ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2269/01

by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease Trading problems with EU applicant countries

Will the Commission confirm that compliance by EU applicant countries with the obligations under both the Europe Agreements and the Association Agreements still constitute a basic element of the enhanced pre-accession strategy?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2266/01, E-2267/01, E-2268/01 and E-2269/01given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

The decisions adopted by the Community to safeguard animal and plant health form an integral part of the body of Community law. The principle underlying the accession negotiations is that the applicant countries will adopt this body of law. As soon as they join the EU, these countries will be bound by Community legislation, including the requirements to provide safeguards for instance as regards foot-and-mouth disease and bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE). All the applicant countries have undertaken to abide by this principle. The Commission also insists that the applicant countries gradually incorporate Community provisions into their national law during the pre-accession period.

In the course of the pre-accession period, relations between the Community and the applicant countries are governed by the association agreements. In this context and in various international forums, the Commission has raised the subject of the sometimes excessive restrictions imposed by the applicant countries. The Commission is doing what it can to ensure that such restrictions do not exceed the precautionary measures adopted by the Community. The Commission confirms that the provisions to be adopted by the applicant countries must not constitute arbitrary discrimination or a covert restriction on trade. In this respect, the association agreements are a fundamental component of the pre-accession strategy. The Commission intends to continue its efforts in this area. Moreover, the Commission has frequent contact with the veterinary authorities in the applicant countries and regularly provides them with information on the latest developments in the Member States and on the measures which have been taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2611/01

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Sellafield and radioactivity

Measurements have shown increasing radioactivity levels in the Barents Sea, around the Kola peninsula and Spitsbergen originating in the nuclear processing plant at Sellafield in the United Kingdom. The British are supposed to be reducing discharges of the radioactive substance technetium-99, but only intend to reduce discharges from Sellafield by 80 % in 2006.

What does the Commission intend to do to insist on respect for the present agreement with the British authorities on a reduction of radioactive discharges? Will the Commission also give a general assessment of the risks arising from the release of technetium-99 and other substances from Sellafield?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2001)

In signing the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Sintra Statement of 23 July 1998, the Contracting Parties, including the United Kingdom, emphasised their commitment to a number of aims of OSPAR set out in that statement, including those relating to radioactive discharges. The Sintra Statement noted the concerns expressed by a number of OSPAR Contracting Parties about the recent increase in technetium discharges from Sellafield at that time and their view that these discharges should cease. The Statement further noted British Ministers' commitment to address such concerns in the forthcoming decisions concerning the discharge authorisations from Sellafield.

At that time the contracting Parties adopted a Strategy for the purpose of directing future work of the OSPAR Commission with regard to radioactive substances. The responsibility for assessing the effectiveness of measures in that strategy, and progress made by Contracting Parties in meeting commitments, rests with the OSPAR Commission by quinquennial review and, if necessary, modification of the strategy.

The Commission is committed to participating in the work of OSPAR at a number of levels and in respect of radioactive substances is undertaking a study for the update of the Marína Project into the radiological exposure from radioactivity in North European marine waters. This work is referred to in the OSPAR Strategy with regard to Radioactive Substances and the Commission took account of the views of OSPAR, regarding the scope and nature of the study, before commencing the work. The Study is due to be published in the later part of 2002, with an interim report being made to OSPAR in early 2002. This study will provide, amongst other information, an up-to-date assessment of the impact of releases of technetium-99 from Sellafield on humans and biota.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3044/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Cohesion Fund and the Chalkis municipal water supply and sewerage company

The Chalkis municipal water supply and sewerage company in Greece submitted a proposal for funding from the Cohesion Fund in due compliance with the provisions of the relevant Commission directive, as verified by the authorities in the region of Sterea Ellada. Inexplicably, however, the application was not endorsed by the directorate responsible within the Greek Ministry for Economic Affairs. The company had also suffered the same treatment during the previous round of Cohesion Fund applications, as revealed by the final accounts of the Fund.

The inhabitants of the capital of this large Greek island are rightly wondering why they are the victims of this violation of the principle that all Greek citizens should be treated equally. The author of this question would also like to know whether this complaint is in fact justified and whether the Commission is prepared to investigate the matter and intercede with the Greek authorities to ensure that Community funding is allocated on the basis of fair and transparent criteria and in a manner which does not give the impression that the Union does not treat all Greek citizens on an eqaul footing and that it tolerates such conduct?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2957/01 and E-3044/01given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

In Chapter 4.9 Implementation Cohesion Fund, the Community support framework for Greece for the 2000-2006 programming period describes the principles which govern the submission to the Commission of projects for that Fund.

In the case referred to by the Honourable Members, it is the managing authority of the mainland Greece regional operational programme (OP) which, after having evaluated the technical feasibility of the projects submitted by the municipalities and other local operators, submits the selected proposals to the Greek Ministry for Economic Affairs (MEN) for the remainder of the procedure. MEN collects all the proposals from the various managing authorities, evaluates and prioritises them and sends the Commission those finally selected for its approval. In the case of projects in the Environment sector, such as the one mentioned in the question, the managing authorities and MEN must also carry out an evaluation according to the principles set out in Strategy of the Cohesion Fund Environment Sector, which forms part of the Environment OP for 2000-2006(1).

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the agreements referred to above, the implementation of assistance, and therefore the selection of the projects, is a matter for the Member States, which are required to send their final proposals to the Commission.

At this stage, the Commission has not received a proposal concerning part-financing from the Cohesion Fund of water supply work and drainage in Khalkida.

(1) Commission Decision C(2001) 1357. 24.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3292/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Possible discrimination against women in Swedish industrial injury insurance scheme

The press reported in October 1999 that the Commission had decided to examine whether women in Sweden suffered discrimination under that country's industrial injury insurance scheme. The Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO) had submitted a complaint to the Commission. The Commission subsequently asked the Swedish Government for its views on the TCO's complaint. It also asked the TCO to set out its position in more detail.

There were two points at issue:

1. The method used to calculate pay. The TCO believes that women working part time are unfairly treated in this respect, particularly those who reduce their working hours to take care of children in practice mostly women.

2. The criteria defining an industrial injury exclude injuries which often affect women especially. 70 per cent of those whose injuries are recognised as work-related in Sweden are men.

Can the Commission say what the outcome of this matter was and whether its conclusion was satisfactory to all parties involved?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

The Commission would confirm to the Honourable Member that it has received a complaint calling into question the validity under Community law of the statutory insurance scheme for industrial accidents and occupational diseases in Sweden.

According to the person submitting the complaint, the new rules on proof (based on presumptions) for the purposes of recognising an accident or a disease as an industrial accident or an occupational disease, and the method for calculating benefits depending on whether the worker concerned was working full- or part-time when the accident occurred, constituted indirect discrimination against female workers.

The Commission is currently examining this complaint in the light of the applicable Community law, viz. Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security(1), and the case law of the Court of Justice in this area.

It will not fail to keep the Honourable Member informed of the outcome of the ongoing examination of this complaint as soon as all the investigation and consultation work with all the parties concerned has been properly completed.

(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1381/01

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Solution of the Moluccas conflict in Indonesia

A violent civil war has been raging on the Moluccas in Indonesia since 1998, and has hitherto been portrayed as a religious conflict. However, at the end of March 2001 the main religious leaders, both Muslim and Christian, visited the UN and the EU together to explain to them that Christians and Muslims had lived side by side on the islands for centuries in peace and that this was in reality not a religious but an internal political conflict, in which the lives of thousands of citizens were being unscrupulously put at risk and different population groups set at each other's throats.

The religious leaders have cooperated in drafting a national reconciliation plan, including a strong economic and social dimension. To launch this reconciliation programme and put it into practice, external aid is needed, and the delegation of religious leaders from the Moluccas appealed for such aid to be provided.

What can the EU do to promote a peaceful solution to the conflict in the Moluccas? Does the EU intend to give its support to the proposed national reconciliation programme?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission closely follows events in the archipelago and shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member.

Like the majority of the international community, the Commission considers that the conflict in the Moluccas is primarily an internal matter for Indonesia, and that it should be addressed first and foremost by the Indonesian Government as well as by civil society organisations, the religious communities and other institutions.

Since the beginning of the conflict, only humanitarian assistance has been permitted from outside Indonesia. The European Community's Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has since 1999 intervened in the Moluccas, insofar as the precarious security situation has permitted, to ease the humanitarian tragedy, by providing assistance through non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to the victims of the conflict, including internally displaced persons. A new operation is currently being planned.

The Commission is aware of initiatives launched by a number of religious leaders to begin a process of social reconciliation and has had contacts with them on several occasions. The possibility of support for the longer term social development of the Moluccas and other targeted areas, with the aim of contributing to an improvement in this difficult situation, will be examined in the context of the Commission's preparation of a country assistance strategy for Indonesia.

The Union has taken the opportunity in its political dialogue with Indonesia to voice its concerns, and has encouraged the Indonesian authorities to continue their efforts to restore security, prevent further violence and find solutions to regional disputes through dialogue rather than by force (cf. Union Presidency statements of 28 November 2000 and 8 March 2001).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2984/01

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Life-Nature project Natura 2000 network of the Setúbal peninsula/Sado

On 5 October 1998 AFLOPS the association of forestry workers of Setúbal initiated a project for the conservation of various natural areas of Community interest located in the district of Setúbal, put forward by Portugal in the context of the Habitats Directive. This is the largest Portuguese nature conservation programme, under the aegis of the Life programme.

Since it was envisaged that the funding for this programme would be provided under the Life programme, a Commission decision was adopted on 15 July 1998 approving the granting of this financial support. Subsequently a contract was drawn up with DG XI concerning the forms of funding for the project.

Under the terms of the contract drawn up between the two sides, which provides for the possibility of an intermediate payment (provided that a summary chart of expenditure and the report on the relevant activities was submitted) the application for the payment was submitted, together with all the necessary documentation, on 21 February 2001.

Can the Commission say why part of this second advance has only just been paid and why the payment of the remaining amount has been delayed? According to AFLOPS, this delay is jeopardising the possibility of fulfilling the various commitments inherent in the project.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Aflops is receiving funding for an ongoing Life Nature project called Rede Natura 2000 na Peninsula de Setúbal/Sado (No B4.3200/98/499).

The Honourable Member wrote to ask about the same subject on 2 October 2001, to which the Commission replied in a memo of 12 October 2001, giving the following information:

A payment of 698 402,94 was made to Aflops on 13 August 2001. This sum corresponds to the total due from the Commission as an interim payment.

In the case of Life Nature projects, the interim payment is calculated in the following way (Article 4(4) of the standard administrative provisions for Life Nature):

1. The total amount of the interim payment is determined by applying the rate of support decided by the Commission to the eligible expenditure declared by the beneficiary.

2. In every case, the interim payment is limited to 40 % of the total Community contribution mentioned in the Commission decision (Article 2 of the standard administrative provisions).

In the case of the project mentioned this question, the rate of support decided by the Commission is 70 %.

The total eligible expenditure at the phase of interim report stage is PTE 200 024 597,97, or 997 718,49. The interim payment must therefore be 698 402,94 (70 % of 997 718,49).

Therefore, no further interim payment was made to Aflops. It seems that the beneficiary believed it was entitled to a payment of 40 % of the Community contribution, whereas this percentage was only the limit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/01 by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Council. Listing Council officials by nationality and professional category.



Official Journal 134 E , 06/06/2002 P. 0180 - 0181



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/01 by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Council (5 November 2001) Subject: Listing Council officials by nationality and professional category Would the Council provide me with a list setting out the total number of officials working in the Council, by nationality and professional category? Reply (14 February 2002) The data requested by the Honourable Member are given in the attached table. >TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1668/01

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Adaptation of Member States' pension schemes

Is the Danish State required to grant deductible allowances in respect of pension contributions paid by Danish citizens in other countries? How are Member States (in this case Denmark) guaranteed access to information concerning pension contributions paid in other countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

By virtue of the EC Treaty, Denmark may not discriminate against pension institutions established in other Member States. In the Commission's view, a Danish citizen or resident should enjoy tax relief for contributions paid by him, or on his behalf, to a pension institution in another Member State, or in a State covered by the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement, in the same way as for contributions paid to Danish pension institutions. Due to its serious doubts about the restrictive Danish legislation, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Denmark.

The information on the amounts paid should be provided by the taxpayer himself, who could be asked to supply any additional information which the Danish authorities would need in order to assess the eligibility of the foreign pension contributions for tax relief. Where there is a need for corroboration of the information, Member States can have recourse to the Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities

of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation(1). Furthermore, it should be mentioned that in its Communication on The elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions of 19 April 2001(2) the Commission suggested that Member States agree detailed arrangements for automatic information exchange on occupational pensions in order to safeguard the application of their tax rules.

(1) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977 (as amended by Council Directive 92/12/EEC, OJ L 76, 23.3.1992).

(2) OJ C 165, 8.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3283/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Spanish fishing vessels prevented from unloading in the port of La Rochelle (France)

At the end of October, fishermen from Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque Country complained that the attitude adopted by the French authorities, had enabled French fishermen to prevent 37 fishing vessels from the above-mentioned Spanish regions from unloading their catch of anchovy in the port of La Rochelle.

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that such a thing does not happen again and to guarantee the free movement of goods, as provided for in the Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3148/01 by Mr Valdivielso de Cué(1).

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 233.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2854/01

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Approval of the hormone-disrupter vinclozolin as a pesticide

According to the Product Monitoring Centre of the Finnish Social Welfare and Health Service, the Commission is proposing that vinclozolin a substance which has been shown to be hazardous to health and to affect hormones should be approved for pesticide use. Tests on rats have shown that oral ingestion of vinclozolin causes tumours and infertility deriving from male animals. It has not been scientifically proven that humans are less sensitive to the effects of vinclozolin than rats. Vinclozolin is used as a fungicide on berries, fruit, oleiferous plants, vegetables and ornamental plants. It is often sprayed shortly before harvest, and its use gives rise to residues in foodstuffs. The use of vinclozolin is banned in Finland, Sweden and Denmark. In the United States it has been assigned a safety factor of 10, which in practice means that its use is banned.

According to the EU's chemicals strategy, decisions must be based on the precautionary principle, and the purpose of the Pesticides Directive is to ensure a high level of protection of public health and the environment. How can the Commission account for the fact that at the same time it is proposing that vinclozolin be approved?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Vinclozolin is an existing active substance used in plant protection products. It is currently being evaluated in the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991, on the placing of plant protection products on the market1(1). The Directive provides that substances for which safe uses, according to the criteria of the directive, have been demonstrated can be listed in its Annex I. Member States would then have to grant authorisations of products containing the substance where the safety criteria of the directive are fulfilled: according to these, there must be a further safety evaluation of the product in which it is proposed to use the approved substance. Member States may also limit or prohibit the use of products where this is justified by their particular circumstances (e.g. climate, diet).

The Community evaluation of vinclozolin is almost complete and although the Commission is currently considering options for decision-making on the substance, it has not yet made a proposal on vinclozolin. Pending a Community Decision on Annex I listing, products containing vinclozolin are currently authorised in 12 Member States.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.