ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0396/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Economic and Social Committee (ESC)

Why does the Commission consult both the Economic and Social Committee and have a facility and a duty under the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty to consult the social partners? What line does the Commission take if the opinions of the two are contradictory? How is this justified?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The role of the social partners in social dialogue is clearly defined by the EC Treaty, with Article 139 allowing management and labour to adopt framework agreements which may be translated into Community law if the social partners so request. Article 137 lays down the areas in which consultation of the social partners is a prerequisite for the exercise of the Commission's right of initiative. And Article 138 sets out the arrangements for such consultation.

Reflecting practice in the various Member States, European social dialogue takes place between autonomous social partners and leads to freely negotiated agreements.

By contrast, the Economic and Social Committee, whose members include representatives of the social partners and other categories provided for by the EC Treaty, is primarily consulted in connection with the legislative procedure. It is consulted by the Commission, the Council and Parliament when proposals are being drafted or once they have been presented. Consultation is compulsory where provided for in the EC Treaty and optional otherwise.

The Committee issues a single opinion, which is more of a synthesis of the various positions than the result of negotiations between the social partners.

Clearly, because of the progressive enhancement of the role of the social partners and their desire to retain their autonomy vis-à-vis an organisation in which they are represented, the composition and role of the Committee are changing. This is clearly reflected in the Treaty of Nice, with the shift towards broader representation of civil society and structures which do not essentially represent the social and economic partners. At the same time, with the prospect of enlargement, the Committee has an important role to play in preparing civil society in the candidate countries, particularly in those cases where the Association Council has set up a joint economic and social consultative committee.

These will enhance the complementary nature of the two consultation processes, involving the social partners and the Committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1759/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Marína at Lefkada

A marina for leisure craft was recently inaugurated at Lefkada. The project was jointly funded by the European Union.

What was the cost of building the marina? What amount did the EU contribute and what was the contribution from the Greek Government, banks and private investors?

Which organisation carried out the work and what are the circumstances regarding ownership?

What were the general interest criteria on which the decision to approve joint Community funding was based?

Would the project also be economically viable without Community funding? Has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Under the subsidiarity principle and in line with Structural Fund rules it is up to the Greek authorities to select projects in line with the criteria set in the relevant operational programme adopted by the Commission. Thus it is not the Community that approves financing of individual projects or monitors their execution.

The project in question was selected by the Greek authorities for assistance under the Sustainable expansion of tourism subprogramme of the Ionian Islands regional operational programme.

We have been informed by the national authorities that the marina is owned by the Greek State, which made over operating rights to the Prefecture of Lefkada, which is the final recipient of the assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). By a contract signed at the end of 1999 the Prefecture assigned construction and operation of the marina for a 40-year period to the undertaking Lefkada Marína SA.

Project execution is in two stages, the first involving work on the boat harbour itself costing EUR 8 800 000 in total, 75 % part-financed from the ERDF (1994-1999 programming period). The second covers completion of the harbour work plus work on landside facilities, the total cost being EUR 19 800 000: EUR 6 200 000 of public and EUR 13 600 000 of private expenditure. The ERDF is paying 75 % of the public expenditure under the Ionian Islands regional operational programme of the 2000-2006 Community support framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(1 March 2002)

Subject: The Bene decrees in the Czech and Slovak Republics, European legislation and the acquis communautaire

On Wednesday, 20 February 2002, the Prime Minister of Hungary, Victor Orban, replied to questions by members of the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs. In reply to a specific question concerning the Bene decrees, dating from the period 1945-1948, Mr Orban said that these decrees were still in force in the Czech and Slovak Republics, but that, as they did not accord with European legislation, they should be repealed before these two countries acceded to the EU.

Is the Council investigating whether the Bene decrees are compatible with the acquis?

If so, what conclusions has it reached and when will we be informed of them?

If so, what will the Council do to ensure that the decrees can be repealed?

If not, will the Council have the matter investigated without delay and take the requisite action on the findings?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has not discussed the question whether the Bene decrees in the Czech and Slovak Republics might be compatible with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0606/02

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

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Tuna steaks

On the basis of a study of the demand for tuna steak supplies which assessed the supply of tuna steaks to the Community market in the short and medium term, the Commission decided to open an annual quota of 4 000 tonnes at a 6 % preferential rate of duty for the period 2001 to 2003, within the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products.

Can the Commission provide information on the country or countries of origin and the annual quantities of tuna steak imported from those countries into the EU under this quota?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Within the framework of the management of tariff quotas, the Member States do not inform the Commission of the countries of origin of tariff quotas open indistinctly to all third countries. Indeed, such information is not necessary for the attribution of the quota.

As on 7 March 2002, the quantities imported with the benefit of the autonomous tariff quota for tuna steaks in the periods in question were as follows:

- 2001: 1 796 509 tonnes (last importation declared on 21 December 2001);

- 2002: 442 347 tonnes (last importation declared on 26 February 2002).

Current information on the usage of tariff quotas is publicly available on the website and is updated every day: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/dds/es/home.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2172/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Respect for the principle of annuality

Amending budgets 2 and 3 relating to the Commission budget for 2002 return to the Member States own resources from 2001.

Has the Commission ascertained that, in recording its public accounts, Portugal has respected the principle of annuality, deducting this expenditure in 2001?

Can the Commission also say whether it took care to ascertain that tax revenue for the financial year 2001 was booked to that year and not to 2002?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

The precise moment when the transactions referred to by the Honourable Member should be accrued under the European System of Integrated Economic Accounts (ESA) rules is a complex issue on which there is some room for interpretation. The Commission is currently examining this very technical question with the competent authorities in the Member States.

Regulation (EC) No 2516/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 November 2000 modifying the common principles of the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (ESA) 95 as concerns taxes and social contributions and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96(1), states that taxes and social contributions recorded in the accounts may be derived from two sources: amounts evidenced by assessment and declarations or cash receipts. If assessments and declarations are used, the amounts shall be adjusted by a coefficient reflecting assessed and declared amounts never collected. If cash receipts are used, they shall be time-adjusted so that the cash is attributed when the activity took place to generate the liability.

A derogation on the implementation of this Regulation was granted to the Portuguese authorities until 30 June 2002. The derogation has now come to an end and the Portuguese authorities will now decide which method will be implemented. On 25 July 2002, a Task Force entrusted with the analysis of Portuguese public finance in 2001 presented its report. As regards the recording of taxes and social contributions, the Task Force chose the cash basis method, which in the case of VAT taxes will be time-adjusted. This recording method will be used in the September 2002 Excessive deficit procedure (EDP) notification.

(1) OJ L 290, 17.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0773/02

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: Physical Agents (Vibrations) Directive

Did the European Commission conduct a full Regulatory Impact Assessment, especially as the proposal will affect SMEs, on the draft Physical Agents (Vibrations) Directive? If not, why not?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0772/02 and E-0773/02given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

The Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answers to Written Question E-3212/01 from Mr Bowis and others(1) and Written Question E-0703/02 from Mr Bushill-Matthews and others(2).

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 132.

(2) See page 38.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0409/02

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

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Enron

Following recent revelations and allegations in the USA and UK regarding political and financial links between Government representatives and Enron, would the Commission please clarify what links, if any, exist between it and this company?

In particular, which members of the College of Commissioners, or their Cabinets, have held meetings with representatives of Enron or its advocates in the past five years, when did each of these meetings occur, and was a record kept of the discussion?

What input has Enron had into the framing of EU energy policy and legislation, and what assurances can the Commission provide that in no way was any undue or improper influence brought to bear on Community policy by this company?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

The Commission can give the Honourable Member the following information as regards meetings attended by the Members of the Commission or members of their private offices in the course of their duties and at the request of representatives of Enron or the firm's lawyers:

- in the field of competition, in May 2000, a Cabinet member of the Commissioner in charge of Competition took part in a meeting of the Commissioner's services with representatives of ENRON on current competition cases;

- the field of energy, there has been no direct contact with the representatives of ENRON or the firm's lawyers. A former member of the private office of the Member of the Commission responsible for Transport and Energy met a delegation from the European Federation of Energy Traders (EFET) in December 2000, of which ENRON is one of 50 full members; the purpose of this meeting was to obtain EFET's reaction to the Energy Green Paper approved by the Commission in November 2000.

ENRON had no input in the framing of Community energy policy and legislation aside from providing its views into the process, through normal contacts with the Commission services, in the same manner as all similar companies, in the policy-areas concerned.

Moreover, the Commission wishes to emphasise that ENRON has made no financial contribution of any kind to Commission activities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1069/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Nickel cadmium batteries

Does not the Commission feel that, since most nickel cadmium batteries are used in power tools, a system involving deposit and recycling rather than restrictions on use might be the best way to protect both the environment and the industry?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

The main objective of the future revision of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances(1) will be to ensure the environmentally sound management of all batteries and accumulators. In particular, the Commission is currently analysing a number of possible risk reduction measures in relation to Nickel-Cadmium (NiCd) batteries. The latter include mandatory take back systems, deposit schemes and marketing and use restrictions. Different measures could be envisaged for different applications of NiCd batteries.

The Commission is evaluating the feasibility as well as the potential effectiveness of deposit schemes as part of its overall analysis of appropriate measures in relation to NiCd batteries.

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1270/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Substandard work on projects jointly funded under the CSF and measures by the Greek authorities to tackle the problem

In its answer to my questions E-3197/01 and P-2890/01(1), the Commission informed me that it had no fresh information on substandard work on jointly funded projects in Greece. The Commission also pointed out that the Greek Government had not replied to either of its letters sent on 29 January 2001 and 2 July 2001 and that it would, therefore, send another letter to the Greek authorities.

Does the Commission have any more recent information regarding the number of instances of substandard work since April 2000?

Has the Commission received information about the practical action taken in the cases falling within categories 2 and 3 as described in Question E-3197/01?

Have the Greek authorities forwarded in reply to the European Anti-Fraud Office any communication (apart from that referred to in the answer to Written Question E-1894/01(2)) on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94(3) of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field? If not, what will be the consequences and what measures does the Commission intend to take?

(1) See page 2.

(2) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1256/02

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Council

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Minimum wage within the EU

Two of the requirements of the European Social Model and the Lisbon Process are a cohesion framework and minimum income thresholds to combat poverty and promote social inclusion. However, recent data on minimum wages in various EU countries make it quite obvious that some workers are legally condemned to poverty.

Will the Council provide up-to-date figures concerning minimum wages in the EU Member States? Should any workers be on the poverty threshold, is any action to be taken in order to improve their situation?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The question put by the Honourable Member highlights the importance of the new approach taken by the Council and the Commission in the fight against poverty and social exclusion. This approach is usually referred to as the Open Method of Coordination, as defined by the Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council in March 2000. The co-ordination of these activities takes place within the Social Protection Committee, which the Council decided to establish in June 2000.

In this context, the Member States drew up their first National Action Plans for the fight against poverty and social exclusion in June 2001, and on the basis of these, the Council and the Commission submitted a Joint Report on Social Inclusion to the Laeken European Council in December 2001. Preparations for a second round of these national action plans are already under way.

Any measures aimed at improving the situation of those in poverty or facing the risk thereof are to be taken by the Member States concerned, taking into account, where appropriate, experience and best practice in the different Member States.

As far as wages and wage levels are concerned, the Council wishes to remind the Honourable Member of the fact that questions concerning pay are explicitly excluded from Community competence (Article 137(6) TEC). The Council is not itself in possession of any statistics on wages, including minimum wages, these being collated by Eurostat. The Council would also like to point out that, whilst minimum wages are laid down in some Member States by law, in some, but not all, others, minimum wage levels are the subject of collective agreements at various levels between management and labour.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1131/02

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Financial help being given to Alitalia, the Italian airline

Is the Commission aware that Air France is in the process of taking up shares in Alitalia in order to bail out the Italian airline from its serious financial predicament? Is the Commission also aware that this operation involves the Italian Government issuing convertible bonds to the value of 1-2 billion Euro?

Can the Commission therefore:

1. give us its views as to the legality of this move?

2. indicate whether the conditions applied to two previous tranches of state aid to Alitalia in 1997 and 2000 were fully met?

3. give us an assurance that the principle of one time, last time also applies in cases of convertible bonds issued by Member States and subscribed to by public entities?

4. inform Parliament of what action, if any, it intends to take in this case?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

1. The Alitalia recapitalisation the Honourable Member is referring to, has been notified to the Commission on 29 April 2002. The examination by the Commission is still ongoing.

2. In its Decision 2001/723/EC concerning the recapitalisation of the company Alitalia(1), of 18 July 2001, Article 2, the Commission has allowed the Italian authorities to pay the second tranche of the aid granted to Alitalia (Commission Decision 97/789/EC of 15 July 1997 concerning the recapitalisation of the company Alitalia(2)). On December 2001 the Italian authorities have notified the Commission their willingness to pay the third tranche as well. The Commission, having requested some complementary information, has not completed its examination yet.

3. The Commission will examine the recapitalisation under the principles explained in the guidelines to State aids in the aviation sector(3) and in the guidelines on State aids for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(4). These guidelines include the one time last time rule, thus implying that any additional State aid element will not be accepted.

4. The Parliament will, of course, be informed of the Commission's position through the normal channels, as soon as a decision is adopted.

(1) OJ L 271, 12.10.2001.

(2) OJ L 322, 25.11.1997.

(3) OJ C 350, 10.12.1994.

(4) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1769/02

by Liam Hyland (UEN) to the Commission

(17 June 2002)

Subject: Crisis in income of dairy farmers

Given the 30 % drop in income of dairy farmers in Ireland and other Member States over the past year and given the high level of investment that many of these farmers have made in developing the sector and that they are now experiencing tremendous pressure for bank repayments, what action does the Commission intend to take to alleviate the hardship being experienced by these farmers and their families?

Does the Commission admit that it is unrealistic to expect the Irish dairy industry to compete with overproduction and dumping from Australia, New Zealand and the US and will the Commission commit to using the budgetary scope to give a greater level of support for dairy products and to raising the intervention floor for skimmed milk?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

The Commission is aware that the market for milk and milk products has deteriorated in recent months in the Union and elsewhere. Most of the Member States have recorded lower producer prices. It is true that the price of milk paid to producers in 2002 has fallen to 1999 levels. This fall also coincides with the peak in seasonal production, when the excess supply puts pressure on prices.

That said, it must be remembered that 2001 was an exceptional year, price-wise, and so some reduction in prices was inevitable. It is important not to worsen matters, however. The Commission has already responded by increasing export refunds and it recently proposed increasing the aid for skimmed-milk processed into casein.

Although the threshold of 109 000 tonnes has been reached, the Commission has also decided to keep open the option of buying-in skimmed-milk powder under tendering arrangements.

The Honourable Member may rest assured that the Commission will continue to monitor the market and will take what measures it can to support it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/02

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

(30 September 2002)

Subject: The A-9 Motorway between Spain and Portugal and infringement of Community environmental legislation

The building work on the A-9 motorway between the Rebullón (Tui, Spain) interchange and the Portuguese frontier is having an enormous environmental impact on the area, causing a whole range of damage, particularly to the existing watercourses. When designing the motorway section which affects the area's inhabitants, the environmental damage caused was not assessed: a particular glaring absence from the studies made were the underground watercourses, which are required for human consumption and the irrigation of surrounding agricultural land. The resulting defective drainage in conjunction with meteorological conditions, has irreversible consequences for the area. The public administrations responsible for the construction work (Ministry of Development, the Xunta de Galicia and the local authorities) are dodging the problem and ignoring the numerous and frequent organised protests by local people. Although there have even been two deaths: a lorry driver was killed by the fall of a girder, and a local person died during a protest. Both these incidents are sub judice.

What Community funding is going into the completion of the roadworks in question? Could the Commission investigate whether these roadworks involve infringement of environmental legislation on the dumping of waste on the part of the Spanish Government?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.