ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2506/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(3 September 2002)

Subject: Disaster fund for flood victims

Over the past few weeks, Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic have been devastated by floods of hitherto unimagined proportions.

Thousands of people have been deprived of their livelihoods; their lives have been destroyed.

The cost of the damage caused by the floods amounts to several billion euro.

In view of this catastrophe is the Commission in favour of the introduction of a separate EU Disaster Fund, so that damage caused by the disaster in Member States can be repaired as soon as possible?

If so, what steps does it plan to take to set up a Disaster Fund?

When may the first specific measures to implement the Fund be expected?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2468/02, P-2506/02 and P-2542/02given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission shares the distress of the families plunged into grief by August's serious flooding in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and is fully alive to their social, economic and environmental implications. Accordingly, on 28 August it announced a series of initiatives involving various Community policies to help the countries and regions concerned and the impact of the floods.(1)

Among the existing instruments available are the Structural Funds (for affected Member States) and the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (for the applicant countries).

In the zones and regions eligible for assistance from these Funds 2000-2006 programming period appropriations that have not yet been committed or projects already scheduled can at the Member States' request be redeployed between the priorities of the regional programmes. Meetings with the various national regional authorities are in progress in order to specify the amount that can be reallocated. The Commission will make full use of the margins of flexibility offered by the regulations governing these Funds and by the Community rules on State aid and public procurement.

Going beyond the existing mechanisms, the Commission on 18 September adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a European Union Solidarity Fund(2) to aid countries and regions affected by major disasters. It could be given in both the present Member States and the countries for which accession negotiations are in progress. Article 13 of the Commission's proposal states that countries affected by disasters from 1 August 2002 onwards can request assistance from the Fund. The proposals for the Regulation and for an institutional agreement making the necessary resources available are now being negotiated in Parliament and the Council with adoption expected at the end of October. The Commission is therefore unable at present to indicate what amount of aid from this Fund could be granted to Austria.

(1) COM(2002) 481 final of 28.8.2002: Commission communication to Parliament and the Council the European Community responds to the flooding in Austria, Germany and several applicant countries: a solidarity-based initiative.

(2) COM(2002) 514 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2470/02

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Conclusion of appeal proceedings Nos. 98/4010 and 98/4826

A ruling is to be made in cases 98/4010 and 98/4826 pending before the Commission as to the compatibility with EU law of national provisions laying down restrictions for the protection of races of bees. The Commission announced in September 2001 that these cases would be concluded by the end of 2001, yet proceedings are still under way.

The government of the province of Lower Austria intends to use the Commission's decision as a basis to amend the law on bee-keeping. In view of the uncertainty of the legal situation as long as the above cases have not been concluded, there is a risk of persistent crossbreeding with detrimental consequences for bee-keeping.

How does the Commission justify the lengthiness of the proceedings in the above cases?

Does the Commission consider that the cause of the delay in concluding the proceedings is a conflict of competence between the Agriculture DG and the Health and Consumer Protection DG? Which Directorate-General is responsible for settling these cases?

When will the Commission take a decision in the above cases?

Is the Commission aware of the judgment of the Court of Justice in a similar case, C-67/97 of 3 December 1998, that restrictions for the protection of races of bees were justified? What is the Commission's view of the possible application of Court of Justice case-law to the cases in question?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission received the complaints in question on 3 November 1998 and 12 August 1998 respectively. Contacts with the Austrian authorities were taken at an early stage. The reorganisation of the Commission in 1999 caused a general delay in the treatment of complaints. However, by the end of 2001, the Commission arrived at the conclusion that the information received did not demonstrate that the Austrian law in question constituted a breach of Community law. In accordance with the procedural rules applicable to infringement investigations, the Commission sent a letter to the complainants informing them that the cases were to be closed. In their answers to this letter, the complainants contested, however, some of the factual elements provided by the Austrian authorities, elements which were relevant for the assessment of the cases. The Commission is therefore obliged to reopen the investigations and this is why the complaints are still open.

Following the said reorganisation of the Commission, it is the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General that is responsible for the complaints in question. There is no conflict between Commission services on these complaints.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission is aware of the judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-67/97. The outcome of the investigations depends indeed on the extent to which this case law can be applied to the present complaints.

A final decision will be taken by the Commission in mid-October with regard to both complaints (98/4010 and 98/4826).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1842/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Article 13 of the EC Treaty and transgender discrimination

Does the Commission agree that transgender discrimination is covered by Article 13 of the EC Treaty?

Is it also covered by the Discrimination in the Workplace Directive?

If not, what plans does the Commission have to tackle transgender discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2002)

1. The questions posed by the Honourable Member concerning transgender discrimination give rise to complex questions of interpretation of Community law and compatibility with fundamental rights (see in particular the European Convention on Human Rights). Each case of transgender discrimination must be analysed on its merits, taking account of the specific nature of the discrimination alleged by the transsexual.

2. Although Article 13 of the Treaty does not explicitly cover transgender discrimination, it can be deduced from the case law of the Court of Justice(1) that discrimination on grounds of the gender reassignment of a person would be covered by the ban on discrimination on grounds of sex.

3. Assuming that the Honourable Member's reference to the Discrimination in the Workplace Directive refers to Directive 2000/78/EC(2), it should be noted that this Directive covers discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. Transgender discrimination is, however, not one of the grounds covered by this particular Directive.

(1) Judgment of 30 April 1996, Case C-13/94, P v S and Cornwall County Council. This case concerned the validity of the dismissal of a transsexual because of his gender reassignment, in the light of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976).

(2) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Motorcycle helmets and fines in Greece

Recently, the Greek authorities have been imposing fines and impounding motorcycles ridden by drivers not wearing helmets. However, Greek motorcyclists protest that the cost of a safe, good quality helmet is between EUR 300 and EUR 600 in Greece mainly because of the high level of duty and taxes imposed by the Greek authorities.

What is the Commission's view of the level of Greek duties and taxes on helmets? What is the precise amount of tax levied in the other 14 Member States of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 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-1828/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Persons missing in unknown circumstances

In Resolution 2001/C 283/01(1) on the contribution of civil society in finding missing or sexually exploited children the Council calls on the Commission to carry out research on the matter, and to prepare a report on the basis of the research by the end of the year.

Is the Commission preparing the above-mentioned research and report, and, if so, would it be possible to extend their scope to include minors and adults who are missing in unknown circumstances?

Will the Commission draft legislation on missing persons, as has been done in the case of missing or sexually exploited children?

(1) OJ C 283, 9.10.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 2002)

Following Resolution 2001/C 283/01, the Commission has put forward, in the context of the STOP II Programme, a proposal for a study to be drawn up. The STOP II Committee will meet on 24 July 2002 in order to develop its opinion on the proposal of the Commission.

The first part of the study concerns the actual extent of the phenomenon of missing or sexually exploited children. The second part of the study is intended to give an overall view on the existence, role and structure of the civil society organisations in the Members States actively supporting the search for missing or sexually exploited children. The third part of the study is to examine the legal issues arising from the involvement of the civil society organisations in the Member States actively supporting the search for missing or sexual exploited children, in particular the issues concerning competent authorities sending confidential information to such organisations. Three round tables will also be organised during the course of the study.

Currently the Commission has no plans to draft legislation specifically addressing missing persons.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2119/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Subject: Identity checks at Malpensa airport

At Malpensa airport in the last few days the State police have reintroduced controls in addition to the procedures for checking identity already introduced by the airlines, even for the Schengen area. The controls make no distinction between Schengen and other passengers and consist in people being physically stopped and each individual passport etc being checked, as well as the boarding card. Have the European authorities been notified about this suspension of the Schengen Agreements?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Commission has not been notified of any reintroduction of controls at internal frontiers by the Italian authorities.

It is collecting the relevant information from them and will be certain to inform the Honourable Member of its findings at the earliest opportunity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2001/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Mozambique

With respect to Mozambique, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1301/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Voting rights of EU citizens

Is the Commission aware that currently UK citizens who have been living abroad for more than 15 years lose their right to vote in the UK? Is the Commission aware of similar rules within other EU Member States? Can the Commission comment as to whether it plans to take any action on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

The Honourable Member raises the point that British citizens having been living abroad for more than 15 years lose their right to vote in the United Kingdom.

The right to vote of own nationals of a Member State in elections of that Member State belongs fully to the competence of the Member States, independent whether those citizens reside in its territory or outside of its territory. This is explicitly confirmed in the relevant Directives 93/109/EC(1) and Directive 94/80/EC(2), which provide that nothing in those Directives affects each Member State's provisions concerning the right to vote or to stand as a candidate of its nationals who reside outside of its territory.

The Community law guarantees only that every Union citizen has the right to vote and stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament and at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

Because of the lack of the competence the Commission does not plan to take any actions relating to the right to vote of nationals of a Member State residing outside of its territory.

(1) Council Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993, laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(2) Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2706/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Channel Tunnel freight services

Latest reports suggest that while the construction of a security fence at Fréthun has improved the situation, the number of hours each day during which it is possible to operate rail freight traffic through the Tunnel is still restricted due to the failure of the French authorities to provide sufficient forces to maintain security cover throughout the day.

Is the Commission satisfied with this continued disruption to trade?

What steps is the Commission taking to seek to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

The Commission has recently received similar information, from complainants as well as from the French authorities, on the progress of the work and the situation of rail traffic in the Channel Tunnel.

It emerges from all this information that the situation at the Calais-Fréthun terminal is improving and that is reflected in a steady increase in rail traffic through the Tunnel.

The Commission welcomes this encouraging improvement, which is the result of measures already taken by the French authorities, such as the erection of a double security fence around the site.

The Commission has nevertheless drawn the attention of the French authorities in particular, at the meeting on 30 September 2002 between the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market and Mme Lenoir, Minister with responsibility for European Affairs to the fact that it is waiting for the complete and final removal of any hindrance to the free movement of goods.

This removal can involve only the reintroduction of unrestricted traffic throughout the day, which was the case before the disruptive events of November 2001.

Although the current volume of traffic, which has been affected by a lengthy period of restrictions, does not yet require the rail terminal to be open for 24 hours a day, the Commission considers that when traffic returns to the levels which existed before the disruption the site will in fact need to be open night and day.

The Commission will thus continue to monitor the progress achieved by the French authorities with a view to attaining this aim.

The French authorities have also been asked to keep the Commission regularly informed about future measures at the Fréthun site to increase security, as well as about any resulting improvements in traffic.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2003/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Namibia

With respect to Namibia, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2069/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR)and Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Council

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Treaty of Accession

Paragraph 22 of the Conclusions of the Seville European Council refers to a Treaty of Accession, while paragraph 10 of the Conclusions of the Laeken European Council refers to accession treaties.

1. Can the Council confirm that just one Treaty of Accession is being drawn up?

2. If so, when was the decision taken that just one Treaty of Accession would be drawn up, and on the basis of what considerations is just one Treaty of Accession being drawn up?

3. Does the Council agree that precedent cannot be invoked in this instance because what is at issue here is the simultaneous accession of up to ten countries?

4. How does the principle of the individual assessment of the various applicant countries square with the inclusion of all the applicant countries in just one Treaty of Accession?

5. Does the Council share our view that the democratic scrutiny of the accession process is being adversely affected, since the national parliaments may say simply yea or nay to the entire Treaty and not to individual applicant countries? Does the Council feel that this constitutes a good example of democratic procedure to be setting the applicant countries?

6. Does the Council still intend to give the national parliaments a say in the individual assessment of the applicant countries? If so, how will it do so?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

As the Honourable Members are certainly aware, the Luxembourg European Council launched the current enlargement process as a comprehensive and inclusive process. This approach has been regularly confirmed at the level of the European Council ever since.

The structure of the legal instruments giving effect to accession has remained the same in every previous enlargement of the European Union, where more than one country acceded: a short Treaty of Accession provides that the new Member States are to become members of the European Union and on the conditions set out in an annexed Act of Accession. This approach was most recently confirmed by the European Council in Seville. It should be noted that the Treaty of Accession is an international agreement, which is ratified by the existing and new Member States as sovereign States, in accordance with their constitutional procedures.

The principle of differentiation whereby the individual candidate countries are judged solely on their own merits remains fully applicable. The European Council in autumn 2002 will therefore decide, on the basis of the Regular Reports to be submitted by the Commission, which will be the candidate countries with which negotiations can be concluded at the end of 2002. Furthermore, only those countries which successfully conclude negotiations on the basis of the principle of differentiation will be party to the Treaty of Accession.

By virtue of Article 49, first paragraph of the TEU, the applications from those countries are subject to the assent of the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1928/02 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Payment of contractors and suppliers.



Official Journal 092 E , 17/04/2003 P. 0119 - 0119



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1928/02 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (3 July 2002) Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers Further to Ms Schreyer's answers to my written questions E-0505/00(1), E-1669/00 and E-1670/00(2), will the Commission please update the figures given for performance and change in average invoice payment times for contractors and suppliers for the years for which data is now available (2000 and 2001)? (1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 10. (2) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 70. Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (17 July 2002) Performance and change in average payment times since 1995 (overall statistics). >TABLE> >TABLE>