ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/271

(2004/C 84 E/0318)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3944/03

by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject: Fish-stock recovery plans

In connection with the recovery plans for fisheries exploiting stocks which are outside ‘safe biological limits’ (see Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1)), would the Commission say which legal basis should be used for establishing the status of a fishing company whose catch includes a set of related species of which several are subject to recovery plans, such as cod, hake, sole and plaice?

Would the Commission state whether the vessels concerned should be subject to one or more stock-recovery plans, and on what legal basis/bases?

Should it be established unequivocally that a vessel may not be covered by more than one plan, would the Commission indicate the criteria to be used for assigning a given vessel to a given plan?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

There is no definition of, and hence no legal basis to establish, the status of a fishing company in relation to the recovery plans.

Recovery plans fix harvest rules that determine the levels of total allowable catches (TACs) for the duration of the recovery plans. The TACs resulting from the application of the harvest rules will be set out each year in the TAC and quota Regulation. The TACs for stocks caught in association with the recovery stocks will also be set out in the TAC and quota Regulation, and will take into account the extent of the association with the recovery stocks. Any fishing company catching recovery stocks or associated stocks will therefore be subject to catch restrictions on the same legal basis as any other fishing company.

The recovery plans may include other provisions, such as the limitation of effort or enhanced control measures. If a company fishes a stock that is subject to a recovery plan and other stocks that are subject to other recovery plans, the company must comply with the provisions of all the recovery plans concerned. The legal basis by which the company is bound by the provisions of the recovery plans is Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, as well as the provisions of the recovery plan itself, which has the form of a regulation, and is thus according to Article 249 of the EC Treaty ‘Binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States’.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/110

(2004/C 78 E/0111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Numbers of pigs and cattle in the EU 15 and the 10 accession countries

To enable me to answer a question from a constituent, would the Commission please tell me the number of pigs and cattle (no further breakdown required) in the 15 EU Member States and the 10 accession countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

At the December 2002 survey total cattle herd accounted for 78 281 022 heads in the EU-15 and 10 280 171 heads in the 10 Acceding Countries. Total pig herd accounted for 122 015 941 heads in the EU-15 and 32 222 296 heads in the 10 Acceding Countries.

Heads Cattle herd Pig herd BE (Belgium) 2 758 463 6 600 158 DK (Denmark) 1 740 000 12 879 000 D (Germany) 13 731 958 26 251 490 GR (Greece) 573 000 903 000 E (Spain) 6 278 519 23 518 039 F (France) 19 729 162 15296000 IRL (Ireland) 6 337 818 1 781 500 I (Italy) 6 695 000 9 166 000 L (Luxembourg) 189 850 76 478 NL (Netherlands) 3 780 000 11 154 000 AT (Austria) 2 066 942 3 304 650 Ρ (Portugal) 1 395 128 2 343 705 FI (Finland) 1 011 672 1 422 800 SE (Sweden) 1 612 300 1 989 000 UK (United Kingdom) 10 381 210 5 330 121 Total EU-15 78 281 022 122 015 941 CY (Cyprus) 58 139 490 818 CZ (Czech Republic) 1 511 000 3 505 000 EE Estonia 253 000 345 400 HU Hungary 770 000 5 082 000 LT Lithuania 779 100 1 061 000 LV Latvia 388 100 453 200 MT Malta 18 770 78 303 PL Poland 5 420 987 18 997 030 SI Slovenia 473 240 655 665 SK Slovak Republic 607 835 1 553 880 Total Acceding Countries 10 280 171 32 222 296

Source: Eurostat, Cattle and pig survey, December 2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/135

(2004/C 78 E/0137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2610/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject: Charging consumers for returning waste household electrical equipment

In its answer to Written Question E-1970/03 (1) given on 25 July 2003, the Commission acknowledged that charging consumers at the point of return may have a negative impact on the collection results for waste electrical and electronic equipment but that such charges would not contravene Community legislation until Article 5 (2a) of Directive 2002/96/EC (2) takes effect, i.e. by 13 August 2005 at the latest.

Has the Commission informed the Irish authorities of this situation and, if so, what has been their response? What steps is the Commission now considering taking so as to ensure that the Irish public will be able to return such goods free of charge after 13 August 2005, in accordance with Directive 2002/96/EC?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) requires Member States to ensure that, by 13 August 2005, systems are set up allowing final holders and distributors to return WEEE from private households at least free of charge.

The national laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive must be brought into force by 13 August 2004 and communicated to the Commission.

The Commission has not discussed the issue of charging consumers with Ireland specifically. Regular meetings between the Commission and the Member States take place in order to discuss questions of implementation. The Commission will take all necessary measures to ensure that the Directive is correctly implemented in all Member States.

(1) See page 61.

(2) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/213

(2004/C 33 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2098/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: SARS emergency: preventive measures

SARS, or atypical pneumonia, a disease whose origins have not yet been established and for which thee is so far no cure, has become the new plague of the third millennium, thanks to the ease with which it spreads. By reason of its contagiousness it is affecting dozens of new victims every day, mostly in China and South-East Asia.

Effective preventive measures against the spread of SARS must meet a number of minimum joint criteria in all countries, and even more so in the EU Member States, given the urgent need to implement preventive measures to combat this disease.

1. Can the Commission state whether it believes it is necessary to promote and cofinance a large-scale, Europe-wide information campaign (e.g. on the lines followed in Singapore and Taiwan) with a view to establishing how SARS is transmitted and determining the precautions needed to prevent contagion?

2. Does the Commission consider it necessary to propose introducing checks (e.g. temperature controls) at all the EU's external borders, in view of the speed and apparent ease of transmission of SARS and the circumstances of its presence in a number of third countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The public health measures put in place by the Member States, facilitated through the Union's network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community working under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 (1), have already been able to contain the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in the Union. As there is no local transmission an information campaign based on those countries where the disease was rampant was not necessary. The Commission has agreed an action plan with Health Ministries to ensure better preparedness in the future and an information campaign would be considered as part of this plan for the future (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/phthreats/com/sars/sars_en.htm).

The Commission agrees with the World Health Organisation (WHO) that entry screening measures are not efficient in detecting new cases and create a false sense of security in the public and in the health authorities. Exit screening from affected countries is one of the best measures undertaken in containing the spread of SARS. The efficacy of such measures will be kept under review in the light of scientific evidence.

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/82

(2004/C 65 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1463/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject: Cotton growing in the Alqueva irrigation area

In the same way as in other Member States (Spain and Greece), the new Alqueva irrigation area will enable cotton to be grown in Portugal. (Cotton is one of the target crops already identified and the subject of major investment plans).

Will the Commission's proposals be such as to enable Portugal to develop cotton growing on a similar basis to the other two Member States mentioned above? Could the Commission give details in support of its answer?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of progress with this basin and the potential for crop development.

However, given the cotton aid reform put in place by Regulation 1051/2001 (1) — aimed mainly at discouraging any increase in cotton production that damaged the environment — and the budgetary implications of aid per hectare, it is hard for the Commission to envisage new legislation at this stage aimed at expanding cotton production.

That said, it is the Commission's intention nevertheless to undertake a review of the future of cotton aid.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton, OJ L 148, 1.6.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/98

(2004/C 65 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1877/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Prospectus-delegation

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of prospectuses approved in Member States in the last calendar year that were approved directly by a competent authority, and the proportion that were approved by authorities such as exchanges or intermediaries to which the task was delegated? Will the Commission estimate the number of complaints of incompleteness or inaccuracy of the prospectus in each case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The Commission has not sought to estimate the proportion of prospectuses approved directly by a competent authority, nor the proportion that was approved by authorities such as exchanges or intermediaries to which the task was delegated. Under the current situation, this question is not applicable or relevant for the time being in most Member States. In fact, to the Commission's knowledge, there is only one specific regulation on this matter in Austria (auditors and banks are in charge of the review of the prospectus under a delegation from the stock exchange).

However, the Commission has carefully studied the nature of the different competent authorities for the tasks of scrutinizing and approving prospectuses in all Member States. Exchanges are in charge of the review of prospectuses in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria and Sweden. However, it should be noted that, in those Member States prospectuses for offer of securities without listing are generally reviewed by a different competent authority, generally a public body.

It is important to note that in the Netherlands, the tasks of reviewing prospectuses was recently transferred from Euronext NV to the new Financial Market Authority and Ireland envisages doing a similar change.

The Commission has not estimated the number of complaints of incompleteness or inaccuracy depending on which kind of entity is in charge of the review of the prospectus. First, it does not consider that the number of complaints received by competent authorities on missing or misleading information in the context of prospectuses would permit the Commission to draw interesting conclusions. Secondly, the Commission considers that the quality of the review is not necessarily linked to the nature of the entity in charge of the review.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/73

(2004/C 33 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0721/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Prestige: setting up a European civil protection force

On 19 December 2002 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on safety at sea and measures to alleviate the effects of the Prestige disaster. Paragraph 20 calls for the setting up of ‘a European civil protection force capable of responding to natural and industrial disasters, to create a legal framework for European responses to disasters and to appoint a Commissioner responsible’.

What measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take in response?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Treaty establishing the European Union does not allow for a European Civil Protection Force. Consequently a Commission co-ordination mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in civil protection assistance interventions (1) entered into force on 1st January 2002. Civil protection measures at Union level have strictly to respect the principle of subsidiarity.

The Union Response Centre, established in the above-mentioned framework, co-ordinates the assistance offered by the Member States in case of accidents.

Moreover, the Commission is also running a specific action programme in the field of response to marine pollution (2).

Finally, the Commission already announced its intention to ammend the Regulation creating the European Maritime Safety Agency in order to allow EMSA to purchase or lease anti-pollution ships in cases of maritime pollution in the Union.

(1) Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions, OJ L 297, 15.11.2001.

(2) Decision No 2850/2000/EC of 20 December 2000 of the Parliament and of the Council setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/139

(2004/C 33 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1599/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject: US Classification of genetically engineered crops (follow up to question H-0433/98)

Further to question H-0433/98 (1), what changes, if any has the US Department of Agriculture made to the US organic food standards so as to allow genetically engineered crops and the products of intensive animal rearing to be classified as organic?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The National Organic Programme as laid down by the American Department of Agriculture defines the official American organic farming standards. It came into force on 22 October 2002.

Compared to the proposed National Organic Programme to which oral question H-0433/98 during question time at Parliament's May 1998 session by the Honourable Member was referring, the American Department of Agriculture has made a number of changes in the final rule.

As to genetically modified organisms, the National Organic Programme in its final rule excludes the following ‘excluded methods: a variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro culture or tissue culture’ (National Organic Program, § 205.2). An exception is made for vaccines (National Organic Program, § 205.105(e)).

As to livestock production, the National Organic Programme requires living conditions which accommodate the health and natural behaviour of the animals, including access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercises areas, fresh air, and direct sunlight suitable to the species, its stage of production, the climate and the environment, and access to pasture for ruminants. (National Organic Program, § 205.239(a)). Also, ‘the producer of an organic livestock operation must manage manure in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil or water by plant nutrients, heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms and optimises recycling of nutrients’ (National Organic Program, § 205.239(c)).

(1) Written answer of 12 May 1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/202

(2004/C 33 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2020/03

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject: Support scheme for producers in the fisheries sector

In 1992, to compensate for the fact that certain outermost regions are islands, a support scheme was adopted for producers in the fisheries sector, providing for contributions to offset the additional marketing and transport costs that they were incurring because there were no regional markets near at hand and the cost of transport from the regions concerned to the mainland was high.

New regulations were adopted in 1994, 1995, and 1998 in order to continue the measures laid down in the initial regulation. The last of these regulations was intended to remain in force until 31 December 2001. Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1587/98 (1) stipulated that the Commission was to submit a report on its implementation by 1 June 2001. However, the Commission wished to probe more deeply into the impact of the measures adopted and the additional costs entailed for the fisheries sector enterprises because of their remote location and, moreover, to take into account the debate on reform of the CFP. It thus considered it necessary to put the submission date for the report back to 1 June 2002 and, consequently, to extend Regulation (EC) No 1587/98 for another year, with the result that the regulation remained in force until 31 December 2002. The Commission proposal to that effect (for which a dual legal basis was invoked, namely Articles 37 and 299(2) of the Treaty) was accepted by the Council and endorsed by Parliament.

1. When will the report on compensation for the additional costs in the fisheries sector be adopted?

2. How does the Commission view the possibility of adopting a permanent scheme, to replace the extension of Regulation (EC) No 1587/98, bearing in mind that the remoteness of the outermost regions is a factor that cannot be altered?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member of the following:

— the report on application of the scheme to compensate for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products in the outermost regions is due to be adopted in the third quarter of 2003;

— adoption of the report goes hand in hand with the draft proposal for a Council Regulation introducing a scheme to compensate for the additional costs incurred, which the Commission is in the course of adopting, providing for application backdated to 1 January 2003 and unlimited in time;

— as regards the duration of the scheme, the Commission has always proposed that there should be no limit in time, subject to a report on implementation of the scheme being submitted every four years. However, the Council has introduced a time limit on application of the scheme each time negotiations have been held.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1998, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/200

(2004/C 33 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject: Transfer of the ‘castrum’ of San Gimignano into private ownership

The development of the town of San Gimignano began in the Middle Ages around the ‘castrum’, the ancient and vast fortified complex of dwellings, which was turned into the convent of San Domenico.

It was purchased by the State and used as a prison in the past. For years the municipality of San Gimignano has been trying in vain to get it back, on the basis of the right of the local community to make use of the public areas in its historic centre, especially those inside the original city walls, and by virtue of a municipal council act passed in 1999 concerning a project for its recovery and restoration.

However, the Italian Government, on the strength of Articles 7 and 8 of Law No 112 of 15 June 2002, which provide for the transfer of national heritage sites for budgetary reasons or in order to build facilities, arranged for the ‘castrum’ to be sold to private purchasers, who intend to build a hotel and an underground garage, which would destroy one of the most important masterpieces of town planning in medieval and modern history. The plan has been opposed jointly by local public and private bodies and is a cause of concern to Unesco, which has declared the historic centre of San Gimignano a world heritage site.

Furthermore, according to Article 151 of the EC Treaty Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States' (which are signatories to the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe) and the competent international organisations'in the area of conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance'.

In view of this, can the Commission say what steps it will support or take to prevent the execution of this unfortunate project and encourage the Italian Government to hand the ‘castrum’ of San Gimignano back to the municipality?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Article 151 of the EC Treaty gives the Community powers to encourage cultural cooperation between Member States and support and supplement (on the basis of funding and if necessary) their action in the following areas:

— improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;

— conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;

— non-commercial cultural exchanges;

— artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

It should be noted that Article 151 specifically excludes any ‘harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States’ (1).

Consequently the Honourable Member's question does not come within the Community's competence.

(1) Article 151(5), first indent of the EC Treaty.