ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0945/02

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2002)

Subject: Foal Levy imposed on breeders of thoroughbred horses

The purpose of the European agricultural model which was laid down in Agenda 2000 and which is currently being revised by the European Union is to create an agricultural sector which is competitive and not over-subsidised.

There is no justification for making the breeders of thoroughbred horses pay a levy which has been introduced by the Irish Government in order to provide exclusive support for Irish breeders (and to favour those in the UK), in so far as it will apply to all EU Member States except the UK.

EU breeders of thoroughbred horses are of the opinion that the largest number of the highest-quality stallions are to be found in Ireland, for which reason a seasonal transfer trade has developed, involving mares belonging mainly to Italian, French and German breeders which are sent to Ireland for breeding purposes.

Once they have given birth in Ireland and been mounted again, most mares are returned to their country of origin, and if they remain in Ireland the foal to which they have given birth is exported at the latest by 31 December of the year in which it was born, so that it can acquire the nationality of its owner's country of origin. This arrangement is adopted on account of the fact that it is impossible for breeders of thoroughbred horses to practise artificial insemination, a procedure which is banned by the international equine authorities even though, if it were allowed, animals would not have to travel. This would solve the Foal Levy problem and also many other, health-related ones.

The Irish Government has introduced a levy (the Foal Levy) which is directly proportionate to the cost of making available the stallion by which the mare becomes pregnant. The levy is charged on foals born in Ireland with the exception of UK-owned ones, which for some unfathomable reason are exempt.

Does the Commission not consider that this levy undermines the principle of free competition laid down in Article 88 and 89 of the Treaty, in that it increases production costs for some breeders though not for others?

How does the Commission justify Ireland's protectionist laws, which are nothing but a way of discriminating against breeders who are not from that country or from the UK?

Does the Commission not think that, since a sizeable proportion of the revenue generated by the levy is invested by the Irish in the marketing of their own foals at auction, unfair competition is being practised vis-à-vis the other Member States who have no access to such revenue?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2002)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0064/02

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

(25 January 2002)

Subject: The Spanish presidency's position on relations with Mercosur, and Argentina in particular

The Spanish presidency's priorities presented by the Spanish Foreign Minister, Josep Piqué, include relations with Latin America, but give lower priority to relations with Mercosur than to relations with Chile, although the organisation should be given preference since it consists of countries as important as Brazil and Argentina the second of which has extremely serious problems and needs genuine help from the EU as well as Uruguay and Paraguay. What are the reasons for this?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

1. The Council wishes to stress to the Honourable Member that the EU's relations with Mercosur are of equal importance to its relations with Chile. An EU-Mercosur Summit (in parallel with the European Union-Latin America-Caribbean Summit) is to take place in Madrid on 18 May 2002. As the programme of the Spanish Presidency indicates, These meetings could provide a good opportunity to conclude the negotiations on the Association Agreement with Chile and to give a decisive boost to those taking place with Mercosur so as finally to secure a commitment from the European Union which will ensure that preferential relations with this area are maintained and developed. This statement is a fair reflection of the present state of current negotiations with Chile on the one hand and Mercosur on the other.

2. The Council would also remind the Honourable Member that conclusions on Mercosur were adopted at the General Affairs Council on 28 January 2002. In those conclusions the Council emphasises that, given the context of the current crisis in Argentina, it welcomes the determination displayed by the Mercosur Foreign Affairs Ministers in their Joint Declaration adopted in Buenos Aires on 11 January 2002 to strengthen the integration process between their countries. In addition, the Council believes that a strengthened Mercosur will be the key to the development of the region and it reaffirms the importance it attaches to the future Association Agreement between the EU and Mercosur. It welcomes the progress achieved so far in the negotiations and reiterates the EU's commitment to continue to make progress in those negotiations.

3. As regards the crisis in Argentina specifically, the Ecofin Council examined the situation in that country at length on 22 January 2002 and conclusions stressing the economic and financial aspects of the crisis were adopted and made public. The situation in Argentina was examined again at the Foreign Affairs Ministers' lunch on 28 January.

4. In conclusion, the Spanish Presidency reaffirms the importance it attaches to relations with Mercosur. The Presidency will do all that is necessary to secure progress in the negotiations progress with a view to establishing an Association Agreement between the EU and Mercosur as swiftly as possible. In addition, it will continue to follow closely the situation in Argentina and its possible repercussions in Latin America.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0053/02

by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PSE) to the Council

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Framework agreement between the Teutonic Order, DOH International division, and the Commission

In March 1999, the Hospitalers of the Teutonic Order (DOH) International and the Commission signed an initial contract for a framework agreement worth EUR 2,95 million to finance an aid programme in several countries in Asia. This was reported in issue number 4/1999 of DO aktuell, the magazine of the Order's German branch (Brüderprovinz). Since November 2000, the Teutonic Order, a public body, (headquarters: Weyarn-Upper Bavaria), has been experiencing financial difficulties.

1. What were the content and the aim of the above agreement?

2. What terms and conditions had to be met to obtain EU funds?

3. How much money has been paid out?

4. What information is available about the experiences and the results of DOH's development work?

5. Is there any documentation showing how the money has been spent? If so, what kind?

6. Have further agreements been concluded between the Commission and DOH? If so, which?

7. Is the present cooperation with DOH continuing or has it already ended?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

Only the European Commission can answer these questions and so the Honourable Member should put them direct to that institution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0618/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Corrubedo wetlands, Couso (La Coruña Spain)

Even though the Corrubedo wetlands (Complejo Húmedo de Corrubedo) was included by the Galician Government in the list of areas making up the Natura 2000 network, permits and authorisations are still being granted for the construction of ships and siting of industrial units in this protected area.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in processing the complaint submitted to the Commission on this subject (2001/4904, SG (2001) A/8849/2)?

Can the Commission say what response it has received to date from the Spanish authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The Commission can confirm that the complaint registered as 2001/4904 is now being examined, together with other dossiers on the same subject.

As the examination is in progress, there has not so far been any exchange of correspondence with the national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0343/02

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

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Carriage of deceased persons within the EU

A growing number of EU citizens are living in another EU country than their own: many EU citizens work in another country, tourism continues to increase and ever more retired people from northern Europe are moving permanently to southern Europe. An inevitable consequence of increased migration and travel is that, increasingly, EU citizens are dying elsewhere in the EU than in their home country.

At the same time as the EU's internal market is functioning ever more smoothly, absurd difficulties arise with the repatriation of a deceased person from one EU Member State to another. This results in needless cost and distressing delays for the relations of the deceased.

The repatriation of deceased persons from one country to another is governed by the Berlin Convention (1937) and the Council of Europe Convention on the carriage of deceased persons (Strasbourg 1973). These Conventions are no longer in keeping with the times since they are based on the kind of border checks which no longer exist. For example, a zinc coffin is not necessary when transporting a deceased person (by road) from Strasbourg to Lyon (460 km) but is essential when transporting the deceased person from Strasbourg to Baden-Baden (50 km). There are no rational hygienic or safety grounds that would justify this practice.

Does the EU Treaty require the European Union to guarantee the free repatriation of deceased persons within the EU where the person in question is an EU citizen?

Is the updating of the relevant provisions pending in the EU or internationally?

Would it be possible to secure the adoption of rules on the repatriation of deceased persons within the EU that would make repatriation from one Member State to another as simple as transporting a deceased person within a Member State?

What timetable could be envisaged for taking this matter forward?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0209/02 and E-0343/02

(21 May 2002)

Neither the Treaty on European Union nor the Community's secondary legislation contains any provisions on the subject raised in the Honourable Members' questions.

The Council is therefore unable to answer these questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0509/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Management of electronic waste

The management of electronic waste (computers, printers, fax machines etc.) is a problem assuming ever greater proportions as the volume increases year by year. In 1998 alone, the European Union reportedly produced 8 million tonnes of such waste.

1. What risks to public health are associated with the uncontrolled dumping of electronic waste?

2. What measures will the Commission take to ensure that an integrated approach is taken to the management of electronic waste?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2002)

The main problems in this context are the leaching and evaporation of hazardous substances. Leaching of mercury takes place when certain electronic devices, such as circuit breakers, are destroyed. The same is true for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from condensers. When brominated flame retarded plastic or cadmium containing plastics are landfilled, both polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) and cadmium may leach into the soil and groundwater. It had been found that significant amounts of lead ions are dissolved from broken lead containing glass, such as the cone glass of cathode ray tubes, by the acidic groundwater often found in landfills. Therefore, pollution from cone glass in landfills is likely. Not only the leaching of mercury poses specific problems. The vaporisation of metallic mercury and dimethylene mercury, both part of waste, is also of concern. In addition, uncontrolled fires may arise at the landfills. In such fires, both metals and other chemical substances, such as the extremely toxic dioxins and furans including tetrachloro-dibenzo-dioxin (TCDD) and polychlorinated and polybrominated dioxins and furans (PCDDs, PBDDs and PCDFs) from halogenated flame retardant products and PCB containing condensers may be emitted.

In order to tackle this problem, the Commission adopted on 13 June 2000 two proposals(1) for Directives on the management of waste from electrical and electronic equipment as well as on the restrictions of hazardous waste in electrical and electronic appliances. The Council adopted two common positions on these proposals on 4 December 2001(2). The Common Positions are presently being considered by the Parliament for its Second Reading.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2) SEC(2001) 2021 final and SEC(2001) 2023 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/02

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Problems regarding clementines

The citrus fruit industry is of recognised importance in the economy of the Valencian Community. Since last December the clementine sector has been facing a difficult situation because of Ceratitis Wied (the Mediterranean fruit fly), which has led the US administration to freeze imports of Valencian clementines. American inspectors recently visited the Valencian region to assess the situation, without finding anything that could have cast doubt on the food and plant safety in the US.

It is clear that a crisis has arisen in the citrus fruit industry because of the failure to fulfil the bilateral agreements between Spain and the US and the free trade agreement envisaged within the framework of GATT and supported by the WTO itself.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

Could the Commision express an opinion on the breach by the US of Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the WTO and Articles XXII and XXIII of the GATT Agreements?

If so, what action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

The Spanish authorities notified the Commission of the problems encountered by Spanish clementines, including those from Valencia, in the United States, and have kept it informed of contacts undertaken at political and technical level with the US Administration in an attempt to resolve the problem in time for the next marketing year.

The Member of the Commission responsible for trade also raised the issue in Washington in the course of a visit on 24-25 January.

The Commission is currently studying the available documents to see whether the US measures are compatible with WTO (World Trade Organisation) agreements, or whether the United States is in breach of its international obligations. It can then decide what action to take on this important issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0626/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: The electricity market

A recent Commission report on the opening-up of the electricity markets has drawn attention to the existence of substantial distortions within the internal market, notably concerning excessive network access charges.

Does the Commission intend to take any action to require the Member States to end this state of affairs, given that it represents a major obstacle to firms' competitiveness?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

As stated in the conclusions to the report(1), the Commission believes that the solution to this problem lies in the rapid implementation of its proposals to extend market opening and strengthen the degree of unbundling and regulatory scrutiny of network access.

Of course other specific action cannot be ruled out in the case where current directives are infringed or where there are violations of Community competition law. Infringement procedures have already been implemented against Belgium for the electricity directive(2), and Germany and France for the gas directive(3) as a result of delays and non implementation of part or all of the provisions of these directives.

The Commission intends to update the benchmarking exercise on an annual basis to examine developments. Further infringement procedures, Commission recommendations or more legislative proposals may result from such monitoring.

(1) First (benchmarking) report on the implementation of the internal electricity and gas market SEC(2001) 1957.

(2) Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(3) Directive 98/30/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas, OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1211/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Mirko Tremaglia

Following the publication of an article in Corriere della Sera on 4 February in which Mirko Tremaglia, Italy's Minister for Italians Overseas, expressed his regret that Il Duce's Italy did not win the Second World War, with the words of course, one wages war as a volunteer to win it; does the Commission wish to dissociate itself from such remarks?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0813/02(1).

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 225.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0383/02

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Driftnets

Since 1 January 2002 the use of driftnets has been banned. This is the result of a fierce battle between fishermen and environmentalists who considered this technique of fishing to be harmful to dolphins. Now the pelagic trawl is under attack.

Professional fishermen believe this ban to be unfounded. Nevertheless, the decision still stands.

It is also understood that fishermen in the Mediterranean, faced with the same problem, are able to continue working if their nets are equipped with sound sytems to repel marine mammals.

Will the Commission say whether this method is recognised? Can this method be adopted by Atlantic fishermen to enable them to continue working?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(1) entered into force on 1 January 2002. This means that the ban on drift-net fisheries targeting highly migratory pelagic species now applies in all Community waters and to all Community vessels, with the exception of waters covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 88/98 of 18 December 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the waters of the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound(2).

Regarding the issue of acoustic alarms (so-called pingers), there are currently no provisions in Community legislation, which authorise the use of large pelagic drift-nets equipped with pingers. Pingers are a promising technology, which may be useful in order to reduce the incidental catches of small cetaceans, at least in some specific fisheries. This has been confirmed by the positive effect seen in the reduction in by-catches of harbour porpoises in the Danish gillnet fishery. However, their effectiveness cannot be directly extended to other fisheries, since both the species and the conditions in which incidental catches occurs are different.

Scientific work on acoustic alarms is in progress, with the support of Community funds to tackle the issue of incidental catches of small cetaceans.

Preliminary information from sea trials on the use of pingers in pelagic trawls however are not encouraging and probably, a solution should be sought through the use of different selection/separator devices. Trials along both lines are currently being undertaken in the United Kingdom.

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.

(2) OJ L 9, 15.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0027/02

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Subject: Inaccurate statements concerning the euro

According to some of the media, for example the broadcasting company RAI, the President of the Commission boasted about the stability of the euro when it came into circulation as a tangible currency, claiming that its value had not fluctuated despite repeated economic and financial crises on various continents.

However, if we compare the value of the euro since its arrival on the financial markets, it is obvious that it has weakened considerably against many other currencies, such as the US dollar, sterling and the Swiss franc.

Can the Commission say whether it is true that these alleged statements were made and, if so, why the President said something which is not true?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The President has repeated on many occasions that, since its introduction on 1 January 2002, the euro has proved its capacity to act as a factor of stability in times of uncertainty. As he emphasised in his speech on the State of the Union delivered to the Parliament in Strasbourg on 11 December 2001, Just imagine what would have been the impact of 11 September 2001 if we had not had the euro. No doubt, we would have seen great instability of exchange rates in Europe. The consequence could have been dramatic for the Single Market, and for growth and employment throughtout the Union, as it was at the beginning of the 1990s, when Europe's currencies faced great unstability.

The euro has also delivered price stability to European citizens. On average during the period 1999-2001, consumer prices in the euro area have increased by less than 2 % per annum. This is far better than the situation that prevailed during the period 1990-1998, when consumer prices in the area increased by 3,5 % per annum. The euro has boosted price stability especially in Member States such as Italy, which until 1995 had inflation rates well well above 5 %. Thanks to the consolidation of public finance accomplished during the run-up to the euro, Italy now enjoys a much lower inflation rate.