ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2843/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: Ramifications of delays in proposals relating to the common fisheries policy

Given the repeated delays in the publication by the Commission of the CFP reform proposals and the ongoing controversy surrounding them, it appears possible that the overall timetable for the completion and entry into force of the reformed CFP will be delayed.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What will be the legal status of access restrictions should the CFP not, as seems apparent at this point, enter into force by January 2003, with particular regard to:

(a) 6-12 mile coastal zones?

(b) access to the North Sea?

2. Can the Commission guarantee that the overriding goal of sustainable fisheries will not be jeopardised because of delays and the Commission's failure to keep to the timetable, since that would threaten the very survival of fisheries-dependent communities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

1. The conditions relating to the 6 to 12 mile zone expire at the end of 2002 according to article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture(1).

The rules on access to the North Sea are not affected by the new framework entering into force on 1 January 2003. The restriction on access to the North Sea for Spanish and Portuguese vessels laying down the 1985 Act of Accession will no longer apply from that date.

2. The Commission always puts forward proposals which recognise the requirement to support and encourage sustainable fish stocks and hence sustainable fisheries upon them. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the current proposals will be adopted with little or no delay.

(1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1636/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: Democracy in Singapore

Is the Commission aware of the case involving Dr Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party and leader of the opposition to Singapore's ruling party?

Can the Commission confirm that Singapore's Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong are suing him for questioning the Government during elections in November 2001 about an alleged secret USD 10 billion loan that was made by Singapore to the former Suharto regime in Indonesia in 1997?

Is it true that the High Court rejected his application to have Australian lawyer William Henric Nicholas defend him against the charges?

Does the Commission agree that, in a democratic society, political allegations should be rebuffed through democratic debate rather than in court cases?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2002)

The Commission through its Delegation in Jakarta, together with the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States, follows closely the human rights situation in Singapore, and is aware of the case of Dr Chee Soon Juan, leader of the Singapore Democratic Party.

The Commission can confirm that, according to sources, Senior Minister Lee Kwan Yew and Prime Minister Goh Cho Tong are suing Dr Juan for defamation in relation to an alleged secret loan to the Soeharto regime and that two requests made by Dr Juan to be defended by a Queen's Counsel from another country have been rejected by the High Court of Singapore. In the mean time, it is understood that Dr Juan has also filed a suit for libel against Senior Minister Yew.

The Commission has noted a tendency for leading figures in Singapore to exercise their right to go to court over political allegations, and agrees that both open debate and the rule of law are important elements of a healthy democratic society.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2917/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Papua New Guinea

Will the Commission say what projects in Papua New Guinea were funded from the EU budget during 2000?

Will it say how much aid in total was given to the country in all forms during 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2373/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Local authorities are obliged to ensure that any contracts for services above a certain threshold are opened to competition throughout the EU. Can the European Commission advise what, if any, threshold applies to services which are subject to GATS?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2373/02 and E-2374/02given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

Article XIII-1 of the GATS stipulates that the provisions of the GATS concerning MFN, market access and national treatment (i.e. GATS Articles II, XVI and XVII) do not apply to laws, regulations or requirements governing the procurement by governmental agencies of services purchased for governmental purposes and not with a view to commercial resale or with a view to use in the supply of services for commercial resale.

GATS Article XIII-2 gives World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members a mandate to develop multilateral rules to be applied to government procurement of services under the GATS. Until such multilateral rules are agreed, GATS does not impose any obligation/constraint on thresholds, nor on the possibility to promote environmental and social considerations when awarding contracts.

In the context of GATS Article XIII-2 negotiations, the European Communities and their Member States have tabled a proposal on 15 July 2002 (S/WPGR/W/39) on a general framework for such rules. This framework and the implementation of clear procurement rules (in particular transparency rules) would contribute to good governance. This proposal suggests for instance that criteria used by public authorities in their procurement activity should be transparent. It also stresses the flexibility offered by GATS to WTO Members, who can decide which sectors to open up to international competition and which restrictions to market access and national treatment to maintain. We will of course keep in mind our domestic regime, regarding in particular thresholds and the taking into account of environmental and social requirements, when negotiating future GATS rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2371/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Given that regional/local authorities are responsible for regulating and delivering many of the services covered by the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), will the European Commission clarify to what extent these regional/local authorities have been consulted on the current negotiations with the World Trade Organisation?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2370/02 and E-2371/02given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

In order to prepare for the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations the Commission has conducted broad consultations in an attempt to ensure a balanced input into its preparations for the negotiations. In addition to general meetings on broader trade policy issues under the so-called Civil Society Dialogue, the Commission has hosted a series of specific meetings on the GATS negotiations with civil society, the last one on 2 July 2002. These meetings are open to all groups with an interest in GATS negotiations, including Member State representatives whether from central or local government. The Commission intends to continue this dialogue as the GATS negotiations moved forward.

The Commission's efforts to consult with civil society are of course supplemented by the consultations that take place at national level and which help shape the positions Member States adopt when the Commission consult them through the so-called ad-hoc 133 Committee (Services). However, responsibility for consulting with regional/local authorities falls in the Commission's view on the national authorities of each Member State in a manner best suited to their legal framework. The question therefore is perhaps more properly addressed to the national authorities of each Member State. The Commission has consequently not undertaken an assessment itself of the potential impact on the ability of local/regional authorities to regulate and deliver services nor is it aware of such an assessments having been done by others.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2810/02

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: North Sea gill net fishery

Norwegian legislation implementing the EU/Norway Agreement on technical measures for 2002 in the North Sea is currently in place, and that legislation provides that the Norwegians may apply their 148 mm gill net rule outside the Norwegian four-mile zone. Fishermen from the north-east of England are extremely concerned that they must apply that rule from the shore and believe that their livelihoods are threatened as a result of this.

Could the Commission comment on the possibility that a derogation for EC inshore fishermen similar to that for Norwegian fishermen will be adopted in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2002)

In a meeting between the Commission and Norway of 21 June 2001, Norway informed the Community of their intention to enact legislation requiring a minimum mesh size of static gears of 148 mm when fishing for cod, haddock, saithe, plaice ling, pollack and hake in the Norwegian Economic Zone. Similarly, the Community informed Norway of their intention to enact legislation requiring a minimum mesh size of static gears of 140 mm when fishing for cod in Community waters of the North Sea. This does not constitute an agreement with Norway but is a simple exchange of information on the respective positions of the two parties.

Since Norway's position refers to the Norwegian Economic Zone, it excludes reference to the zone extending four miles from Norwegian baselines since the latter is not included in the Economic Zone. Norway has informed the Commission that there are no rules defining mesh sizes to be used in static gears when fishing for cod etc. within this region. This is Norway's decision and it lies within their legal competence to take such a position.

The Commission is reluctant to propose that the Norwegian situation should be mirrored in Community law in which the mesh size of 140 mm, is applicable up to the beach in Community waters and, of course, is applicable to Norwegian fishing activity within these waters.

However, the Commission is concerned that the lack of Norwegian Regulation may result in fishing practices which are deleterious for North Sea cod and it intends to raise this matter in this year's consultations with Norway on the management of joint fish stocks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3313/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Safety of off-piste skiing

Does the Commission intend to take action to ensure that there are safety measures in place for those wanting to participate in off-piste skiing?

Is there any likelihood that measures will be taken to address this matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission wishes to refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-1026/01 by Mr Maccormick(1). As stated in this answer the Commission does not intend to take specific sectorial action related to the safety of off-piste skiing.

In its forthcoming Report to the Parliament and the Council on the safety of consumer services, the Commission will assess the needs and possibilities for Community action addressing the safety of services. In this context, it is likely that tourism as well as sports and leisure activities will receive particular attention given the potential risks involved in some of these activities, such as off-piste skiing. However, it seems that the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality would prevent the Community from imposing legally binding obligations upon Member States for the organisation of off-piste skiing.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2400/02

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 August 2002)

Subject: False and damaging information on the Rome coastline posted on a German tourist site on the Internet

Is the Council aware of the fact that, on its Internet site (www.marcopolo.de/index), Germany's leading tourist guide, Marco Polo, makes the totally unjustified accusation that the Rome coastline with particular reference to the beach at Ostia is infested with rubbish and terrible diseases, going so far as to make defamatory statements about the presence of typhus fever and cholera among other things?

What action does the Council intend to take in order to make the truth known and to protect Ostia's image, given that the Italian public health authorities have categorically denied any risks and given assurances that it is safe to bathe anywhere on the coast?

How does it intend to prevent the major efforts and investments being made by the public authorities and the private sector with a view to enhancing the Rome coastline's appeal to Italian and foreign tourists from being undermined by false accusations?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

As a general rule, it is not for the Council to express a view on medias statements nor has it discussed this particular subject. The Honourable Member should rather address his question to the Italian authorities who can react in their own right through the proper channels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2916/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Palau

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for EU budget funding in 2001 for Palau and give details of the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3266/02

by Renzo Imbeni (PSE)and Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Seat of the European Food Safety Authority

Now that the top-level managers responsible for European food safety policy have been appointed in both the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority, is the Commission ready to take steps to ensure that a decision is reached as soon as possible on the definitive seat of the European Food Safety Authority so that it can start carrying out its tasks under optimum conditions?

How does the Commission intend to persuade the Council and the Heads of State or Government to comply with the functional criteria set by the Commission itself and the European Parliament when taking their decision?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

The Commission regrets that the Council has not been able to conclude on the seat of the Authority. It also regrets that the absence of a decision has led the Parliament to place a substantial proportion of the Authority's budget in reserve until a solution to the seat question is found. These negative elements clearly inhibit the rapid establishment of the Authority, an objective shared by all three institutions. The uncertainty in relation to the seat has an adverse effect on the ability to recruit and retain the highly qualified and experienced personnel on whom the Authority's success will ultimately depend. It also creates practical difficulties resulting from the need to establish a temporary location.

In accordance with the wishes of the Council, the Commission has taken the necessary steps for the Authority to begin operations in Brussels. It has undertaken the necessary preparatory work to provide the Authority with its essential basic administrative and technical infrastructure.

The decision on the Seat is ultimately a matter for the Council. The Commission has stated on many occasions that it believes that the seat of the European Food Safety Authority should be determined on the basis of its operational needs. The Commission therefore considers that it should have a central location to facilitate easy exchange between the risk assessor, risk manager and with other stakeholders throughout the Community. It is also important that the Authority is easily and rapidly accessible to the large number of voluntary scientists from all over the Union who will regularly attend meetings to establish the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) scientific advice.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2403/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(31 July 2002)

Subject: Money laundering directive

There is currently a debate going on in Austria concerning Directive 2001/97/EC(1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC(2) on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 28 December 2001.

In this connection the question arises as to whether the recitals of the Money Laundering Directive, particularly Nos 16, 17 and 18, have the force of law, or whether they are merely explanatory in nature.

In our opinion the recitals of the Money Laundering Directive have the force of law and are binding on the Austrian legislature.

Could the Commission inform me whether this is the case?

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76.

(2) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Article 253 of the EC Treaty lays down that directives shall state the reasons on which they are based.

The purpose of the recitals to a directive is thus to explain the reasoning followed by the legislative authority or authorities which adopted the measure in question.

The obligations imposed by a directive are set out in the articles, whereas the recitals to a directive do not have, strictly speaking, the force of law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2738/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE)and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Status of the London Congestion Scheme

In February, 2003, The Mayor of London, Mr Kenneth Livingstone, is due to introduce a controversial pioneer Road User Charging Scheme known as the Congestion Charge which will apply a fixed GBP 5 daily fee per road vehicle entering a designated Central London Zone. One of the predicted negative effects will be to divert traffic which currently crosses Central London around the periphery, causing additional local levels of pollution in London suburban areas both in terms of noise and exhaust emissions which may have deleterious effects on local residents. There are a number of other UK cities contemplating similar schemes.

Could the Commission indicate whether it considers London's Congestion Charge to constitute an Urban Development Project as defined by Directive 85/337/EEC(1) (as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC(2)) and which has itself been transposed into UK domestic planning legislation, and, if so, does it require an impact assessment study if the UK is not to breach its legal obligations in this area?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

The congestion charge proposed for London would not fall into the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, Annex II, 10b) as an Urban Development Project including the construction of shopping centres and car parks. Projects in the sense of the Directive mean the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes (Article 1, point 2). The national guidelines(1) from November 2000 (for England and Wales) for EIA procedures have transposed Annex II, 10b following this approach. The congestion charge is a matter of national competence which should be raised with the appropriate local planning authorities.

(1) Environmental Impact Assessment a guide to procedures, DETR/National Assembly for Wales, November 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2052/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Microsoft's new licensing arrangements

At the end of July the transitional period of a few months set by Microsoft for the introduction of a new licensing programme comes to an end. That means that upgrades for applications and workstation access licences are due to expire as of 1 August 2002. For many users, the changes to the programme will mean that the costs for use of new versions of Microsoft software will roughly double.

There are no reasonable grounds for the big price increases. The changes are not linked to higher costs for the development or distribution of software. The number of improvements made between two consecutive versions, and the nature of those improvements, is becoming less and less significant, whilst the price of upgrades is increasing. Irrespective of the changes to the licensing programme, the actual prices for Microsoft products have continued to increase at an excessive rate in relation to other price movements (i.e. above the rate of inflation).

1. Is the Commission informed about the introduction by Microsoft of a new licensing programme?

2. Does the Commission take the view that the introduction of the new licensing programme and the price increases associated with it constitute a form of abuse of a dominant economic position and are thus contrary to European competition law?

3. Does the Commission intend to take steps against Microsoft, and if so, what steps?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2002)

As the Commission has highlighted in its replies to written questions E-1823/02(1) and E-1824/02(2) by Mr Meijer, and P-2053/02(3) by Mr Doorn:

1. The Commission is aware of the introduction by Microsoft of a new licensing programme.

2. The Commission has not at this stage formally investigated this issue. The Commission cannot therefore confirm or deny whether the terms of this licensing programme may constitute an abuse of a dominant position in contravention of the Community's competition rules.

3. For reasons of efficient allocation of its limited resources and in light of its ongoing case against Microsoft, the Commission agreed with several national competition authorities in 2001 that these competition authorities would conduct the first analysis of Microsoft's new licensing policy. Taking into account the work that has been done by the relevant national competition authorities on this issue, the Commission is currently examining with these authorities the most efficient way to carry the investigation forward.

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 95.

(2) See page 28.

(3) See page 41.