ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/190

(2004/C 84 E/0231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0269/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Consumer credit

In its various forms (personal loans, assigned credit, permanent credit, credit cards, etc.), consumer credit accounted in 2003 for more than EUR 510 billion, or 13 % of household consumption in the euro zone.

Since 1987, when it was established, the sector has expanded spectacularly; new types of services have given rise to increasingly diverse national laws, so that the legal framework needs to be brought up to date. In this context, the Commission's efforts to harmonise Member States' legal provisions are warmly to be welcomed.

However, although this type of credit can help to encourage consumption, it may also, if poorly managed, increase the indebtedness of many households which have fallen victim to the crisis and can thus even play a proactive role, contributing to the economic decline by holding back consumption at the wrong moment.

Inadequate protection of consumers in the Commission proposal caused the report to be rejected in plenary and to be referred back to committee because Parliament felt that it did not meet current needs.

In the face of such a barrage of criticism, is the Commission prepared to alter its position?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is pleased with the Honourable Member's comment that the harmonisation measures taken in the area of consumer credit are to be welcomed. These measures are part of the Commission's policy in the area of consumer protection and are in line with its strategy for 2002-2006 (1).

With regard to the first point made by the Honourable Member, indebtedness is indeed a concern within the EU, and the Commission shares this concern. Although the proposal for a Directive is not primarily designed to tackle indebtedness, it contains provisions which may help to do so. It is intended to set high standards for consumer information before, during and after the conclusion of credit agreements, which will help the consumer to avoid indebtedness, and to lay down rules on awarding loans (for example, the obligation for the lender to make sure that the customer is solvent).

As for the Honourable Member's comment on the procedure in Parliament, the Commission is pleased that Parliament has confirmed in plenary that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market should proceed with a review of the proposal and deliver an opinion on it.

The Commission is pleased with the in-depth discussions under way in Parliament and is awaiting the debate and the vote in plenary, currently scheduled for the second part-session in March 2004. The Commission intends to submit an amended proposal as soon as Parliament has adopted its amendments at first reading.

(1) COM(2002) 208 final — Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/555

(2004/C 84 E/0633)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/04

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Start of work on the Ebro Transfer

The Spanish Ministry of the Environment has announced that the government will lay the first stone in the work on the Ebro Transfer at the end of February, more specifically on the section linking the underground stretch of the River Segura to the Campos del Rio aqueduct in Murcia and the mouth of the Saltador al Camino del Cerro Minado tunnel in Almanzora (Almería). Likewise, a company under contract from the Spanish Ministry of the Environment has started excavations at Ulldecona and Alcanar in the province of Tarragona. At her meeting with the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on 16 December 2003, the Environment Commissioner gave assurances that the work on the Ebro Transfer would be viewed as a whole and not as separate projects.

Can the projects in question be financed separately or must they be included in the overall Ebro Transfer package? Has an application for European Union funding been made for these projects? Will such funding be granted?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

The Spanish authorities have submitted to the Commission for co-financing under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund a set of four projects linked to the Ebro transfer. For one of the projects, the northern sector, community co-financing has been requested under the Cohesion Fund while for the other three (major projects) the requests have been made under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), within the framework of the regional Operational Programmes for Valencia, Murcia and Andalucía.

The dates from which expenditure can be considered eligible for these projects is 29 December 2004 for the Cohesion Fund and the 1 January 2000 for the Structural Funds. It is not necessary for the Spanish authorities to await a decision by the Commission to launch these projects, although in such a situation the authorities incur the risk that the project does not meet the conditions necessary for approval by the Commission as set out in the relevant regulations.

While the above-mentioned projects have been presented as a group and, will, therefore, be evaluated as such by the Commission; it remains the exclusive competence of the Spanish authorities to decide on the most appropriate way to implement them, including matters related to the number of construction contracts considered necessary for technical or efficiency reasons.

At present, the Commission is in the process of analysing the submitted projects. A decision concerning the possible allocation of Community funds for these projects can only be taken once all the information has been carefully analysed. This decision will be made according to the existing rules and procedures as set down in the relevant regulations, and in full compliance with the applicable Community legislation and policies including those relating to the environment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/280

(2004/C 88 E/0285)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1083/04

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject: Project-related mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol

Can the Commission say which Member States have already concluded agreements with third countries on the use of project-related mechanisms (CDM)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Under the new Monitoring and Implementing Decision (280/2004/EC) which entered into force on 10 March 2004, Member States will have to report information on their (intended) use of flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol from 15 March 2005 (and then every two years).

In order to obtain some information before that date, the Commission sent questionnaires to Member States on their intentions and preparations for using the Kyoto mechanisms (Articles 6,12 and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol) to be answered on a voluntary basis. Information provided by Member States, however, has been very limited and not sufficient to provide a comprehensive overview. Six Member States (Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom) have already decided in principle to use these Kyoto mechanisms in addition to domestic policies and measures to achieve their targets for the first commitment period. Two Member States have presented their first quantitative estimations. A slightly more detailed summary can be found in the latest report (1) from the Commission under Council Decision 93/389/EEC of 24 June 1993 (2) as amended by Council Decision 1999/296/EC of 26 April 1999 for a monitoring mechanism of Community greenhouse gas emissions (3).

Further information on the intended use of flexible mechanisms may, however, be given in Member States' National Allocation Plans for the 2005-2007 emissions trading period, notably in cases where such use is crucial for a Member State in reaching its emissions target under the Kyoto Protocol.

(1) COM(2003) 735 final.

(2) OJ L 167, 9.7.1993.

(3) OJ L 117, 5.5.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/865

(2004/C 84 E/0957)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0746/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Reform in the fruit and vegetable sector

The Irish EU Presidency recently announced to the European Parliament that during its term of office the Commission would put forward proposals for reform in the fresh and processed fruit and vegetable sectors.

The Commission has already tackled crucial aspects of the COM via the Management Committee, using a procedure which prevented Parliament from either expressing an opinion or voting on the changes made. The result was a genuine reform of the rules governing the way in which producer organisations operate.

Would the Commission say which aspects will be dealt with in the next reform?

Is the Commission intending to submit a discussion paper (as it did in the case of the recent CAP reforms, including the package of ‘Mediterranean’ reforms) which will enable a debate to be held before the legislative texts are submitted?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Our review of the fruit and vegetable sector has not yet produced final conclusions. Therefore we cannot yet say what will be contained in any proposals.

We remind the Honourable Member that we presented a communication on the sector in 2001 that launched a wide democratic debate in which Parliament, the Council (with conclusions by the Spanish Presidency), the Member States and civil society have been participants. We have been and are working on the basis of the contributions made.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/920

(2004/C 84 E/1017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0944/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Components of small toys in food products

Given the accident statistics involving child suffocation by toys made up of small components, and specifically those to be found in food products.

Given the fact that the recommended age limit for these products is extremely low (normally age three) and that according to paediatricians children between the age of three and five tend to put any objects within their reach in their mouths.

Given that products of this type have been banned in the USA for decades, due to the inherent danger they represent.

Given that most European manufacturers do not sell this type of product.

Would the Commission, as part of its revision of the Toys Directive, consider:

— imposing larger minimum size standard patterns for the component pieces of toys, so as to prevent further serious accidents involving small components (cylinders as a child safety pattern);

— imposing a higher recommended age limit for these products?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the draft proposal for a revision of Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the safety of toys (1) is for the moment being discussed, in the framework of the Expert Group on the safety of toys, with the Member States, the associations of consumers and industry as well as with the standardisation organisations. The issue of toys contained in foodstuffs is, therefore, open for discussion in this context.

In general, it must be remembered that it is important for the intellectual development of children above a certain age, that they are able to play with toys containing small parts. The possible need for requirements for toys contained in foodstuffs can, however, in principle be addressed by provisions on age limits. Toys should only be marketed in combination with food if they are suitable for the age group that is likely to be the user. The possibility of clarification as regards the appropriate clearly legible warnings of the choking hazards on these products is also being examined.

Furthermore, in the context of the standardisation process which involves the participation of Member States and stakeholders, certain relevant questions can be addressed, like the possible need to change the cylinder test for small parts.

An impact assessment study on the revision of the Toys Directive is being carried out for the moment to examine the appropriate changes needed to the current Toys Directive.

(1) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.
Directive 2002/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 setting up a Community vessel traffic and information system (1) includes provisions concerning notification of ships' movements and their cargoes. In particular, it requires operators of vessels leaving a port in the Community to notify the competent port authority and to provide certain pieces of information, including the correct technical names of the dangerous or polluting goods as well as the United Nations (UN) numbers or International Maritime Organisation (IMO) hazard classes.

The Commission cannot have a formal position on a third party's alleged comments on TV or in the press. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that the authorisation to leave a port is an exclusive competence of the authorities of the Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/294

(2004/C 84 E/0341)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0006/04

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject: Granting of favourable tax status to Sicily

One of the European Union's main objectives, written into Article 2 of the EU Treaty, is to promote a high level of employment.

Ireland and Wales have been granted favourable tax regimes.

As a result of these significant tax concessions, Ireland, and to a lesser extent Wales, have managed to raise per capita incomes significantly and bring the level of unemployment down substantially.

Sicily has similar characteristics to Ireland — the region is lagging behind its development and it is disadvantaged by virtue of being an island with a population of approximately five million.

Sicily has the potential for vast economic growth but this growth is being curbed partly by the legal and fiscal restrictions imposed by the Community.

Will the European Commission grant Sicily favourable tax status as this would:

1. enable the island to attract more foreign investment, generating greater development potential and, with it, employment;

2. greatly benefit Sicilian firms without breaching Community competition rules;

3. result in less revenue for Sicily's budget but not affect central government revenue, with the lower revenue in Sicily being offset by greater prosperity.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Commission would recall to mind that the area of direct taxation falls within the competence of Member States provided that they respect the principles laid down in the EC Treaty, whilst the area of indirect taxes is harmonised at EU-level. However, should a tax measure confer a selective advantage to certain undertakings, sectors or regions, the EC Treaty rules on State aid may become applicable.

On the basis of the information provided, it is not clear to the Commission to which tax regimes the Honourable Member refers.

In general, the Commission is of the opinion that tax advantages limited to certain parts of a Member State territory constitute State aid. Such State aid can be approved under the conditions set out in the Commission guidelines on national regional aid (1). Aid that is not linked to investment, or the realisation of a specific project and which only foresees relieving undertakings from the costs they normally bear is, in principle, forbidden.

Member States have also made a commitment under the Code of Conduct for business taxation (2) not to introduce new harmful tax measures and therefore have an obligation to ensure that their tax measures are not contrary to this commitment.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2) Conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting on 1 December 1997 concerning taxation policy.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/199

(2004/C 84 E/0243)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0338/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Food safety

Is it true that the EFSA has approved the use of GM corn (NK603)? Did the ESFA conduct new and impartial investigations into the safety of the food? How much, if any, of the information necessary for a safety evaluation was provided by companies with a vested interest in the product?

How can the ESFA give assurances on the safety of food if it relies upon the experiments conducted by companies with a vested interest in the product?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

At the request of the Commission, the European Food Security Authority (EFSA), an independent risk assessment body, issued a scientific opinion on the genetically modified (GM) NK 603 maize where it concluded that it is as safe as conventional maize and, therefore, that its import for processing for food and feed use is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human or animal health. Approval of the maize is the responsibility of the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1) and to Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (2).

The Regulation provides that the applicant submits the necessary information to carry out the safety evaluation. This is a standard approach to product authorisation. In preparing its opinion of 25 November 2003 (3), the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms which is composed of highly qualified independent experts had, in addition to the documentation provided by the applicant, access to independent, peer-reviewed studies which were taken into account in reaching its conclusion and which are referenced in the opinion.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(3) http://www.efsa.eu.int/pdf/gmo/opinion_gmo_02_final_en.pdf
1. to 4.

The Commission has, until the question posed by the Honourable Member, not been informed of the accidents and other related events that have taken place in the Netherlands. When considering the safety of existing escalators it is important to note that different legal requirements and procedures apply depending on when the escalators were placed on the market and put into service. New escalators placed on the market and put into service in the European Economic Area from 1 January 1995 must comply with the essential health and safety requirements of the Machinery Directive (1). Application of the technical specifications of harmonised European standards is one voluntary means of fulfilling the relevant essential health and safety requirements of the Machinery Directive. Escalators placed on the market and put into service in the Community before 1 January 1995 were subject to the existing national legislation at the moment of installation, with exception for the period between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1995 when the Machinery Directive could be voluntarily applied.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/936

(2004/C 84 E/1034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1057/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Implications for the Community textile sector of certain trade practices on the part of China

The Spanish Intertextile Council has formally requested the World Trade Organisation to establish a three-year extension to prevent the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing from coming into force until 2007; this Agreement will remove all quotas, and will bring about the total liberalisation of the sector. The main reason for the Spanish request is the existence of certain ‘unfair’ trading practices on the part of various countries involved in the Agreement, such as China.

Other countries, including the USA, Turkey and Mexico, have joined Spain in signing the ‘Istanbul Declaration’, stating their fear that China will globally dominate the textile and clothes sector, if it continues with these practices, deemed illegal by the international community.

Does the Commission have further information concerning these facts?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to defend the European textiles sector against China's ‘unfair’ trading practices?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the contents of the so-called ‘Istanbul Declaration’ whereby United States, Mexican and Turkish industry associations called for an extension of the validity of the Agreement on Textiles of Clothing (ATC) for a further period of two years beyond its expiry date at the end of 2004. On 4 May 2003 a letter in this sense was forwarded to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Director General. Furthermore, it is also known that the Italian and Spanish industry are supportive of this initiative. Some developing countries, notably sub-Saharan, also appear to be supportive of an extension of the validity of the ATC.

The Commission wishes to point out that the ATC constituted a major result of the Uruguay Round negotiations in favour of developing countries and that it has no intention not to abide by this carefully negotiated result. In fact, the EU, United States, Canada and Japan have already notified the WTO Textiles Monitoring Body that, in conformity with the provisions of the ATC, restrictions on imports of textiles and clothing from WTO members will be eliminated on schedule by the end of 2004. Any modification to the contents of the ATC, and in particular its duration or extension, would have to be agreed upon by WTO members. To the Commission's knowledge, no WTO members have to date put forward such a proposal.

In response to the Honourable Member's comments about unfair competition, there is the possibility of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy or safeguard measures, in response to a complaint from European industry, when the necessary conditions are fulfilled.

In addition there are specific modalities which apply to China and according to which safeguard measures may be taken against imports from that country beyond the duration of the ATC. Such specific measures are authorized under China's Protocol of Accession to the WTO.