at restructuring a debt-ridden Olympic Airways through the provision of Drs 3 trillion in State aid, the Greek Government has gone back on its original decision to privatise the company by declaring it bankrupt and splitting it into two companies (one profit-making, the other loss-making) and in May 2001 invited offers for a majority stake in the company. Although the highest bidder was selected following an assessment of the offers, negotiations on the sale of the company have yet to be opened. There are a great many unclarified aspects of this case relating to Community law and the continued operation of Olympic Airways under these circumstances is creating further debt.

Will the Commission, therefore, say:

1. whether Greece has fulfilled its obligations to the European Union under the two restructuring programmes and, if not, which obligations it has yet to fulfill,

2. what amount of State or other aid the company received for operations in 2000 and 2001 and whether such aid, e.g. payment of Olympic Airways' dues to the Spata airport authority by means of interest-free loans from the Greek Government, was notified to and approved by the Commission in accordance with Community rules, and

3. what representations it has made to the Greek authorities to speed up the privatisation process, establish transparent rules for the sale of the company and produce data such as the official accounts for 1999 and 2000?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2001)

The Commission has been closely following the ongoing privatisation process of Olympic Airways since its starting point in December 2000. In this context, it has stressed to the Greek authorities that the privatisation procedure has to fully observe the principles of transparency, neutrality and non-discrimination and that both the process as well as the transaction itself cannot contain any state aid. The Greek authorities have stated that the privatisation deal will be duly notified to the Commission.

On the basis of a complaint the Commission has asked the Greek authorities for clarifications of various aspects relating to the compatibility of the current situation of the company with the Commission's passed decisions relating to state aid matters and, in a more recent correspondence, it inquired about the state of payment of various amounts since its 1998 decision. Following a first reaction from the Greek authorities in August, the Commission expects to receive such detailed information before the end of October. Therefore, the Commission will be only thereafter in a position to resond to the Honourable Member's detailed points.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2796/01

by Carmen Fraga Estevez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Conversion of the spadare fleet to catch migratory species in the Mediterranean

The Commission report on the application of Community legislation on the use of drift nets in 2002 again draws attention to the difficulties experienced by some Member States, notably in the Mediterranean region, in adjusting to said legislation. More specifically, the assertion made in the report to the effect that 102 Italian spadare vessels have no intention of being converted and to all intents and purposes do not recognize Community legislation banning the use of drift nets seems somewhat surprising.

This, added to the clear problems which exist with regard to controls and to the fact that, as noted in the report, the Italian inspectors do not posses sufficient technical knowledge of fishing or of the relevant Community or national legislation, or that checks are carried out in a marked climate of insecurity, leads one to ask the Commission the following:

- In view of the evidence concerning the problems of the conversion of the spadare fleet, and the difficulties and basic shortcomings affecting the controls by the Member State concerned, what measures does the Commission intend to take with regard to the 102 vessels which refuse to convert their nets?

- Is the Commission considering any type of sanction against a fleet which, unless things change quickly, will be completely illegal next year?

- What representations have been made before the Italian authorities to ensure that this accumulation of irregularities finds the swiftest possible solution?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

According to the list of authorised vessels to use the spadara in 2001, the decrease in fishing vessels resulting from the national spadare conversion plan is still going on after the year 2000. Therefore, it is hoped that the Italian administration will continue in its action to ensure a complete ban of spadare on time.

Measures to ensure compliance with control obligations in the fishing sector, as well as sanctions in case of infringement, are the responsibility of the Member State. The Commission cannot act directly on fishermen to impose compliance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(1).

The Italian administration has been requested to inform the Commission of the measures taken to ensure compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98.

In 2002, monitoring ashore and at sea of driftnet activity will remain a priority in the inspection programme of the Commission and the necessary steps will be taken to verify that Italy adequately enforces Community legislation banning the use of driftnets on highly migratory species. If not, the available infringement procedures will be applied against the Member State.

Currently, an infringement procedure is already open against Italy, in respect of the use of large-scale driftnets.

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1819/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Expenditure on Ispra JRC scientific personnel

As a result of the policy which the Commission has been pursuing over the last few years to the satisfaction of certain Member States, the Ispra research centre has taken on an increasingly more administrative and increasingly less scientific character, contrary to its initial aims, which have apparently not been officially changed.

Regarding Article B6-111 of the 2001 budget (purely where expenditure on the Ispra centre's current staff complement is concerned), can the Commission say what individual amounts are intended for Ispra's administrative and scientific personnel?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The mission of the Joint Research Center (JRC), adopted by Council and Parliament in 1999, is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of Community policies. It serves the common interest of the Member States while being independent of particular private or national interests.

Therefore, the JRC is a research establishment not dedicated to research policy but acting as a European Scientific and Technical reference centre for other Community policies (environment, agriculture, transport, energy, nuclear).

As far as expenditure for personnel is concerned, the breakdown for the JRC Ispra site in the year 2001 is as follows:

- Total: 114 million,

- Scientific personnel: 95 million,

- Administrative personnel: 19 million.