ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0137/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Côte d'Ivoire international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Côte d'Ivoire international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Côte d'Ivoire?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

1. Article 3 of the current Protocol to the Fisheries Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire(1) fixes the level of financial contribution at EUR 957 500 per year. Out of this amount, the Protocol foresees EUR 682 500/year for the measures in support of the Ivorian fisheries sector specified in Article 4 of the Protocol.

2. The financial contribution of EUR 957 500 per year represents the amount that is paid in exchange for the fishing opportunities made available to the Community fleet.

3. The amounts paid by the vessel owners are fixed in the Annex to the Protocol.

The annual licence fees for the trawlers is EUR 168 per gross registered ton per vessel per year. Fees for half-year licences shall be 3 % higher and fees for quarterly licences 5 % higher.

The annual licence fees are EUR 25 per tonne of tuna caught within Côte d'Ivoire waters. The annual licences are delivered after advance payments of EUR 2 750 for tuna seiners, EUR 1 000 for surface longliners and EUR 375 for each pole and line tuna vessel.

(1) OJ L 102, 12.4.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0982/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Macerata

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Macerata, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Macerata has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1421/03

by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Agricultural policy

How much does the Commission assess the producer support estimate to be as a result of the EU's agricultural policy, how much of this is market price support and what proportion of these amounts can be attributed to various products such as sugar, beef, dairy products, wheat and vegetables?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0504/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE)and Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Alcohol tests for airline pilots

The statements by the head of the Air Accident and Incident Investigation Department of the Spanish Union of Airline Pilots (SEPLA) to the effect that the alcohol tests carried out on both national and foreign but particularly foreign pilots are totally inadequate have understandably sparked considerable public alarm.

Having become accustomed to the recent marked impact of breath tests for car drivers, many people have discussed the need to step up alcohol tests for airline pilots.

Can the Commission say whether there is currently any specific Community legislation on alcohol tests for airline pilots, and whether it considers that such tests should be increased for those responsible for piloting planes in any part of the European Union's airspace?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

There is no specific Community legislation on alcohol tests in the civil aviation sector.

However, there are extremely stringent rules regulating alcohol and drug consumption in this sector at international level (ICAO rules International Civil Aviation Organisation) and at European level (JAR-OPS of the JAA Joint Aviation Authorities).

The Commission has presented Parliament and the Council with a proposal amending Regulation 3922/91(1) which transposes the JAR-OPS provisions into Community law. The proposal is now before the Council with a view to adoption of a common position.

The Commission is currently considering whether other legislative measures on alcohol levels in workers in the passenger transport sector could provide added value at Community level.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0272/03

by Rosa Díez González (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Commissioning of a specified risk material (SRM) incinerator

Over 1 000 inhabitants of the villages of Térmens and Vallfogona de Balaguer in the province of Lleida have signed a petition against plans for an incinerator that is to be constructed by the Grefacsa company.

The application to construct an incinerator to burn around 40 000 tonnes per annum of animal meal originating from animals and organs classified as SRMs (specified risk materials) was published in the Official Journal of the Generalitat de Catalunya on 5 November 2002. I understand this SRM classification to mean that these animals were liable to have suffered diseases such as the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies commonly known as mad cow diseases.

Various scientific reports indicate that incinerators produce carcinogenic synthetic substances which remain stable for long periods in the air, water and soil.

Is the Commission aware of the construction of this incinerator?

How many such incinerators are there in Europe?

What current legislation governs this area and has or will a Community directive be issued in this regard?

What are the maximum permissible emissions?

To what extent might the incinerator affect the environment and especially the health of people living under 10 kilometres away?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

The incineration of waste is regulated by several legal instruments, aimed at preventing or limiting as far as practicable its negative effects on the environment and the resulting risks to animal and human health. As regards the incineration of animal by-products to which Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste(1) does not apply, Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption(2) will apply as from 1 May 2003.

The granting of permits for waste incinerators falls under the responsibility of national authorities, and does not need to be notified to the Commission. The Commission is therefore not aware of the request to construct the incinerator mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission does not know exactly the total number of waste incinerators operated within the Community. Technical publications suggest that the total number must be in the range of some hundreds.

As far as applicable, Directive 2000/76/EC lays down limit values for conventional pollutants, e.g. for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions into the air, as well as values for persistent and/or toxic substances, e.g. for heavy metals and dioxins, into air and water.

The limit values are set in order to prevent as far as practicable negative effects on the environment and the resulting risks to human health. The actual risk at local level has to be assessed for each individual case within the permitting procedure.

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(2) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0157/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Alterations to a radar installation on the island of Madeira

With reference to Mrs Wallström's answer dated 4 November 2002 to my Written Question E-2734/02(1) on the construction of a radar installation on Pico do Areeiro, on the island of Madeira, what is the Commission's position on the announcement that the above radar installation is still to be located in the same area, only a matter of metres away from the site previously planned, bearing in mind that this minor alteration still poses all the disadvantages of the earlier plan?

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 96.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Further to its answer to Written Question E-2734/02 by Mrs Figueiredo(1), the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has since been able to register the case as a complaint and question the Portuguese authorities about the situation.

At a meeting with the Commission, the Portuguese authorities were able to give a number of clarifications regarding the project. They explained that the radar project had been imposed by NATO and that the nature of the installation was such that it could only be located on one of the two highest peaks on the island Pico Ruivo and Pico do Areeiro. The Pico Ruivo option was rapidly abandoned, given the obvious adverse impact. The Pico do Areeiro area was chosen because other constructions and telecommunications installations are already located there. The Portuguese authorities also indicated that the radar's radiation field would not reach the nesting site of Pterodroma madeira, being located well above it.

In any event, the project has been made subject to an environmental impact study, whose conclusions are still pending. Lastly, the Portuguese authorities indicated that they would send the Commission a copy of the impact study.

The Commission will wait to receive the study before pronouncing on the situation.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 96.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0591/03

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Structural Funds or Cohesion Fund contribution for road building in Spain

A stretch of motorway is currently being built from Malaga to Cadiz in the Spanish province of Andalusia.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Is this motorway, which runs parallel to the N-340 coastal road, being co-financed with appropriations from the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund?

2. Will tolls also be charged on the co-financed stretches of this motorway?

3. Is it permitted to charge tolls on co-financed stretches of motorway?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

There is currently a national main road, the N-340, linking Málaga and Cadiz. It splits at Fuengirola where the more northerly part becomes the A-7 toll motorway and the more southerly part constitutes the N-340 dual carriageway. They become one again between Marbella and Puerto Banus, where they divide once more: as far as Guadiaro the higher-level section becomes the A-7 toll motorway and the lower level part the N-340 main road. At Guadiaro they again join and retain the designation N-340 as far as San Roque.

Both sections of the A-7 motorway charge tolls. They were not part-financed by Community funds.

The N-340 is toll-free. The section from Guadiaro to San Roque was part-financed by the Cohesion Fund (85 % contribution to a total cost of just under EUR 40 million).

In any case, the Union may part-finance toll motorways. Such investments are regarded as infrastructures generating substantial net revenue and the rate of the Community contribution is capped and modulated in accordance with Article 29(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1) in the case of the ERDF and with Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994(2) (as amended by Regulations (EC) Nos 1264/1999(3) and 1265/1999(4)) in the case of the Cohesion Fund.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1265/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0565/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Rules on reversing alarms

It is interesting to note that studies conducted by the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Authority) in the United States show a high rate of accidents in which pedestrians, many of them children, have been killed by reversing vehicles. Unfortunately, no similar statistics are available in Europe. Reversing alarms can prove effective, as has been shown in Anglo-Saxon countries. However, in Europe, such devices are prohibited by some highway codes (e.g. in France) and not even mentioned in others (e.g. in Italy).

Does the Commission not consider that rules should be introduced on the subject at Community level with respect to lorries, buses, camper-vans, caravans and any other vehicles whose driver's view is restricted when reversing?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission is concerned that as far as is practicable and necessary, blind spots in the driver's field of view to the front, side, and rear of the vehicle should be eliminated. To this end, the Commission has proposed a draft Directive(1) which aims at increasing the field of indirect vision for drivers of passenger cars, buses and lorries by upgrading the performance of rear view mirrors and accelerating the introduction of new technologies for detecting other road users or pedestrians within the blind spots around motor vehicles.

The Commission proposal adds specific blind spot reduction requirements to the existing Directive on rear-view mirrors.

The key changes would entail:

- mounting additional mirrors on certain vehicles;

- upgrading technical characteristics of mirrors;

- replacing certain mirrors with other indirect vision systems, such as camera/monitor systems and introducing additional systems like detection sensors.

Nonetheless, the Commission is aware that blind spot mirrors may not be sufficient to entirely solve the problem of road users being hit by reversing trucks. Therefore, the Commission will analyse the accident data collected in all Member States (EU CARE database) with regard to these types of accidents. On the basis of this analysis it could be decided whether further countermeasures are appropriate. Because of the adverse environmental impact of audible reversing alarms, especially in areas surrounding car parks and industrial/commercial premises, where such alarms would be audible for most of the day, consideration will also be given to other countermeasures such as vehicle mounted sensors.

(1) OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Export of calves from Poland to the European Union

How many (i) calves aged 6 months or less and (ii) adult cattle were exported from Poland to (a) Italy and (b) other European Member States in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Official statistics do not allow differentiating imports of calves by age. However, it is possible to split imports by weight classes.

In 2001, 239 341 bovine animals have been exported from Poland to Italy, 12 % compared to the level of 2000 (271 617 heads). More than 80 % of these cattle concern calves weighting less than 80 kilograms (kg), which in general are not exported for immediate slaughter (221 249 calves in 2000 and 193 615 calves in 2001).

Poland exported to Italy 41 720 adult cattle in 2000 and 32 739 adult cattle in 2001, which represent 13,7 % of total cattle imported by Italy from Poland.

Overall, the Community imported from Poland 329 937 cattle in 2000 and 278 961 cattle in 2001. Imports of calves of less than 80 kg amounted to 258 937 animals in 2000 and 217 573 animals in 2001.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0703/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Animal welfare

In July 2001 Commissioner Byrne stated that the Commission did not envisage any proposals to oblige changes in feeding practices of ducks and geese kept for the production of foie gras (answer to Parliamentary question number E-1654/01(1)).

Does the Commission still have no intention of proposing legislation to ban this cruel and unnecessary practice?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 168.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

The Honourable Member refers in her question to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question E-1654/01(1) by Mr Mulder in relation to the production of foie gras. The Commission is currently dealing with many animal welfare issues, such as the protection of animals during transport and the protection of chickens kept for the production of meat. In line with the reply given to Written Question E-1654/01, the Commission does not at present envisage any proposal to oblige changes in feeding practices for the production of foie gras.

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0566/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Problems relating to audible warning devices

Directive 70/388/EEC(1) indicates minimum values for type approval of audible warning devices for motor vehicles, ruling out the possibility of a mechanism for reducing the volume of the horn to avoid environmental pollution (e.g. while driving slowly or at night) or increasing the volume in specific circumstances (e.g. while driving at high speeds). However, Directive 93/30/EEC(2) requires the audible warning devices on less powerful motorcycles and mopeds to have a lower sound level and this frequently causes accidents between mopeds and pedestrians, as is clearly illustrated by accident statistics.

As regards the first point, does the Commission not consider that an amendment should be proposed to the directive to authorise intelligent audible warning devices which will adjust the sound level according to circumstances? As for the second point, should the sound levels of audible warning devices for two- or three-wheel motor vehicles not be the same as those authorised for more powerful motorcycles?

(1) OJ L 176, 10.8.1970, p. 12.

(2) OJ L 188, 29.7.1993, p. 11.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2003)

In principle the Commission is not opposed to the concept of an intelligent audible warning device. However, as audible warning devices are intended to warn other road users in the proximity of the vehicle of its presence or approach, very careful consideration would need to be given to justifying the use of lower or higher levels of volume, than those that are currently prescribed in Council Directive 70/388/EEC of 27 July 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to audible warning devices for motor vehicles.

As regards the audible warning devices required to be fitted to motorcycles and mopeds, the Commission has had no indication that the lower level of sound permitted for audible warning devices fitted to mopeds and low-powered motorcycles might not be heard by pedestrians and lead to accidents. Maximum and minimum sound levels applicable for the different types of two-wheeled motor vehicles differ, but the permitted ranges for each of these types of vehicle overlap. Therefore, it is possible for an audible warning device to be produced that could be fitted for all types of two-wheeled motor vehicles.

If stakeholders were to find that the use of audible warning devices of variable sound level would be a useful contribution to road safety and environmental protection the Commission would consider bringing forward proposals to amend the provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0311/03

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport

Is the Commission aware that, owing to foot-and-mouth disease, local markets for live animals have almost collapsed over the last few years and that animal breeders therefore bringing the animals directly to their customers and that, as a result, the derogation provided for in Article 13, paragraph 1 (e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85(1) of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, as interpreted literally, applies increasingly rarely in practice? Does it consider that the article in question may also be applied to the transportation of live animals from farms directly to customers instead of to local markets?

In the case in question a farm which has specialised in pig-breeding regularly transports live animals with its own vehicle issued with an agricultural permit. The driver was recently told during traffic controls that the vehicle had to be fitted with recording equipment (a tachograph) except in certain exceptional cases. The above Regulation was cited as the justification for this. No other exceptions apart from that provided for in Article 13, paragraph 1(e), of the Regulation applied to the present case. Article 13, paragraph 1(e) provides that vehicles used for carrying live animals from farms to the local markets may be exempted from the requirement to fit recording equipment. Through the collapse of local markets, animals have to be transported directly from breeding to fattening farms. This provision should therefore also apply to the transportation of animals directly between farms and not only through the intermediary of local markets.

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the current Article 13(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport cannot be used to exempt the direct transport of live animals from farms to clients. Given the road safety purpose of the Regulation, the exemptions should in any case be interpreted restrictively.

The proposal submitted to the Parliament and to the Council to amend the above mentioned Regulation(1) indeed recognizes the fact that this exemption is an anomaly and has therefore proposed its deletion. A more general derogation is foreseen for vehicles used amongst others by agricultural and farming undertakings in the new Article 13(1)(b) as long as they carry their goods within a 50-kilometer radius from their base. This

would enable direct short distance deliveries. Longer distances would fall within the Regulation's driving time and rest period rules, which are monitored by a tachograph installed within the vehicle and can be checked at the roadside and indeed on the premises by the enforcement authorities.

(1) OJ C 51, 26.2.2002.