ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2902/02

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Competition policy

1. Can the Commission provide a breakdown by Member State of the total authorised income aid in 2001, amounting to EUR 460 million, paid to beef farmers in the EU in the wake of the BSE crisis?

2. Can the Commission provide details of which Member States have applied for state aid under the new guidelines for advertising agricultural products introduced on 6 June 2001?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

1. As to the breakdown by Member State of income aid related to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis authorised by the Commission in 2001, the breakdown per Member State is as follows:

- Belgium: ca EUR 59 million;

- Germany: ca EUR 43 million;

- Spain: ca EUR 13 million;

- France: ca EUR 259 million;

- Italy: ca EUR 79 million;

- Austria: ca EUR 4 million.

2. The following Member States have so far notified state aid to be examined under the new guidelines for advertising of agricultural products: Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2918/02

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

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Papua New Guinea

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for EU budget funding in 2001 for Papua New Guinea and give details of the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: Recreational fishing

According to the 28 August edition of the newspaper Diário de Noticias, the ADAPI (association of industrial fishing-boat owners) estimates that there are more than 20 000 fishing boats operating in Portugal, ostensibly engaged in recreational fishing, but actually fishing for commercial purposes.

Although these figures cannot of course be confirmed, experience nevertheless shows that this is a substantial problem in Portugal, and is undoubtedly not confined to that country alone.

In view of the gradual exhaustion of fish stocks, does the Commission not consider it essential to make provision for monitoring the recreational fishing sector, in order to avoid even more adverse consequences for the sustainability of fisheries and the conditions of competition in European fisheries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2002)

The Commission does not possess at present and has no intention of instituting in the foreseeable future a monitoring scheme for the recreational sector of fisheries.

Member States are obliged under existing Community legislation to ensure that all landings of regulated fish stocks are accurately recorded and that these records are returned to appropriate authorities, including the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3225/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2002)

Subject: Accession countries and joint implementation projects (Kyoto Mechanism)

Has the EU made any agreements in the accession talks for the ten new Member States to promote JI projects during the initial period of the EU emission trading scheme (2005-2007) or the subsequent period(s)?

Is there an estimate on how big a volume of such projects will be initiated during each of the ET periods (absolutely and in proportion of hot air)? Has the EU made any models on how effective implementation of JI projects would affect the price of emission allowances (and the actual reductions of emissions in the EU) and where have such models been published if they exist?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

No specific agreements have been made in the context of the European Union enlargement on Joint Implementation projects under Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol. However, the Commission has launched a study to identify specific capacity building needs and priorities in Central and Eastern European countries for the establishment of national Joint Implementation programmes. This study will be completed early 2003 and will provide a sound basis for making recommendations for further technical assistance to facilitate the development of Joint Implementation projects.

Emission reduction units generated by Joint Implementation projects will not be available before 2008 in accordance with the implementing provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, the recognition of Joint Implementation credits for their use in the initial phase of the forthcoming Union emissions trading scheme (2005-2007) is not practicable. The modalities for linking credits from the Kyoto Protocol's project based mechanisms (Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism) will be laid down in a proposal for a Directive to be made in 2003, as outlined in the Commission's Work Programme for 2003.

The Commission has undertaken no modelling exercise on the potential volume of Joint Implementation projects or on the extent to which the availability of Joint Implementation credits would affect the price of allowances. It is assumed, however, that the availability of credits will reduce the price of allowances.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2993/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 18 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) urges the Commission to require transparency as regards the information provided by Member States on ships and their operation so that it can be incorporated into the real-time information system Equasis now being set up by the Commission.

Has the Commission taken any steps in this connection?

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

With regard to the recommendation in paragraph 18 of the resolution adopted by Parliament on 5 April 2001 urging the Commission to require transparency as regards the information provided by Member States on ships and their operation so that it can be incorporated into the real-time information system Equasis now being set up by the Commission, it should be remembered that the Equasis information system relates only to commercial vessels and does not contain any information on their operation.

The Commission has not taken any new initiatives in this connection.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3093/02

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Alleged infringement by Portugal in the area of environmental policy in connection with the building of a motorway

On 15 October 2002 the Portuguese press claimed that the Commission had decided to bring proceedings against Portugal for failure to comply with European environmental legislation in connection with the construction of a motorway between Lisbon and the Algarve (the A2). An anonymous Community source was quoted as saying that a formal decision would be taken at a meeting of the Commission to be held on Tuesday in Brussels, the issue being the way in which the Calderão and Castro Verde sections of the motorway had been built. The same source said that a European Investment Bank (EIB) loan for the project was dependent on a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg and that the Commission was accusing the Portuguese Government of failing to comply with the provisions of the Habitats Directive, according to which projects carried out in protected areas are subject to an environmental impact assessment.

Can the Commission confirm this report? If so, is it usual Commission practice for such sensitive information concerning the initiation of legal proceedings to be divulged in this way, before the relevant decision is actually taken? If it is, does the Commission have definite objective data to support the allegations against Portugal?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The Commission can confirm that, in connection with the construction of the Lisbon-Algarve motorway, it decided to refer Portugal to the Court of Justice for failing to comply with the requirements of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) (infringement cases 1999/5085 and 2000/4418).

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it discloses its decisions on infringement proceedings in press releases issued by the Spokesman's Service(2). All these decisions can also be found on the website of the Commission's Secretariat-General at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_fr.htm

infractions.

In accordance with the rules in force, decisions on infringement proceedings enter the public domain once the Commission has decided to issue a reasoned opinion. The Commission decided to send Portugal a reasoned opinion on 28 March 2001 (case 2000/4418) and on 7 November 2001 (case 1999/5085).

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) IP/02/1574, 29.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2202/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 July 2002)

Subject: Caroline Lee

Will the Commission ask the French authorities to ensure that an investigation is carried out as a matter of urgency into the death in suspicious circumstances of an Irish girl and former jockey, Caroline Lee, on 30 November 2000 in Coye-le-Foret, Chantilly, as justice delayed is justice denied?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The Commission is sorry to hear about the death of Caroline Lee. It is not, however, the role of the Commission to intervene in such cases. Any investigation is a matter for the French authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3034/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: EU aid for Objective 1 regions

It emerges from Jörg Beutel's study for the Commission entitled The economic impact of Objective 1 interventions for the period 2000-2006 that 24,2 % of EU aid for Objective 1 regions does not benefit those regions themselves, but other EU regions. The study also makes it clear that the lasting effects of EU funding in the region concerned are insufficient.

1. What reasons does the Commission see for the misdirected funding?

2. What steps has the Commission taken or does it propose to take to remedy this state of affairs?

3. Does the Commission intend to withdraw this funding?

4. How does the Commission view the study's findings about EU funding's lack of lasting effects?

5. What steps does the Commission suggest to enhance the effectiveness of EU aid?

Answer given by Mr. Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2002)

The study cited by the Honourable Member examines the economic impact of the Structural Funds on the regions eligible under Objective 1. Contrary to the conclusion drawn by the Honourable member, the study does not call into the question the fact that the eligible regions benefit in full from the resources transferred under the Structural Funds. In terms of the economic impact of these resources, it is estimated that over the period 2000-2006 European support under the Structural Funds will contribute some 0,4 % per year to income (GDP) growth in Greece and Portugal, the two major beneficiaries.

The study also examines the second-round effects of the Structural Funds. The second-round effects exist because some of the new plant, equipment and services made available to the eligible regions are imported from other parts of the Union. It is a reflection of patterns of trade between the Member States of the Union in the framework of the Single Market. On average, the study found that such imports equate to 24,2 % of the direct expenditures in the eligible regions.

The improvement to the capital stock brought about by the intervention of the Structural Funds means that the long-term productive capacity of the regions is enhanced. In this way, the Structural Funds have lasting benefits. Investment as a percentage of GDP would be up to one fifth lower in the eligible regions in the absence of the Structural Funds.

The authorities in the Member States regions are currently in the process of carrying out a mid-term evaluation of what has been achieved in the first part of the programming period, 2000-2006. These evaluations will be finalised a the end of 2003 and will form the basis for possible adjustments to programmes in 2004. The purpose is to ensure that the interventions are as effective as possible and adapted to changing circumstances.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Council

(19 July 2002)

Subject: Human Rights Monitoring Iran

Is the Council aware of the report on Iran dated March 2002 and drawn up by the UN Special Representative to the Human Rights Commission who reiterated concerns about the growing number of public executions and inhuman punishments, such as stoning, and the systematic discrimination against women and the religious minorities in Iran?

Would the Council consider tabling coordinated resolutions drawn up by European Union Member States and condemning the human rights violations in Iran at the forthcoming session of the UN General Assembly?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

The Council is fully aware of the report by the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was referred to in the EU's draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran, tabled at the 58th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in the spring of this year. The Council has been seriously concerned for some time at the situation of human rights in Iran, which is why it has traditionally tabled resolutions on this subject both at the CHR and at the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly.

The EU is currently considering whether to table a resolution concerning the situation of human rights in Iran at the forthcoming session of the Third Committee. The Council would also remind the Honourable Member of the conclusions on Iran which it adopted at its meeting on 21 October 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3537/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: STAR 21 Review

Will the Commission please explain why its STAR 21 (Strategic Aerospace Review) ignores the divide between civil and military equipment?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3536/02 and E-3537/02given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The members of the Advisory Group on Aerospace which presented its findings (STAR 21 report) to the President of the Commission on 16 July 2002, contributed in a personal capacity. Accordingly, the report represents the collective views of the Advisory Group's members. The Commission has, nevertheless, welcomed the report as a key contribution to identifying the framework needed to ensure the competitiveness of Europe's aerospace industry. The Commission is currently considering its position on the STAR 21 report and will present its views in a communication in the course of the coming year. In the meantime, the Commission welcomes and encourages comments on the Report from all interested parties.

Referring to specific issues raised by the Honourable Member, as regards the distinction between civil and military equipment the Commission notes that the Advisory Group, in highlighting a number of key characteristics of the aerospace industry, draws attention to the complementary nature of civil and defence products, noting that they share many of the same skills and technologies, yet meet the needs of two very different markets, both economically important.

As far as the defence sector itself is concerned, the Advisory Group's recommendations are made against the background of the efforts required to meet objectives already identified at Union level, for example in the conclusions of the 1999 Helsinki European Council setting a common European Headline Goal. The other recommendations in this area focus on the need to optimise expenditure and create an internal market in defence equipment while stressing that the overall level of ambition must necessarily be determined at the highest political level.

The production and trade of armaments are subject to government authorisation. The possible flow of weapons into areas of conflict is already covered by the Union code of conduct on arms exports adopted by the Council in June 1998. The STAR 21 report makes no recommendations on this aspect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2501/02

by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 September 2002)

Subject: Crisis affecting durum wheat producers in the commune of Raddusa

Raddusa in the province of Catania has for centuries depended on agriculture for its livelihood, mainly cereal production (the area specialises in growing durum wheat).

Because of the EU policy of reealigning prices farmers have seen a significant reduction in their incomes. In view of this the EU has introduced compensatory payments for durum wheat producers (income support).

In view of the fact that there have been a series of disastrous events (in particular drought) over the last few years, which have jeopardised harvests and brought the Sicilian economy to its knees, the only means of subsistence for farmers has been, precisely, EU income support, minimal though it is. In view of the situation outlined above, it is clear how important supplementary aid is for farmers.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to reduce by 27 % the supplementary payment to farmers, which would thus fall from the present EUR 344,5 per hectare to EUR 250 per hectare?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2002)

The Honourable Member will certainly be aware of the Court of Auditors' recommendations in its 1997 report and of the assessment made by independent experts who examined the effectiveness of the support granted for durum wheat following the 1992 reform. The Commission took both of these into consideration in its mid-term review(1), which proposes a reduction from EUR 344,5 to EUR 250 per hectare (over a three-year period) in the supplementary compensatory payment to durum wheat growers in traditional areas.

To promote quality production a new aid of EUR 15 per tonne is also proposed for durum wheat for industrial processing grown under a sale contract requiring observance of certain quality standards.

As far as disastrous events (drought) are concerned, the Honourable Member should note that the supplementary durum wheat aid of EUR 250/ha will count for the purpose of calculating the single decoupled aid to be paid to farmers. This will ensure them greater flexibility of resources when events of this type occur.

In addition, following the exceptional drought in the Mezzogiorno, Sardinia and Sicily the Commission this summer authorised Italy to pay in advance (from 26 August 2002) a maximum of 50 % of the 2002/03 area aid payments for arable crops, the durum wheat supplement included.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Industrial fisheries sandeels

Given the record catches of sandeel fisheries being recorded by Danish fishermen (in April this year, the previous record from 1994 of 72 000 tonnes was broken when 78 000 tonnes were landed), how can the Commission provide reassurances that the already threatened white fish stocks of the North Sea are not being adversely affected by these catches?

Why has the Commission not reduced radically the catches of industrial fisheries in light of the closures and reduced quotas being faced by the fishing industry in relation to fish for human consumption?

Can the Commission justify its nonchalant approach towards allowing industrial fisheries in light of the obvious detrimental effect on the marine ecosystem, and obvious impact on other fisheries crucial for the survival of fisheries-dependent communities located around the North Sea?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

According to the information available to the Commission the Danish fishermen landed 178,000 tonnes of sandeel in April 2002 and 245,000 tonnes in May 2002.

The total catches of sandeel have for the last 25 years being fluctuating between 500,000 and 1,1 million tonnes per year without any clear trend.

There is no evidence known to the Commission that the fisheries for sandeel have a significant adversely effect on the white fish stocks. The available information shows that the by-catches of white fish is very low compared to the catches of these species in other fisheries and the Commission has not received any scientific advice or other information indicating that sandeel fishing is depriving white fish of sufficient food. The Commission has, however, recently asked the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to investigate possible effects of industrial fisheries on the ecosystem.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3764/02

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: European Social Fund

In many EU countries asylum-seekers and immigrants do not have the right to gain employment, therefore, they cannot participate in any ESF-funded course, as they are not allowed to work. Is this a formal EU rule or a Member State criterion?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

There is no Community rule governing the specific access of asylum seekers and immigrants to European Social Fund (ESF) funded courses. If any particular group or individual is excluded from ESF assistance it will arise from national legislation in the Member State concerned regarding access to the labour market.

Participation in ESF-funded activities is governed by the Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) in general and the Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund(2) in particular. ESF assistance is open to all individuals granted access to the labour market.

Access to the labour market is a matter of national law only. Certain Member States do not allow asylum seekers or certain immigrants to work.

In certain Member States asylum seekers are excluded from access to the labour market. However, the absence of the right to work should not necessarily exclude them from ESF assistance. The Structural Funds Regulations allow asylum seekers to follow ESF-funded training to prepare them for eventual integration into the labour market. Projects assisting asylum seekers to prepare for the labour market can be funded by EQUAL, the Community Initiative which promotes new means to tackle all forms of labour market discrimination. Combating discrimination against asylum seekers in the labour market is one of the thematic priorities of EQUAL. The nature of the specific actions depends on whether asylum seekers are allowed to work in that Member State.

If immigrants have the right to work, ESF assistance should be open to them in the same way as it is to Union nationals. If not, then they would not generally be entitled to ESF assistance.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.