ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1206/02

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Irregularities in submitting a European Employment Network project

In December last year, the Commission rejected the project submitted to the European Employment Network on behalf of Zamora City Council by the company IRMA S.L.

There has been a major row in Zamora over the fact that the project in question gave the names of individuals and business groups, such as the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and the chairman of the Association of Young Businessmen (Jóvenes Empresarios), as staff to be employed on a given salary, without the knowledge or consent of those involved.

Was this why the Commission rejected the project?

The Zamora City Council claims that full responsibility lies with IRMA S.L. Can the Commission tell me whether any other Community subsidies in Zamora are managed by this company?

Does a code of good practice for companies specialising in submitting projects to the Commission exist?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

Ayuntamiento de Zamora submitted the project Red Europea Para El Empleo Local in response to the open call for proposals VP/2001/015 Preparatory Measures for a local commitment for employment (Budget Line B5-5030). However, IRMA S.L. did not appear either as a promoter or as a partner of the project. Nevertheless, the Commission understands that this is the project to which the Honourable Member refers.

As regards the selection procedure, all the projects submitted in response to the open call for proposals were selected according to the same criteria set out in the Applicants guide of the call for proposals (point VIII. Examination of applications: Selection and Award Criteria, which applied for all applicants). The Applicants guide is the only code of good practice for promoters.

All the proposals were subject to a detailed evaluation: each project was read and evaluated by two independent external evaluators; both the experts and the Commission's Selection Committee took the decision by unanimity on the basis of the submitted application form and documentation. Accordingly, the proposals selected were those which best met the criteria referred to in the call for proposal and the Applicants guide.

The Commission did not select the application of Ayuntamiento de Zamora because, compared with the proposals finally selected, the evaluators' unanimous view was that the content of the application and the methods foreseen therein would not achieve the objective of dissemination and networking.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0833/02

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

(26 March 2002)

Subject: Spain's call for a sugar quota commensurate with the amount of sugar it consumes

Spanish farmers consider that their country is these days the only major sugar producer with a quota lower than its demand and that it will also be the only country neglected when the EU is enlarged to take in eastern Europe.

Within the sugar industry it is thought that the current production quota should be increased by at least 50 000 tonnes to 1 million tonnes a figure which is closer to the country's consumption, calculated at 1,2 million tonnes.

Why does the European Union maintain this form of discrimination against Spain, which the sugar industry regards as unacceptable? To what extent would the Commission be prepared to consider the complaints of Spanish sugar growers, who feel themselves to be unfairly neglected and discriminated against under Community law, by comparison with the favourable treatment received by other major Community sugar producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Spain's sugar quotas were negotiated at the time of accession on the basis of average sugar production figures with recent production of isoglucose taken into account. Overall Spain was not in the shortfall.

The quota system principles do not permit adjustment in line with the trend of national production or consumption levels. Beet growers in Spain are thus being treated in the same way as growers in other Member States and are in no way discriminated against or disfavoured.

As the Community is overall in surplus for sugar and refund-aided exports are restricted under World Trade Organisation rules, any increase in one national quota implies reductions among the others.

When retention of the quota system has been decided on, as last occurred in June 2001 (Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1)) the Council has not seen fit to reopen discussion of the allocations.

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0546/02

by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(4 March 2002)

Subject: Raid by the Netherlands Police on the Vrankrijk Building in Amsterdam

At about 3.30 a.m. on 17 January 2002, some 200 officers from the Amsterdam Police Force stormed the internationally famous Vrankrijk Building, located at 216 Spuistraat in the city centre, and, according to inhabitants of the building, hit a neighbour so hard with a truncheon that he required hospital treatment. They then searched all 14 apartments (see report at www.statewatch.org). During the raid, several books, mobile telephones and a collection of water pistols were confiscated. According to statements by the inhabitants of the building, the police also searched apartments for which they did not hold a search warrant. (see report at http://www.indymedia.de/2002/01/13697/html).

1. What information does the Council have about the raid on the Vrankrijk Building? On what legal basis was it carried out?

2. What measures will the Council take in the future in order to prevent raids on buildings or parts of buildings in the Member States?

3. What information does the Council have about any of its own proposals or Commission proposals designed to afford better protection from arbitrary police action of fundamental rights in the EU, especially the fundamental right of inviolability of the home?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Honourable Member of the European Parliament is informed that Article 33 TEU excludes national measures aimed at protection of public order in the Member States from the competence of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Federal Mogul Friction Products Ltd

Is the Commission aware of the thousands of claims and potential claims against this company from its employees in the USA and the European Union for exposure to asbestos?

Is the Commission aware that the international company, Federal Mogul, is seeking to avoid paying out on asbestos claims by selectively applying for Chapter 11/Administration in those countries where claims are made, whilst continuing to trade elsewhere?

Within the single European market, is such behaviour legal and, if not, what course of action can be taken to seek redress?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

The Commission is not aware neither of any claim against the company to which the Honourable Member refers nor of its behaviour regarding any potential claim.

At European level, Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 80/1107/EEC)(1), provides that employers take appropriate specified measures in order to protect workers against the risks caused by asbestos at work.

Nevertheless, this Directive does not address the issue of compensations for diseases caused by asbestos. The treatment of claims for compensation for exposure to asbestos falls outside the sphere of competencies of the Commission. Therefore, the assessment of the legality of this situation shall be dealt with at national level.

(1) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0961/02

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against people with disabilities

According to Article 6 of the EU Treaty, the European Union is based on the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Under Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty the Union can take appropriate measures to combat discrimination on grounds of disability. Article 1 of Directive 2000/78/EC(1) states that the purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of [] disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment. Article 2 goes on to say that indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having [] a particular disability [] at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons.

Against this background, how does the Commission view the decree of the South Tyrol provincial government which entered into force on 1 November 2001, whereby people with disabilities can be required to pay a contribution of up to 500 per month for a place in sheltered employment, up to 400 per month for a place in a rehabilitation centre and approximately 2 000 per month for a place in sheltered accommodation for people with disabilities?

Does the Commission not take the view that this system puts people with disabilities at a particular disadvantage and undermines the aims set out in the EC Treaty, particularly that of the attainment of a high level of [] social protection, raising the standard of living and the quality of life, economic and social cohesion and solidarity (Directive 2000/78/EC, Recital 11).

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

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

The Treaty establishing the European Community empowers it to combat all discrimination based on gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (Article 13).

On the basis of Article 13, the Council adopted Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1).

This Directive prohibits all discrimination based on disability, particularly in the conditions for access to employment, including selection criteria, for both the public and the private sectors.

This Directive must now be transposed into national law so that those concerned can exercise and enjoy the rights it confers on them. Member States have until 2 December 2003 to transpose it, with the option of a further three years to transpose provisions relating to discrimination based on disability or age.

Before this deadline, the Commission cannot intervene with regard to the alleged case of discrimination raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1286/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: French driving licence

Would the Commission clarify whether the French driving licence prevents the licence holder from driving a car in the UK after the age of 70?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Article 1, paragraph 2 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(1) provides for mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member States. However, in accordance with Article 1, paragraph 3 of the said Directive, Member States remain competent to apply to licence holders of other Member States their national rules on the period of validity of licences and on medical examinations.

For the latter reason, the periods of validity differ throughout the Member States, entitling for instance holders of British licences to drive up to the age of 70 without any renewal, whereas French holders of car and motorcycle licences are entitled to use these licence categories for life.

In case a French driving licence holder intends to drive a car in the United Kingdom at the age of 70 or beyond, a distinction has to be made as to whether this licence holder establishes his normal residence in the United Kingdom or not.

In case a holder of a French driving licence does not establish his residence in the United Kingdom and drives there as a tourist only, the United Nations (UN) Convention on Road Traffic of 8 November 1968 applies. The holder of a valid French licence is entitled to drive on the United Kingdom territory, also if he is more than 70 years of age, without being obliged to fulfil the additional requirements (consisting in a self-declaration on the health and a renewal of the driving licence every three years for car licences).

However, if the holder of a French licence establishes his normal residence in the United Kingdom, the British licensing rules apply and the holder of a French licence has to submit a self-declaration on the health like any holder of a British licence.

As such, holders of French licences are not prevented from driving a car in the United Kingdom after the age of 70.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1524/02

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Imports of beef into the EU

Can the Commission state what quantities of beef are being imported annually into the EU and from which countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1940/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 June 2002)

Subject: Satellite agency in Rome

For several months now the Italian media particularly the Rome newspapers have been talking about the possible siting in Rome of a European Multimodal Satellite Navigation Agency, coming under the Galileo programme. The mayor of Rome has also stated on several occasions that Rome might manage to be chosen as host city for the agency, which would lead to the creation of approximately one hundred and twenty thousand jobs. The mayor recently said that the decision on the matter should have been taken at the Seville summit, but had been postponed until early July.

However, Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002(1) of 21 May 2002 paints a different picture. Under the provisions of the regulation, over the next four years the programme is to be managed by a joint undertaking based in Brussels and made up of representatives of the fifteen Member States and of private undertakings, following which, starting in 2007, during the deployment stage, the satellites will be launched through the European Space Agency, with their management subsequently being entrusted to consortia of private companies coming under the control of the European Union.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

- whether the Galileo programme provides for the setting up of a European Multimodal Satellite Navigation Agency, and if so, what resources are to be allocated to the agency;

- whether the agency might be based in Rome and whether it is likely to lead to the creation of approximately one hundred and twenty thousand jobs;

- what future developments are provided for in the Galileo programme?

(1) OJ L 138, 28.5.2002, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

The fourth paragraph of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 of 21 May 2002 setting up the Galileo Joint Undertaking states that its seat shall be located in Brussels.

The purpose of the Joint Undertaking, set up for a period of four years (from 2002 to 2005), is to manage only the development phase of the programme.

Management of the subsequent phases (deployment and operational phases) will be entrusted to a private entity (concession) following a call for tenders to be issued by the Joint Undertaking.

No decision has been taken as to the possible setting-up of a European multimodal satellite navigation agency. Consequently, its location, resources and the number of people which it would employ are of course unknown.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Unanswered questions about the ECB's role in campaigning for the euro in Britain

The Commission has failed to answer my detailed question (P-0435/02(1)) regarding the European Central Bank's advertisement for the euro.

To reiterate: Why is the ECB, as an independent central bank, campaigning for the euro in Britain? Is this information unsolicited, or has the British Government asked the ECB to mount such a campaign? Where does the money come from to pay for the campaign?

Is the decision to enter the euro a national decision, or is it one in which the European institutions may legally interfere? Please note, I make no reference to the obligations of the Member States with regard to your original answer to this part of my question.

Additionally: How much money does the ECB have available to spend on campaigns or information? What are the restrictions on the kind of campaign the ECB may or may not finance or initiate?

(1) See page 46.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2002)

The unanswered questions of the Honourable Member concern the European Central Bank. The Commission is not in a position and is not entitled to reply to questions on behalf of the European Central Bank.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Clean nuclear energy

In respect of the statement included in the Commission press release IP/02/872 on 17 June 2002 by Commissioner Busquin which stated, The debate on nuclear energy should be kept open so as to include clean nuclear energy, could the Commission explain what nuclear energy it regards as clean in light of the fact nuclear power production inevitably creates solid and liquid radioactive wastes, and routine liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1958/02 and E-1960/02given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

The sustainability of nuclear power is related to both long term availability of fuel at an affordable cost and to use of the technology without deleterious effects on the environment and on society.

The research in the Euratom Framework Programme will contribute to the development of nuclear fusion and to ensuring the continued safe utilisation of nuclear fission.

Nuclear energy, like most industrial activities, generates waste. In the case of nuclear energy this waste is radioactive and must be handled properly. Some of the waste contains very long-lived radioactivity and will need to be kept in a safe way for tens of thousands of years. The volumes of this waste is, however, small and can be handled in such a way as to fully isolate it from man and the environment, while preserving the economy of nuclear energy. One basic principle for the waste management is that the generation, which has had the benefit of the nuclear energy, should also take care of the waste. The main management route foreseen for the more dangerous forms of radioactive waste is its disposal in a tightly encapsulated form at great depth in geological formations. However, research is also continuing into different ways to reduce the content of long-lived radionuclides before disposal. Both research on disposal and methods to reduce the toxicity of the waste are part of the Euratom Framework Programme. Good progress is being made in the Member States.

The liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges from the nuclear installations must meet the Basic Safety Standards as required in Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1653/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Air pollution on Greece-FYROM border

Air pollution levels constituting a public health hazard have been observed on the border between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which are particularly perceptible in Greece when the north winds blow. The high concentrations of sulphur dioxide (SO2) are reportedly in excess of 1600 mg/Nm3, or four times the levels permissible in the European Union. This air pollution originates in the region of the town of Bitola in FYROM (17 km from the border) where high-sulphur, brown coal-fired electricity generating plants are in operation which have no special filters to restrict pollutant emissions.

Since these plants also export electricity to the EU (Greece) and in view of the requirement that the Union's policies should take account of the environment, and that public health, environmental protection and clean energy are priority issues, will the Commission say:

1. Whether it is aware of the above information? What measurements have been taken recently and what data is available concerning emissions of pollutant substances in the border region between Greece and FYROM?

2. Is it true that emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from electricity generating plants in the town of Bitola in FYROM are far in excess of the levels applicable in the European Union and that such hazardous concentrations find their way into Greece via the atmosphere?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take to stop pollution in the region and what measures is FYROM required to take to prevent cross-border pollution pursuant, in particular, to the EU Stabilisation and Association Agreement with FYROM, which entered into force on 1 June 2001?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the claims referred to in the question and does not measure pollution levels in third countries.

The Stabilisation and Association Agreement is awaiting ratification but will not place any specific obligation on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) regarding air pollution. It does, however, identify combating local, regional and cross-border pollution (air, water quality, including waste water treatment and drinking water pollution) and establishing effective monitoring as an area for potential co-operation. Through its financial assistance the Commission intends to favour the development of the country's institutional capacity and the progressive alignment of its legislation in the field of environment to the Community acquis. A total of EUR 4 million have been allocated for this purpose in the Multi-annual Indicative Programme for FYROM for the years 2003 and 2004. The Commission is also seeking to enhance the capacity of FYROM in environmental monitoring through support for participation in the activities of the European Environment Agency.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1385/02

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Access to information on fisheries policy

Publication of the first package of legislative reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy is currently delayed for at least another month. However, copies of the proposals under discussion have been circulating freely for the some weeks. Many NGOs and industry organisations apparently have access to drafts but MEPs cannot officially obtain copies even of those parts of the package not still under negotiation. In the interests of a level playing field for information and meaningful consultation with MEPs will the Commission formally review its procedures for providing draft copies to interested parties, including MEPs?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to written questions P-1319/02 by Catherine Stihler, P-1325/02 by Ian Hudghton and P-1341/02 by Struan Stevenson(1).

(1) See page 123.