ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Intra-EU foreign direct investment

Will the Commission provide figures for the euro-area and for the non-euro-area Member States on a comparable basis to those given for the European Union for intra-EU foreign direct investment (in graph 12) of the report from the Commission Economic Reform: Report on the functioning of Community product and capital markets(1)?

(1) COM(2001) 736 final.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Table 1 presenting data on the value in current prices of foreign direct flows from different sources to various targets (particularly the eurozone and non-eurozone) between 1996 and 2000 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat. The eurozone and the non-eurozone Member States are identified either as source or target in order to arrive at statistics comparable to those presented in graph 12 of the report from the Commission Economic Reform: Report on the functioning of Community product and capital markets(1).

The figures are arrived at by making the following assumptions:

1. the figures are Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and exclude reinvested earnings (this is the standard approach Eurostat uses in its annual reports on foreign direct investment and in the Cardiff Report);

2. the rest of the world here means the world beyond the 15 Member States;

3. for consistency, almost all figures given are outflows recorded from the source investor. Only in the case of FDI flows from the rest of the world are inflows used as recorded by the target;

4. the eurozone here always includes Greece, even though it joined later.

Table 2, presenting the same data in index form, setting 1996 = 100, is also sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) COM(2001) 736 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/02

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Register of Commission documents

Article 11 of Regulation No 1049/2001(1) stipulates that each institution must provide public access to a register of documents. It is also laid down that references to documents are to be recorded in the register without delay. The register must be operational by 3 June 2002.

There is at present no central register of Commission documents. This was also confirmed by Secretary-General O'Sullivan on the eurobserver.com website on 19 February 2002.

Article 8(1) of the Commission's own decision of 5 December 2001 states that the coverage of the register is to be extended gradually. Will the Commission therefore state whether a full register of Commission documents, public or otherwise, will be accessible before 3 June 2002? If the register is to be extended gradually, how does this square with Article 11(3) of the Regulation, which ought to mean that the register is complete by June?

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

The Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member that it will have, by 3 June 2002 at the latest, a register of documents, which will be accessible to the public on the Internet. The register will primarily cover legislative documents as defined in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(1). Initially, it will contain references to the SEC, COM and C documents submitted to the College from 1 January 2001 onwards. A help page will inform the public how the document may be obtained. If the document has been published, there will be a link to the full text in the Publications Office's free EUR-Lex system (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html).

The Commission will gradually extend the coverage of its registers. This gradual extension is not incompatible with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, insofar as Article 11 does not specify what content the registers of each institution must cover.

The Commission believes that the registers will be useful in helping citizens exercise their right of access. The fact that a document does not appear in the registers, however, in no way precludes anyone from requesting and being given access to the document.

The Commission would further remind the Honourable Member that it already has a correspondence register containing all the mail addressed to its President and his replies (http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/regcp/registre.cfm?CL=en), as well as a register of inter-institutional procedures (the PreLex database, http://europa.eu.int/prelex/apcnet.cfm) which follows the major stages of the decision-making process between the Commission and the other institutions and gives direct access to the electronic texts of the preparatory acts available.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0710/02

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Proposed closure of Smurfit Corrugated in Warrington, UK

Can the Commission investigate, as a matter of urgency, the proposed closure of Smurfit Corrugated in Warrington, UK? In view of the fact that this company is a multinational employing 16 000 workers in Europe, has failed to consult with the workforce, is refusing to call together the company works council and may use savings from the closure to invest in another plant, can the Commission ensure that all European directives and regulations are upheld and that the company engages in consultation and meaningful negotiations with the workforce?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The Commission would point out that several Community Directives stipulate procedures for informing and consulting workers' representatives that may be applicable when enterprises are closed down, especially Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1), and Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees(2). In addition, another Directive has just been adopted(3) on 11 March 2002 by the Parliament and the Council in order to complete the Community rules in this area.

The first two Directives have been implemented into the national legal orders of the Member States. It is up to the competent national authorities to assess whether they are properly implemented in each case.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(3) OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Subject: Mandate of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission

In his speech to the European Parliament on Turkey, on 24 October 2001, Mr Verheugen, Commissioner on enlargement, announced that the Commission welcomes the very recent initiative by the civil society in the two countries [Armenia and Turkey] to bring the two nations closer together and, with the help of independent historians, to reappraise the tragic events of the past.

In its fourth report on Turkey's progress towards accession, published on 13 November 2001, the Commission also mentions the fact that an unofficialTurkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commissionhas been set up with a view to promoting dialogue and mutual understanding in the field of economy, tourism, culture, education, research, environment as well as media.

Are these two statements referring to the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission whose establishment was officially announced in July 2001?

Which of the above two definitions, setting out radically different objectives, is to be considered as correct? Is the Reconciliation Commission to focus on historical issues?

Would the Commission agree that this must be specified, especially in the context of relations between the European Union and its partners?

Does the Commission plan to explain exactly what its position is so that the matter may be cleared up?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

The Commission supports any civil society initiative aiming at fostering dialogue and mutual understanding between Armenia and Turkey.

This was precisely the meaning of the speech by the Member of the Commission in charge of Enlargement before the Parliament on 24 October 2001 when it was said that recent initiatives taken by civil society to bring people of both countries together are very much welcome. It is in that context that the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission was mentioned. It was then added that this should lead to further reconciliation and mutual confidence.

This position was reiterated in the Commission's Regular Report on Turkey of 13 November 2001(1) which mentioned the setting up of a Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission. Again, particular reference was made to promoting dialogue and mutual understanding in the field of economy, tourism, culture, education, research, environment as well as media.

The Commission would draw to the attention of the Honourable Member the fact that the Turkish-Armenia Reconciliation Commission has now de facto ceased to function with the withdrawal of the Armenian representatives on 12 December 2001.

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Radio and television broadcasting councils in the EU countries

For several years the National Radio and Television Broadcasting Council (EPS) has been operating in Greece and is supposed to control the quality of radio and television programmes that are broadcast and ensure that they comply with the code of conduct. However, it is widely believed in Greece that this Council fails

to take decisive action, is spineless and takes no initiatives, and members of this council have been ineffective in raising the cultural level of Greek people, which was supposed to be one of the basic reasons for the establishment of the EPS in the first place. There have been very many instances in which slanderous and indecent programmes have been broadcast, and there is a feeling that the television and radio frequencies are the personal property of businessmen of every kind (some have connections with the media while others have none whatsoever) who use these frequencies as they see fit.

Can the Commission say how many and which EU countries have radio and television broadcasting councils? What precisely is their field of activity? Does any Community legislation exist on this matter? Who owns the television and radio frequencies in each Member State? What sanctions have radio and television broadcasting councils in other EU Member States imposed for violations of the code of conduct?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2002)

The relevant Community legislation is Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities(1) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997(2) (Television without Frontiers). This Directive provides in Article 3(2) that Member States shall, by appropriate means, ensure, within the framework of their legislation, that television broadcasters under their jurisdiction effectively comply with the provisions of the Directive. It does not include specific obligation regarding the organisation of national media authorities, which are therefore not monitored specifically by the Commission.

The Commission nevertheless cooperates closely with EPRA, the European platform of broadcasting regulatory authorities. Detailed information on the organisation of broadcasting regulatory authorities which are members of EPRA are available from its website http://www.epra.org. Regarding Luxembourg, the only Member State where no regulatory organisation is a member of EPRA, information is available on the following site: http://www.gouvernement.lu/gouv/fr/sip/media/encadrem/sma.html.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0107/02

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

(21 January 2002)

Subject: Subsidy to Railtrack

On 29 November 2001, the UK Government asked for subsidy exemption for financial support to Railtrack in administration.

To what value has this subsidy exemption been agreed and for what declaration is this exemption allowed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Railtrack Plc was, as the Honourable Member may know, put into Administration on 7 October 2001. Following the Administration Order the British Government notified to the Commission that it had put in place funding arrangements to ensure that the railway continues to run safely and normally until the transfer of Railtrack's licensed rail activities out of Administration as a going concern.

These arrangements, which purpose it is to rescue Railtrack's business pending the outcome of the Administration procedure, has been examined by the Commission in the light of the Community Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. In its decision of 13 February 2002, the Commission concluded that the UK Government's arrangements for rescuing Railtrack plc in Administration fulfills the criteria laid down in these Guidelines and decided to authorise the aid made available for an initial period of 6 months. In addition, and due to the exceptional circumstances in this particular case, the Commission also decided to authorise an extension of the initial period with 6 further months. Accordingly, the Commission authorised the UK Government to make available an amount of up to 8,78 billion for the period 7 October 2001-30 September 2002 in the form of loans and or guarantees.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0643/02

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Certificate of suitability for building materials

Research has shown that the accumulation of radon emitted from building materials in domestic dwellings causes various forms of lung cancer to which children are particularly susceptible. This situation could be remedied by using appropriate building materials. However, building materials circulate on the European market without certificates of suitability, which creates problems not only in the abovementioned circumstances but also in relation to other substances used in building materials which could potentially create serious public health problems.

Is the Commission aware of this problem and does it consider that it would be appropriate to introduce a European certificate of suitability for building materials so that consumers know to what extent the products used are safe?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

The Commission is aware that indoor radon is a public health hazard and has issued in 1990 a Recommendation(1) to protect against it. It is recommended that where a reference level of 400 becquerel per m3 (Bq/m3) is exceeded, simple but effective remedial action should be considered. For constructions after 1990 a design level of 200 Bq/m3 is recommended.

Radon may exhale from building materials, but in general ingress from the soil beneath the dwelling is far more important. On the other hand, other primordial natural radionuclides in building materials are cause of external irradiation by emitted gamma rays. The group of experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty has provided guidance on this matter(2). An activity index is proposed and levels below which materials would be exempted from any restrictions.

Above such levels building materials may need to be certified and information be provided so as to allow compliance with building codes. Radioactivity is within the scope of the Construction Products Directive(3). Within this framework specific requirements may be laid down, including the certification of materials for levels of radioactivity.

(1) Commission Recommendation 90/143/Euratom of 21 February 1990 on the protection of the public against indoor exposure to radon, OJ L 80, 27.3.1990.

(2) Radiation Protection 112, Radiological protection principles concerning the natural radioactivity of building materials, 2000, ISBN 92-828-8376-0.

(3) Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0192/02

by Giuseppe Pisicchio (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: Special aid for the Italian farming sector

An extremely alarming situation has been produced in central and southern Europe particularly in Italy by the harsh weather conditions which have occurred during what is proving to be a very long winter, with an unusual combination of drought and freezing temperatures.

For some autumn and winter crops which, in southern Italy in particular, are of leading importance, this situation has now turned into a real emergency.

According to the latest estimates, in Puglia (one of the areas which has been hardest hit) fruit and vegetable production has fallen by a minimum of 20 % and a maximum of 60 %, while the production of wheat and artichokes which are leading crops in the area has fallen by as much as 80 %, making for a loss of at least 100 million.

This drastic fall in production has led to consumer prices rising to totally unacceptable levels and is having such an alarming inflationary effect that the judicial authorities are looking into the matter.

Given the above, would the Commission not agree that it should provide special aid to farmers in view of the seriousness of the disaster which has occurred in major EU countries in a sector which, because of the specific nature of the activities involved, is exposed to weather-related risks for which current European legislation makes no provision whatsoever.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

The Commission has not yet received official information about the effect of the exceptional weather conditions in Italy.

Given the scale of the damage, existing Community provisions allow for the grant of special assistance part-financed by the Community from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in order to restore agricultural potential damaged by these weather conditions, which can be classed as a natural disaster.

In the context of the rural development plans for the regions outside Objective 1 and the regional operational programmes, the Italian regions can put in place measures to restore agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and introduce appropriate prevention instruments under Article 33(12) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the EAGGF and amending and repealing certain Regulations(1). Some Italian regions have already included this option in their programmes, in order to tackle the damage caused by past natural disasters of various kinds.

The Commission is accordingly prepared to look at any proposals from the Italian authorities, within existing statutory and financial limits.

However, EAGGF assistance can only cover investments relating to production potential, not lost income. National aid might be granted to cover lost income, if approved by the Commission under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, which relate to state aid.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Transparency

Will the Commission please comment on the proposal concerning transparency and openness in the EU institutions entitled Transparency and openness in the EU institutions, as proposed by SEAP, the Society of European Affairs Professionals?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing to its attention the document produced by the Society of European Affairs Professionals (SEAP), which it examined with the greatest of interest.

The document concerned contains a certain number of proposals aimed at increasing the transparency of the work of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Generally, the Commission shares SEAP's concerns about maintaining better involvement and more openness of the decision-making process of the European institutions.

In this connection, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member about its proposals, particularly those in the White Paper on European governance.

Moreover, the Commission intends to continue with its efforts on transparency by fully complying with the new rules introduced on this matter under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(1), and by developing best practice in order to guarantee citizens the most extensive access possible to its documents. Accordingly, the Commission has committed itself to improving transparency in the exercise of its implementing powers by allowing public access, subject to the exemptions laid down in Article 4 of the above-mentioned Regulation, to draft decisions on the implementation of acts adopted under the procedure set out in Article 251 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0147/02

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Beet-growers in southern Italy

Does the Commission intend to take action to support beet-growers in southern Italy by providing a regional contribution to cover part of the depreciation costs of irrigation systems, given the following:

1. the fact that the EU has approved, under the Regional Operational Programme for Sardinia, Article 4.9/N (Reg. EC 1257/99(1)) sugar beet growing,

2. the fact that installations set up for more than five years may be considered as forms of structural intervention,

3. the need for maximum rationalisation of water resources in southern Italy.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2002)

Since the support in question appears to be operating aid, the Commission is afraid that the kind of Community support suggested by the Honourable Member cannot be granted. Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(1) does not foresee financing for such expenses. Also the granting of national aid for such purposes would not seem possible, since operating aid would normally be considered to be incompatible with the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.