ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: UK's budget rebate

The method of calculating the UK correction has been modified in order to neutralise the net gains (the windfall gains) of the UK that result from the increase in the percentage of TOR retained by Member States.

When, and by what process, did this change occur?

What was the UK's total contribution to the Community's budget in each of the past five years both before and after the annual rebate?

How will the enlargement of the EU affect the UK's rebate?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

The traditional own resources (TOR) windfall gains correction to the United Kingdom rebate was introduced by Article 4(e) of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities' own resources(1). This correction applies retroactively as from 1 January 2001 since the percentage of TOR retained by Member States was increased as from that date. This was agreed between the Member States at the Berlin European Council of March 1999 and is reflected in point 72 of the Presidency Conclusions.

The United Kingdom's total payments to the Community budget in the last five years were:

>TABLE>

The size of the United Kingdom rebate is directly proportional to the amount of allocated expenditure (= Community expenditure allocated to individual Member States). Since this allocated expenditure will increase after enlargement due to the expenditure in the new Member States the United Kingdom rebate will increase(2). As a consequence, the United Kingdom will bear less than its normal share of the cost of enlargement(3).

(1) OJ L 253, 7.10.2000.

(2) The increase of the rebate will be somewhat tempered by the provisions laid down in Article 4(f) of the Own Resources Decision, which is based on Point 72 of the Berlin Presidency Conclusions. This article states that at the time of enlargement total allocated expenditure will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the annual pre-4accession expenditure in the acceding countries.

(3) Since the cost of enlargement will basically be financed through an increase of the gross national product (GNP) resource, a normal financing share would be equivalent to the United Kingdom share in the Union GNP.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0949/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Failure of Greece to comply with EU legislation concerning taxation

Will the Commission say in how many instances Greece may be presumed to be in breach of Community legislation concerning taxation, 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 Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the eighteenth annual report on monitoring the application of Community law(1), which gives account of the action taken by the Commission in 2000 to monitor the application of Community law. It tracks the progress made in the infringement proceedings initiated and managed by the Commission generally and sector by sector.

The report has been sent to Parliament (PE/2001/1303).

The nineteenth annual report will be adopted in 2002 and after adoption will be sent to Parliament.

(1) COM(2001) 309 final, volume I.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2124/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Future of fisheries-dependent communities

The European Court of Justice has clearly reinforced the principle of relative stability based on the original text of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83(1) as a principle which is intended to ensure for each Member State a share of the Community's TACs, determined essentially on the basis of the catches from which traditional fishing activities and the local inhabitants dependent on fisheries and related industries of that Member State benefited before the quota system was established (see, for example, Case C-4/96).

Adjusting the principle of relative stability, as proposed by the European Commission in its CFP reform proposals, to a principle under which allocations should be based on an average share of catches over the preceding 5 or 10 years and eventually eliminating the principle of relative stability, would be contrary to the very essence of the principle and why it was established and has been consistently reaffirmed. Adjusting and/or eliminating the principle would jeopardise the future of fisheries-dependent communities which depend on their historical fishing rights being protected. Can the Commission therefore provide a clear explanation as to how it will bear responsibility for destroying fragile communities where there is often no alternative employment and, in so doing, undermining or eliminating what is a firmly established fundamental Community principle?

(1) OJ L 24, 27.1.1983, p. 1.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2123/02 and E-2124/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

As the Honourable Member rightly stated, the principle of relative stability has been referred to in Community legislation. However, that legislation does not contain the elements necessary to make fully transparent how the principle of relative stability works in practice. The Commission proposes that these elements are laid down in a Regulation by Council, in consultation with Parliament. The Commission is convinced that legal security will be increased in this manner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2281/02

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Ban on admission to the KVB (Bavarian association of health service doctors)

1. In the Munich area the Bavarian association of health service doctors (KVB) has refused admission to new doctors. Is this lawful?

2. Does this mean that the freedom of establishment of a Greek psychotherapist, who would like to treat health service patients in order to meet the increased demand for Greek-speaking doctors, will be restricted?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The Commission is aware of the limits which can be imposed on the establishment of, and particularly the conclusion of agreements with, the medical professions in certain countries. These restrictions are sometimes introduced for reasons of public health and the financial balance of the sickness insurance funds.

However, the Commission does not, in this case, have sufficient information at its disposal to pass judgement on the regulation in question. It will request this information from the German authorities and keep the Honourable Member informed of any further developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2197/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: Devices for blocking mobile phones

More and more people are being disturbed by mobile phones ringing at inappropriate moments. The growth in mobile phone traffic is being accompanied by the availability of an increasing number of devices which block all mobile phone traffic. Accordingly, a large number of cinemas, restaurants, hospitals and schools want to install such blocking devices. In Belgium, such devices are currently prohibited by law, but they are legal in France.

Does the Commission intend to draw up an EU directive which will address and regulate at European level the issue of devices for blocking mobile phones?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The use of devices preventing the reception and emission of GSM signals is currently forbidden in all Member States. The national Parliament in France has passed a law paving the way towards allowing the use of such equipment in performance halls, subject to the adoption of implementation measures by the national regulatory authority.

The Commission is currently reviewing the situation as the use of such equipment allegedly raises a series of questions relating in particular to the free movement of services, the protection against interference in the frequencies allocated and assigned for GSM communications, and compatibility with the radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment Directive (R & TTE)(1).

(1) Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0336/02

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Seigneurage

Where can we find a copy of the formula that the ECB will use to credit seigneurage benefits to the Euroland states?

Has the ECB (or the Commission) done any estimate of the winners and losers on Seigneurage? If so, may we have a copy, please?

Does the ECB (or the Commission) have any estimate of the costs or benefits in Seigneurage terms to the UK if it were to join the Euro? Again, if so may we have sight of such estimates?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

1. The Decision 2001/914/EC of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 6 December 2001 on the allocation of monetary income of the national central banks of participating Member States from the financial year 2002 has been published in the Official Journal(1).

2. The Commission does not know as to whether the ECB has done any estimate of the winners and losers on seigniorage.

The Commission has not estimated the impact of the Decision of the Governing Council of 9 December 2001 on the allocation of seigniorage revenues among the Member States.

3. The Commission does not know as to whether the ECB has any estimate of the costs or benefits in seigniorage terms to the United Kingdom if it were to join the euro.

The Commission respects the position of the Member States that have not adopted the euro so far and regards it as inappropriate to investigate or publish hypothetical scenarios what might have happened if these Member States would also have adopted the euro.

(1) OJ L 337, 20.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1024/02

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Free movement of persons and death grants in the EU

My constituent, the mother of a British national who died while working and residing in Holland, has had her request for a funeral payment legally rejected by a British benefits agency after her son's body was returned to the UK for burial, which she organised. This rejection was in spite of the fact that she receives income support, and is valid on the grounds that the deceased had not been resident in the UK at the time of his death.

Does the Council concede that this represents a serious anomaly with regard to the values and working necessities of a European Union of free movement of persons?

Will the Council consider that Regulation 1408/71(1) must be amended in order to prevent this situation from being allowed to recur? Citizens financially unable to cover the costs of a funeral can not be left with such a burden resulting directly from the union of Europe.

At this time, is there any compensation that Europe can provide for those affected by this shortcoming?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to questions E-0209/02 and E-0343/02, put by Ulpu Iivari and Eija-Riitta Korhola respectively.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1941/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Athens underground railway

According to figures from the Greek Government, basic work on the Athens underground railway will cost approximately 540 billion drachmas 430 billion to adjust the initial cost of 180 billion set out in the 1988 agreement to take account of inflation and successive exchange rate fluctuations, and the 110 billion cost of work to improve the railway's safety and appearance. Together with the costs for administration,

studies on extensions to the line, compulsory purchases and all associated works, the cost amounts to 705 billion, and if interest on loans and VAT are added to the above, the cost totals 952,7 billion drachmas.

The Commission:

- Does it agree with these figures? If not, what are its own figures?

- Does the EU believe that there have been any contraventions, shortcomings in transparency or instances of maladministration in the Athens underground railway company's handling of the project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2002)

On the basis of information received from the Greek authorities, the cost of the basic project of the Athens Metro is EUR 2 066 million, VAT and interest excluded. This amount covers the two lines, Sepolia-Dafni and National Defense-Monastiraki, including 19 stations, the Sepolia depot, the rolling stock, the parallel and additional works, the expropriations and the cost for the management of the project by the company Attiko Metro.

European Regional Development Fund contribution to the financing of the basic project amounted to EUR 200 million under the 1989-1993 Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece. An additional EUR 733 million under the 1994-1999 CSF and EUR 750 million under the 2000-2006 CSF were also allocated to the project.

As for any payment request presented to the Commission by the Member States for operations cofinanced by the Structural Funds, those presented for the Athens Metro project must include expenditure incurred in conformity with Community and national legislation. Controls executed by both the national and the community competent authorities aim to ensure the respect of this principle. In case of irregularities, financial corrections are applied, as provided by the regulations relating to the Structural Funds. No such corrections have been applied in relation to the Athens metro.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1721/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Monitoring of nuclear power stations

After 11 September and attacks by suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine, the intelligence services in both Europe and the United States consider that nuclear power stations are potentially high-risk targets and that therefore nuclear installations and research centres using nuclear material, such as the Ispra research centre in Varese, are at risk of attack and hence require exceptional surveillance measures.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether steps are being taken at Community level to ensure closer monitoring of nuclear power stations and thus to ensure the health and safety of the population;

2. what its opinion is on the subject?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

Security measures pertaining to nuclear facilities are the responsibility of the Member States. There is no Community legislation in this area.

The authorities of the Member States have stepped up existing protective measures for all sites at risk, particularly nuclear power stations, since 11 September 2001. The measures taken range widely, from simple verification measures of an administrative nature to military measures. The particular arrangements are to a great extent confidential and the competent services of the Member States ensure that they are being properly applied.

As far as Ispra is concerned, it should be noted that most of the activities of this centre concern only the treatment of nuclear waste and that its security measures have also been reinforced.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0777/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: The Paper Boy

I received a note from my newspaper agent stating that as of 1 March 2002, there will be an increase in delivery charges due to new EEC Regulations which limit the weight of papers carried by any one child. It is therefore necessary to use a car three times a week to assist in deliveries, and as we hope you will understand this is not financially viable at the present rate.

Is there such an EEC Regulation that is at the root of this price increase? Or is this a devious way to increase prices while blaming someone else?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Under Community Law, the work of children is prohibited. Article 1 of Council Directive 94/33/EC(1) lays down that Member States shall take the necessary measures to prohibit work by children. Article 3(b) defines a child as any young person who is less than 15 years of age or who is still subject to compulsory full-time schooling under national law.

Nevertheless, Article 4 of the Directive allows Member States to authorise the work of children in certain restricted circumstances: children pursuing cultural or similar activities, children of at least 14 years of age working under a combined work/training scheme, children of at least 14 years of age performing light work other than in cultural or similar activities and children of 13 years of age for a limited number of hours per week in the case of categories of work determined by national legislation. Article 4, paragraph 3, specifies that Member States using this faculty must determine the working conditions relating to the light work in question.

Council Directive 94/33/EC is applicable in all Member States since 22 June 1996.

The situation referred to is not covered by the above-mentioned Directive nor is there any other Community legal text dealing with the issue. There is therefore no new development at Community level justifying, as of March 2002, the increase in delivery charges referred to by the Honourable Member.

(1) Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0641/02

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

(6 March 2002)

Subject: MEDA funding and transparency

Article 8(c) of the amended MEDA Regulation(1) (No 2698/2000) requires the Commission, as part of the policy to improve transparency and information, to publish he results of the invitations to tender, including information on the number of received tenders, the date of the award of the contract, and the name and the address of the successful tenderers, in the Official Journal of the European Communities and on the Internet.

How does the Commission explain its failure thus far to comply with this requirement, which is expressly laid down in the Regulation, when at the same time it has taken care to publish the corresponding information in respect of other funding programmes such as TACIS? Will the Commission publish the information immediately and, if so, does it have a specific timetable for implementing this policy?

(1) OJ L 311, 12.12.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of the obligations stemming from Article 8(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2698/2000 of 27 November 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 on financial and technical measures to accompany (MEDA) the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

The results are published as and when the contracts are signed. In most cases they have already been published and can be consulted on the Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/cgi/frame12.pl.

The contracts that have not been published are mainly decentralised contracts where the contracting authority is the national authorising officer of the beneficiary country and has not yet communicated the results to the Commission.

In view of the importance of the transparency policy, the Commission sees to it that information relating to the award of contracts financed under the MEDA programme is published as rapidly as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1273/02

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Subsidies to stock farmers

The Union's budget for 2002 provides for reductions in subsidies for sheep and goat meat from EUR 970 million to EUR 672 million on the grounds of the rise in prices for sheep and goat meat owing to mad cow disease and the resultant crisis on the meat market in Europe (plummeting consumption of beef and a corresponding increase in consumption of other kinds of meat lamb, veal etc.).

Owing to differences in diet in southern and Mediterranean Europe, consumption of sheep and goat meat in Greece is always high and, therefore, the increase in its commercial value resulting from greater demand was slight and did not match the increase for the same meat in northern Europe. These circumstances and the fact that subsidies for sheep and goat meat are to remain the same regardless of actual market prices create problems for sheep and goat farmers in southern Europe, particularly Greece.

Did the Council take account of the particular circumstances of sheep and goat farmers in Greece when proposing the above cuts and what measures will it take to restore the subsidies to their rightful level?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

1. The Council is not currently aware of any proposal seeking to amend the compensation rules established at the time of the latest reform of the CMO for sheepmeat and goatmeat.

2. Since his question concerns matters falling within the scope of an analysis of the state of the market for sheepmeat and goatmeat, the Honourable Member is referred to the European Commission's reply to his oral question H-0310/02 during question time at the European Parliament's part-session from 13 to 16 May 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1887/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Border Guard units

In connection with the debate on the Commission Communication entitled: Towards Integrated Management of the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union(1), would the Commission kindly answer the following questions:

1. How many border police or personnel employed on border security duties are there in the Member States, and in which Member States are they so employed?

2. How much does an official with no managerial status earn on entry to the service?

(1) COM(2002) 233.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2002)

The Honourable Member's question does not fall within the Community's remit: it is a matter for the relevant national authorities alone. The Commission regrets that it does not have the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1747/02

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

(19 June 2002)

Subject: The situation of the Commission's Director-General for Fisheries, Steffen Schmidt

Has the Director-General for Fisheries, Mr Steffen Schmidt, actually been dismissed or is he still in office, as the Commissioner, Mr Franz Fischler, surprisingly seems to have indicated?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to point 3 of its joint answer to written questions E-1430/02 by Mr Meijer and E-1563/02 by Mr Corbett(1).

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 122.