ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2640/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Four unanswered questions

The rules state that the Commission is supposed to answer standard written questions within six weeks. I have put four questions on 9 July questions E-2165/02 on unpaid workers, E-2164/02 on curved bananas, E-2163/02 on a European Central Bank advertising campaign and E-2162/02 on the EU's High Representative in Bosnia which remain unanswered. Would the Commission (a) answer these questions and (b) account for the delay? Furthermore, why has the Commission opted not to reply to the last part of question E-1540/02 on Commissioners taking part in domestic politics?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2002)

The Commission would first restate the major importance it attaches to the exercice by members of Parliament of their right under Article 197(3) of the EC Treaty to address themselves directly to it in order to obtain information and thereby to strengthen Parliament's political supervision over it.

The Commission endeavours to answer questions put to it by members within the deadline sought by Parliament. It is also pays attention to the quality of its answers. The time needed to prepare a draft answer for approval by the Commission and thus to supply an answer to a Parliamentary question depends on a host of factors that do not always allow the desired deadline to be met. These include the immediate availability of, or the need to track down, the information that will enable the Commission to take a position on a particular issue and to provide the information requested, as well as the need to ensure that all answers to Parliamentary questions are endorsed by the Commission as a body.

The Commission apologises for not having met the deadlines desired by Parliament in the cases referred to by the Honourable Member. As he will have noted, its answers to his questions E-2165/02, E-2164/02, E-2163/02 and E-2162/02 have meanwhile been sent to him.

As to the final point raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that it gave its position in its answer to Written Question E-1540/02.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3194/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2002)

Subject: Foreign market for chestnuts from Malaga

The Andalusian co-operative Valle del Genal, in the municipality of Pujerra (Malaga province), is to start a new phase of expansion by opening up markets directly in European countries and Australia and Japan, as well as in the United States.

Hitherto most of the production was destined for the national market and sales abroad were organised by distributors. Now, however, it is planned to market the chestnuts abroad directly, without the involvement of intermediaries, and labelling is being adapted to comply with international legislation.

In view of this new approach on the part of Malaga chestnut producers, can the Commission say what forms of Community aid might be requested to assist the direct marketing of the chestnuts abroad in accordance with the labelling standards laid down in international legislation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation (CMO) of the market in fruit and vegetables(1), provides a number of market instruments to support producers of fruit and vegetables, including producers of nuts.

In particular, producers who are members of producer organisations recognised under this Regulation are eligible for Community aid through operational funds. These funds, co-financed by the producers themselves, are used to finance common production and marketing endeavours, which can include the direct marketing of products, domestically and abroad.

The co-operative Valle del Genal will surely obtain from the Provincial or Regional Agricultural services all the information it will need in order to benefit from these Community instruments.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2192/02

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

(19 July 2002)

Subject: International trade in fishmeal in the EU

Can the Commission provide information on the volumes and countries of origin of fishmeal imported into the EU?

Does the Commission take the view that the Community domestic market could be covered by importing fishmeal from third countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Details of fishmeal imports into the Union are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The average annual Community fishmeal consumption in the five years period 1996-2000 is estimated at 999 100 tonnes. Community production in this period averaged 545 400 tonnes per annum. As some of the Community production is exported, roughly half the Community domestic market was supplied by Community production in this period. While the level of fishmeal production in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states almost equals that of the Community, Norway is a net importer of fishmeal on account of the large salmon farming sector.

World production of fishmeal averages 6 200 000 tonnes per annum but can go down as low as 4 500 000 in El Niño years when landings in the top producing nations Peru and Chile are reduced due to oceanic factors. This drop last occurred in the period 1997-1998 and the Comité Oceanográfico Nacional (Chile) announced on 18 July 2002 that a new El Niño event has just commenced which means that South American production will drop again in the short term.

Average Community consumption for the two years 2000 and 2001 was 28 % of world fishmeal exports. In the El Niño year 1998 it was 50 % of world exports. Because of the high level of consumption in the Community it would not be prudent to depend solely on imports from third countries, not only on account of fluctuations in supply, but also because of growing demand world wide.

Demand for fish meal in the Far East grew by over 50 % in the 1990s and this region now consumes 55 % of world supply. Consumption in the Far East exceeded European consumption by a factor of 3,35 in 2000.

A recent analysis undertaken by Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) indicates that demand for fish feed for use in aquaculture will increase by 240 % in the next ten years; while in the same period the use of fish meal will increase by 150 % and fish oil by 170 %. This is based on the prediction that by 2010 more than 90 % of world fish oil and 56 % of fishmeal will be used in fish feed. While the Community is currently funding research into alternative protein and oil sources for aquaculture, no conclusive results are available at the present time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2987/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 8 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) calls for a common European system which takes into account the differences between fishing fleets, which will make stricter and more systematic checks possible as regards the technical inspection of vessels, including smaller vessels and the oldest vessels, and as regards inspections relating to working conditions, so as to ensure compliance with rules on safety, compulsory annual inspections which include checks on the regulation safety equipment, the application of penalties and checks on communication equipment on board.

Has the Commission taken any steps in this connection?

Does not the Commission believe that a common system would help reduce the number of fishery accidents?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Given the differences in fishing fleet composition between Member States and the variability of accident risks by segment and zone of activity, the Commission does not consider that a common European system would necessarily lead to a reduction in accidents.

As far as verification of application of national legislation transposing the European Directives on protection of workers' health and their safety(1) are concerned, it is up to Member States to take the action necessary to ensure adequate inspection and surveillance.

The Commission draws the Honourable Member's attention to its communication Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006(2) and to the Council Resolution on a new Community strategy on health and safety at work (2002-2006)(3), which are aimed at securing a constant reduction in accidents at work and occupational illness. This involves setting measurable targets at both European and Member State level, particularly in the occupational sectors with above average incidences.

(1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC, 18 June 1989, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. Council Directive 93/103/EEC, 23 November 1993, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. Council Directive 89/655/EEC, 30 November 1989, OJ L 393, 30.12.1989 Council Directive 89/656/EEC, 30 November 1989, OJ L 393, 30.12.1989 Council Directive 90/269/EEC, 29 May 1990, OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

(2) COM(2002) 118 final.

(3) Resolution of 3 June 2002, OJ C 161, 5.7.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2334/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR)and Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Landmines

According to Landmine Monitor 2001 at least 30 armed groups are reported to have used landmines in 2000 and 2001. In September 2001, the European Parliament voted unanimously a resolution calling on the international community to support efforts made by specialised NGOs(1), such as Geneva Call, to obtain commitments to an anti-personnel mine ban from non-State actors.

1. In the budget 2002 the commitments under the special budget line for Community participation in action concerning anti-personnel mines consisted of EUR 11,5 million. Can the Commission specify how much of this amount has been spent on supporting efforts to commit non-State actors in 2002?

2. What type of projects has the Commission financed under this budget line so far?

3. Will the Commission consider intensifying its activities to support the efforts of non-State actors in banning anti-personnel mines? If so, what type of activities does it envisage?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 21.3.2002, p. 352.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

Further to the Parliament and Council Regulations(1) on the reinforcement of the Union's contribution to the fight against anti-personnel landmines (APL), the Commission has prepared and transmitted to the Member States in the beginning of June 2002 for discussion a draft 2002-2004 Multiannual Strategy and Programme for the APL budget.

This discussion has not yet taken place and the Strategy is consequently not yet operational. However, the draft contains provisions to support non-state actors, possibly already during 2002, if mature initiatives to raise confidence between parties involved in internal conflicts can be proposed.

The Commission has so far funded various types of actions, in particular impact surveys, mine clearance, awareness building and operational research-related actions.

In accordance with the Regulations which came into force at the end of 2001, the Commission will intensify its support for actions banning APL, for financing impact surveys with a view to support the planning of priorities, to finance mine clearance, awareness raising and other actions and will have recourse to non-state actors as well as international organisations defending on needs on the spot and the capacity of the actors concerned to best perform the activities.

The Commission believes that Geneva Call has achieved a high degree of beneficial impact in Sudan. This is a country which has been a priority for Community support in the fight against APL since early 2000. The Commission takes the view that all the ingredients for further cross-line confidence building activities exist there and its continued support will be essential.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1724/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2001 concerning action against anti-personnel landmines in developing countries, OJ L 234, 1.9.2001;Council Regulation (EC) No 1725/2001 of 23 July 2001 concerning action against anti-personnel landmines in third countries other than developing countries, OJ L 234, 1.9.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3154/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2002)

Subject: Arsenic in animal nutrition

Does the Commission recognise that pure seaweed has been used as an animal feed and feed additive for generations?

While awaiting the evaluation of the Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition (SCAN) (due in December 2002), the Arramara Teo Factory at Kilkieran, Connemara, Ireland, is being seriously affected by the new legislation due to come into effect in August 2003, and there will be many full-time job losses and a serious loss of income for 700 seaweed cutters

Can the Commission distinguish between naturally occurring organic arsenic and inorganic arsenic, and can we make a case for measuring arsenic as an additive over the basal rate and make a special case for seaweed meal?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Council Directive 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the circulation and use of feed materials(1) lays down a non-exclusive list of the main feed materials which may be used and marketed for the preparation of compound feedingstuffs. This list contains the feed material seaweed meal obtained by drying and crushing seaweed, in particular brown seaweed.

Council Directive 1999/29/EC of 22 April 1999 on the undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition(2) establishes a maximum level for arsenic of 2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in feed materials including seaweed meal and in compound feedingstuffs and a level of 4 mg/kg in complementary feedingstuffs. The maximum level applies to total arsenic as there is no method of analysis available for use in official control which distinguishes routinely the more toxic inorganic arsenic from the less toxic organic arsenic.

Seaweed not complying with the maximum level for arsenic can, in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 1999/29/EC, still be used under strict conditions for the production of compound feedingstuffs. The produced compound feedingstuff has in any case to comply with the maximum level.

However, Council Directive 2002/32/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed(3) replacing Council Directive 1999/29/EC no longer allows this possibility for dilution from 1 August 2003 onwards.

With respect to Council Directive 2002/32/EC, the Commission declared in Council to undertake, insofar as possible before 1 August 2003, a review of the maximum levels on the basis of updated scientific risk assessments and taking into account the prohibition of any dilution of contaminated non-complying product intended for animal feed.

Information concerning the presence of arsenic in seaweed meal has been provided by the Irish authorities to the Commission and this information will be taken into account when considering the revision of the current maximum levels for arsenic in feed materials including seaweed meal and in compound feed.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999.

(3) OJ L 140, 30.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3022/02

by Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Termination of employment on grounds of age before an employee has reached the age of eligibility for a State pension (65 in the Netherlands) permitted under Directive 2000/78/EC?

1. Is the Commission aware of Dutch legislative bill 28170 for an Equal Treatment on Grounds of Age in Employment Act to implement Directive 2000/78/EC(1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and in connection with Article 1 of the Constitution? The purpose of the bill is to prohibit discrimination on grounds of age in employment,

occupation and vocational training. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, except that employment may be terminated when an employee reaches the age of 65, the age at which people become eligible for a general State old age pension.

2. Is the Commission aware of amendment 28170 no 9, an amendment to the above bill, which has been tabled in the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament? Its purpose is to allow employees aged under 65 to have their employment terminated on grounds of age if the parties to a collective agreement so agree. It does not provide for any check as to whether this is objectively justified.

3. Would such a provision be permitted under Directive 2000/78/EC?

4. If the Lower House adopts the amendment, will the Commission in due course call the Netherlands to account?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2002)

The Commission is aware of the draft Dutch legislative bill 28170 for an Equal Treatment on Grounds of Age in Employment Act to implement Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Commission is also aware of amendment 28170 no 9 tabled by the Dutch Parliament to the above bill, to allow employees aged under 65 to have their employment terminated on grounds of age if the parties to a collective agreement so agree.

The Commission would like to recall that Member States have until 2 December 2003 to transpose the requirements of the Directive 2000/78/EC into national law, with the option for an additional period of three years from December 2003 for the provisions on age (and disability). The Commission will examine the transposition of the Directive in all Member States with a view to ensuring full conformity with Community law.

As far as the issue raised by the Honourable Member is concerned it should be noted that a reference to retirement age appears only in the recitals of Directive 2000/78/EC and that there is no corresponding provision in the body of the text. The Court of Justice might therefore apply the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age to questions of retirement. This means that differences of treatment based on age will have to be objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, with the means of achieving that aim being appropriate and necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2335/02

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Decommissioning of the Russian nuclear fleet

What assurances can the Commission give that effective action is being taken to ensure the safe collection, treatment and disposal of radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of the Russian nuclear submarine fleet?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Russian authorities are responsible for ensuring the safe collection, treatment and disposal of radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of the Russian nuclear submarine fleet. The international community, including the Union, nevertheless attach great importance to the effective pursuit of these activities.

For example, the Commission has played a very active role in launching the Northern Dimension Environmental Protection Fund (NDEP). The NDEP, which will be managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in London, was launched at a pledging conference in Brussels on 9 July 2002 chaired by the Commission. To date there are confirmed pledges amounting to EUR 110 million. Within this, the Commission has pledged EUR 50 million to the fund, of which EUR 40 million is for its nuclear window. This contribution will come from the TACIS Nuclear Safety budget line. The main objective of the NDEP nuclear window is to assist the Russian Federation in the most urgent tasks relating to nuclear waste in North West Russia, including in particular

those relating to the situation of the Northern Fleet: nuclear submarines that have to be dismantled, handling and storing the nuclear spent fuel resulting from that, improving the safety conditions of the naval bases of the area. In particular, the quantity of spent fuel stored in the Andreeva Bay base and the imminent environmental threat of the damaged spent fuel storage ponds, signal this base as the top priority to be addressed by the NDEP fund.

In addition, at the Kananaskis summit (Canada, 26 and 27 June 2002), the Group of eight most industrialised countries launched a global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Its aims to develop, coordinate, implement and finance, according to their respective means, new or expanded cooperation projects to address non-proliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism and nuclear safety (including environmental) issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2924/02

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Breach of Staff Regulation Article 12

Further to a report in the Internet publication The Sprout, would the Commission confirm that it is investigating a breach of Article 12 of its Staff Regulations pertaining to an e-mail sent by Joanne Abbess, an official in DG Admin?

I received a spam e-mail from Ms Abbess inviting me to participate in the Stop the War demonstration in the UK on 28 September, as I believe did all MEPs and Commission staff. Would the Commission confirm that this is a clear breach of Article 12 and that it is taking appropriate action against this breach?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The Commission considers that sending spam messages raises issues of compatibility with the Staff Regulations. With that in mind the Commission was preparing detailed internal rules on the use of e-mail in order to explicitly forbid the sending of such unsolicited e-mails. Those rules have been produced since the events referred to in the Honourable Member's question and are being put into effect.

The Commission will further investigate the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member and will take any necessary measures on the basis of the facts relevant to the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3760/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Taxation of food products containing a toy

In Germany, a reduced VAT of 7 % is applied to food. Steps are being taken, however, to tax so-called combined items consisting of food and toys (e.g. surprise eggs) at the full 16 % in the future.

In the light of this, can the Commission state:

1. In which Member States of the European Union these combined items are classed as food and in which as toys?

2. On the basis of what Community legislation Member States are allowed to carry out their own classification of combined items?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2003)

The Community provisions on VAT currently in force are contained in the sixth VAT Directive(1). As Directives are not directly applicable, the Member States have to transpose their contents into national law and, where necessary, introduce provisions for their practical implementation.

Under Article 12(3) of the sixth VAT Directive, toys are subject to the normal minimum rate of 15 % while Member States have the option of applying a reduced rate which must not be more than 5 % lower than the rate applying to foodstuffs.

However, this Community legislation does not provide for any special measures regarding supplies of combined goods sold at a single price. Under the subsidiarity principle, the fact that the provisions in question are of an implementing nature means that it is up to the Member States to decide how goods of this type should be treated from the point of view of VAT case by case.

The Commission has no precise information about how the Member States have resolved this matter in their national legislation.

(1) Council Directive 2002/92/EC of 3 December 2002 amending Directive 77/388/EEC to extend the facility allowing Member States to apply reduced rates of VAT to certain labour-intensive services, OJ L 331, 7.12.2002.