ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2797/01

by Carmen Fraga Estevez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Use of the ferrettara

The Commission report on the application of Community legislation on the use of drift nets in 2002 indicates that part of the Italian spadare fleet has been converted to use the ferrettara. According to the Commission's report, the latter has an even smaller mesh size than the spadare (180 mm as opposed to 350 mm). Moreover, pursuant to Italian legislation, mesh size will be further reduced to 100 mm as of 1 January 2002. Thus, according to the report, as of 2002 an unspecified number of vessels shall operate with drift nets of up to 2 km in length and a mesh size of 100 mm in the 3 mile coastal zone.

Can the Commission say to what extent the abovementioned Italian legislation is compatible with Community law? Can the Commission provide any information on the impact on resources of such a fleet operating with drift nets of up to 2 km in length and a mesh size of 100 mm in coastal areas and on its compatibility with sustainable development?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2001)

The authorisation of ferrettara can be considered in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(1) as modified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998(2) until 31 December 2001. In fact, Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 does not provide for a complete ban, from 1 January 2002, of all type of driftnets but only of those targeting some species, among which tunas, tuna-like fishes, swordfish, all cephalopods and some pelagic sharks.

The Ferrettara net is in principle intended for the capture of small pelagic and semi-pelagic species living in coastal areas. However, its technical characteristics and the fishing practice cannot guarantee that it will not catch other species of Annex VIII of Regulation (EC) No 894/97, in particular small tuna-like species such as Sarda sarda, Euthynnus spp., Auxis spp., Coryphaena spp. and juveniles of Thunnus thynnus. But these catches are considered as incidental.

The Commission is not in a position to evaluate the effect of ferrettara on the target species since there is not any regular stock assessment for most of them, with the exception of anchovy whose capture with driftnet is, however, very limited and fisheries are very scarce.

With regard to the compatibility of this fishing gear with sustainable development, it is not yet clear whether this gear has an impact on protected species; however, the Commission intends to set up a specific control programme of all driftnets, whose use is still authorised in 2002, as a matter of priority and this will allow a better evaluation of the effects of this gear.

(1) OJ L 132, 23.5.1997.

(2) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3056/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Guaranteed access by air transport for the outermost islands and regions during the current crisis in international aviation

Following the impact on civil aviation of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September and in the context of the current crisis in international air transport, a number of airlines are exploiting the situation in order to cancel flights, reduce staff numbers and increase fares, for example Iberia in Spain. How does the Commission envisage guaranteeing that the outermost islands and regions of the European Union remain accessible by air, in view of their social and geographical situation and their specific dependence on air transport and in the interests of maintaining economic and social cohesion?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2001)

It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that adequate services, for example in terms of quality and/or price and/or frequency, are offered to those living in the outermost areas of the European Union.

According to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes(1), Member States may impose public service obligations, under certain conditions, on given air routes. Where public service obligations have been imposed but, as a result of free market forces, no service is operating, the authorities of the Member States can, by using an invitation to tender, restrict access on a public service obligation route to a single carrier and grant this carrier financial compensation, if necessary.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/01

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

(11 September 2001)

Subject: A high-speed rail link between Galicia and Central Europe via France

Within the Trans-European Networks, what are the political and budgetary provisions for a high-speed rail link between North-West Spain, and Galicia in particular, and Central Europe via France?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2455/01 and E-2466/01given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E-2189/01(1) and E-2030/01(2). The only recent development has been the formal adoption by the Commission on 2 October 2001 of a proposal to amend Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(3) and a proposal to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks(4).

These proposals have been sent to Parliament and the Council. The first is designed to focus Community action on a number of new priorities and specific projects, comprising those projects selected by the European Councils of Essen on 9 and 10 December 1994 and Dublin on 13 and 14 December 1996 which have not yet been completed and eight new projects. The second proposal is designed to increase the maximum Community contribution to certain critical trans-European network projects, including railway bottlenecks crossing natural barriers, to 20 % of investment.

As the Commission has already announced in its White Paper European transport policy for 2010(5), the eight projects referred to above include the interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network on the basis of the Spanish and Portuguese national plans. As the Honourable Member has already been informed, this project includes Galicia's high-speed rail links.

(1) See page 36.

(2) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 49.

(3) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(4) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.

(5) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1985/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Promoting the use of marker vaccines

It has been noted in recent months and years that when there are outbreaks of infectious animal diseases like swine fever or foot and mouth, the policy of mass slaughter of animals in certain countries has run up against increasing resistance from the public.

Marker vaccines should make it possible to adopt a different method of combating animal disease that would provoke less public resistance.

1. Is the Commission confident that the business world itself will be in a position within a reasonable time to develop marker vaccines against swine fever?

2. Is the Commission prepared in the short term to make funds available from its research programmes to ensure that such marker vaccines can be made available for use as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

Marker vaccines can be defined as vaccines stimulating a protective immunity distinguishable from the immune response to a natural infection by means of laboratory tests able to discriminate between vaccinated healthy animals and those that, having been exposed to the disease after vaccination, may spread the disease further.

New vaccines that might potentially be used as marker vaccines against classical swine fever (CSF) have already been developed. The current main limiting factor to their use is that no discriminatory tests are available to reliably distinguish between vaccinated animals and infected ones. However, further research is on-going on these vaccines and the associated discriminatory tests.

In the case of foot and mouth disease (FMD) vaccines, research is on-going to develop and validate discriminatory tests to be used in association with the already available conventional vaccines, originally not intended to be used as marker vaccines, as well as to develop new vaccines designed to be marker vaccines and the associated discriminatory tests.

The Community has supported research into infectious diseases of livestock in successive Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programmes since 1989.

As regards CSF and FMD marker vaccines or strictly related matters, since 1994 the Commission has supported or is supporting:

- seven RTD projects (total cost: 9,54 million);

- two concerted actions (total cost: 0,45 million);

- a trial to assess the potential use of CSF marker vaccines in emergencies ( 0,75 million).

In the on-going 5th RTD Framework Programme, research on diseases of livestock is foreseen in the Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Programme. In particular, the development of marker vaccines for diseases such as FMD and CSF included in the List A of the International Office of Epizootics (IOE) is clearly marked as a priority in Key Action 2 Control of Infectious Diseases.

It is foreseen that several research proposals on FMD will be submitted within the next deadline of the 5th Framework Programme, with the closing date of 18 October 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3178/01

by Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: New arrangements for frozen beef and veal import quotas

Regulation (EC) No 1080/2001(1) sets out the tariff concessions to apply to frozen beef and veal imported from non-member countries in the year 2001/02.

To avoid quota speculation, the Commission has stipulated that the quota is to be apportioned only among traders importing not less than 80 tonnes of meat or exporting at least 160 tonnes.

Although the goal of preventing quota speculation is to be applauded, the changes entail more disadvantages than not for small and medium-sized enterprises.

When altering the administration of import quotas as it plans to do, what steps will the Commission take to afford access to all firms, irrespective of their size?

(1) OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 11.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

The import quota with the serial number 09.4003 provides for the import at substantially reduced duties of 53 000 tonnes of frozen beef each year. Annual implementing rules are adopted by the Commission after consultations with Member States through the Management Committee.

Due to the high commercial value of the quota, some operators have systematically participated in the quota allocation in a way which can be characterised as speculative. In order to avoid such speculation which in particular is to the disadvantage of small and medium-sized enterprises, the Commission is regularly obliged to modify the rules in an appropriate way e.g. by limiting quota access to operators having a quantitative turnover which indicates a real and independent trade in beef. This is the reason why a minimum import or export quantity is required to be eligible to participate in the quota. The quantities were fixed bearing all the above considerations in mind.

With regard to any future rules for the implementation of the quota concerned the Commission will obviously continue to seek a fair and correct distribution of the import rights between genuine importers of beef.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2979/01

by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Subject: Thresholds for the application of the Directive on the European Works Council

In paragraph 2(v) of the resolution which it adopted on 4 September 2001 (A5-0282/2001), the European Parliament called for a reduction in the thresholds for companies to be included within the scope of the Directive from 1000 to 500 employees for the company as a whole and from 150 to 100 employees per establishment in at least two Member States.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What percentage of undertakings and/or companies in the EU and in the EEA fall within the scope of the current rules laid down in the Works Council Directive specifying 1000 and 150 employees respectively?

2. What percentage of employees in the EU and in the EEA are covered by the current rules laid down in the Works Council Directive specifying 1000 and 150 employees respectively?

3. What percentage of undertakings and/or companies in the EU and in the EEA would fall within the scope of the rules if the thresholds laid down in the Works Council Directive specified 500 and 100 employees respectively?

4. What percentage of employees in the EU and in the EEA would be concerned if the thresholds laid down in the Works Council Directive specified 500 and 100 employees respectively?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

It is currently estimated that about 1850 Community-scale undertakings or groups of undertakings with total employment of around 16 million fall within the scope of the current thresholds. As regards number of employees covered this represents about 10 % of total Community employment.

There is no statistical source from which the number of Community-scale groups falling within the scope of the Directive can be readily estimated. The estimate of 1850 has been arrived at over time by a process of identifying relevant entities on a case-by-case basis. Similarly there is no readily available source from which to estimate the impact, in terms of increased coverage, of the Parliament's call to reduce the thresholds for application of the Directive(1). Therefore the Commission is not in a position to provide the information requested by the Honourable Member in this regard.

(1) 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 OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1846/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Finnish system of tax credits on dividends

It is clear that the system of tax credits on dividends applicable in Finland disproportionately favours Finnish shareholders over foreign shareholders. Has the Commission considered this unusual system, and does it intend to take any action to ensure the equal taxation of national and foreign shareholders?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The question posed by the Honourable Member on the Finnish system of tax credits on dividends raises the difficult issue of the compatibility of imputation systems with Community law.

In the light of recent case-law of the Court of Justice, there could be serious doubts about the compatibility of some such systems with Community law insofar as they may entail restrictions on the right of establishment and the free movement of capital. This would be the case where a domestic shareholder obtains full or partial relief, for instance by means of a tax credit for the tax paid at corporate level, whereas no corresponding relief is given to a foreign shareholder. The Commission is planning to discuss this general issue with all Member States at a meeting in the autumn of 2001. Based on the outcome of these discussions, the Commission will consider any further action to be taken, including, if necessary, the opening of proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

In this context it should also be noted that the issue of dividend taxation in general is one of the topics to be covered in a study on company taxation which is currently being conducted by the Commission at the request of the Council, and which is scheduled to be published in autumn 2001
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2945/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Data on immigration into Greece and measures concerning the illegal conferral of European citizenship

In reply to my Oral Question H-705/01(1) concerning Illegal conferral of Greek citizenship and a large number of violations of Community law, the Council urged me to ask the Commission for data on immigration into Greece for 1999 and 2000.

Since the Commission provided details for 1997 and 1998 only in reply to my Written Question E-1438/01(2), will it say what the figures are for immigrants, refugees, asylum-seekers, illegal immigrants, naturalisations, and the number of withdrawals of passports and identity cards issued in breach of the rules in 1999 and 2000?

Is a Member State which grants a passport or identity card to an individual who is subsequently shown not to fulfill the criteria for granting Greek and, simultaneously, European citizenship, under an obligation to inform the other Member States and provide the relevant details to locate that individual who is illegally resident in the EU, and does that obligation also apply to Europol?

Are only the judicial authorities in Greece responsible for taking action and imposing penalties or ought the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties and Community law, and other competent bodies and services (e.g. Eurojust) take measures in regard to the illegal conferral of European citizenship in the EU, and what are those measures?

(1) Oral reply of 3.10.2001.

(2) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2001)

In reply to Written Question E-1438/01 by the Honourable Member and Mr Dimitrakopoulos(1) Community statistics were provided on persons who applied for asylum and persons who were accorded refugee status in the period of 1997 2000 as well as on immigrant entries for 1997 and 1998. No migrant stock data has yet been supplied by Greece for the reference period of 1998 and 1999 and data on illegal immigration and entry is still subject to restrictions on publication.

There is no obligation for Member States to report a revocation of a fraudulently obtained citizenship to other Member States or EU-bodies. However, according to Article 23 of the Schengen Implementation agreement Member States applying the Schengen Agreements have to return third-country nationals from their territory, who are illegally resident.

Citizenship law is a subject of national competence. The Commission or other Union bodies are, therefore, not in the position to take measures relating to questions, which are under national legislation and jurisdiction.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2393/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Violence on the part of the Black Bloc at the G8 summit in Genoa and the active participation of an Italian member of parliament

What steps does the Commission intend to take following the serious incidents caused in Genoa by the Black Bloc, an international anarchist and revolutionary organisation with members in many EU countries?

Is the Commission in a position to help ascertain the facts and, if so, how?

Does the Commission know of any international links between extremist anti-globalisation organisations who organised the clashes in Genoa?

Is the Commission aware of any international protection offered to the Black Bloc?

Is the Commission in a position to ascertain, via the Italian State, whether it is true that an Italian member of parliament actively assisted the anti-G8 protesters in creating a battering-ram designed to breach the fence protecting the delegates to the summit?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The Commission would like to recall that the responsibility with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security during summit meetings lies within the competence of Member States, as clarified by Article 33 of the European Union Treaty. However, the Member States have increasingly come to acknowledge the need to improve cooperation in this area in order to be more effective in ensuring the peaceful development of such meetings.

According to Article 36 (2) of the European Union Treaty, the Commission is fully associated with the work in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and actively supports the efforts of Member States in the prevention of serious disturbances at high-level meetings. In doing so, it always keeps in mind the need to guarantee the fundamental rights of everybody as enshrined in the Union Charter.

The Commission supports the conclusions of the special Justice and Home Affairs Council of 13 July 2001 regarding security at European Councils and similar events, and has continued to bring its input into the discussion on how to improve cooperation.

The Commission has also put the expertise of its services at the disposal of the Presidency of the Council in order to work together on improved cooperation with a view to the upcoming high-level meetings to take place in Belgium until the end of December 2001.

With regard to question on a concrete case in Italy the Commission would like to recall that it has no investigative powers in this area.

Furthermore, the Commission does not have any information on international protection offered to the Black Bloc.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2856/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Infringement proceedings against Greece concerning application of the COM in cotton

In its answer to my Written Question E-4160/00(1) concerning the administrative measures taken by Greece to restrict areas for cotton growing, the Commission states that the Commission instituted infringement proceedings against Greece under Article 226 of the EC Treaty for the 2000/2001 marketing year and that the Commission may decide to institute proceedings similar to those in respect of the 2001/2002 marketing year.

Can the Commission provide details of the stage reached in the relevant proceedings for the 2000/2001 and the 2001/2002 marketing years?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 150.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2001)

As regards the measures taken by the Greek authorities to restrict areas for cotton growing in the 2000/2001 marketing year, the Honourable Member was informed in the reply to his Written Question E-4160/00 that the Commission had started infringement proceedings against Greece under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty and that the Commission reserved the position in respect of the institution of similar proceedings in relation to the 2001/2002 marketing year.

The Commission decided to keep in abeyance the infringement procedure concerning the measures for the 2000/2001 marketing year until the Greek legal texts providing for the detailed measures of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton(1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the cotton aid scheme(2), had been adopted. The Greek rules in question have been very recently supplied to the Commission. The Commission services are currently looking into them with a view to propose to the Commission a proper course of action to be followed in respect of this case.

(1) OJ L 148, 1.6.2001.

(2) OJ L 210, 3.8.2001.