ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0835/02

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Subject: Increase in the size of the Commission's translation service

According to the 7-13 March 2002 edition of European Voice, the Commission is soon to announce that 110 extra translators will be needed on account of EU enlargement. Of those 110, 60 will be employed at the Commission in Brussels and 50 will work as freelancers in the Member States.

Can the Commission confirm the accuracy of this information?

Can it say how many extra translators will be employed by the Commission in Luxembourg?

Will it also say whether or not the employment of a substantial number of freelancers working in places other than the EU institutions' places of work is in accordance with the Treaties and with the agreements relating to the seats of those institutions?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

The information which appeared in the 7-13 March 2002 issue of European Voice concerning the Commission's Translation Service (SdT) was not accurate.

Following an initial examination of requirements arising from the forthcoming Enlargement, an internal Commission paper adopted on 9 April 2002 provided an indicative estimate of the resources the SdT will require to take account of enlargement. The total of the human and financial resources is estimated at the equivalent in appropriations of 110 posts per new language for translation, including support and management. Of this total, 60 translators would hold permanent posts and the remaining resources would be divided between permanent staff in management and support functions and appropriations for contract staff performing either translation or support tasks.

The Commission is not in a position to specify how many translators will be posted to its departments in Luxembourg. It can, however, confirm that the balance between Luxembourg and Brussels will not be to the detriment of Luxembourg.

The Honourable Member will be aware that decisions on contracting out translation work to freelance translators, in terms of both the volume (currently around 20 % of total SdT output but, as previously announced, to be scaled up to a possible 30 % by end-2005) and the type of document sent out, are a matter for its administrative autonomy. This is not a breach of the Treaties or the agreements relating to the seats of the Institutions in any way.

It should also be borne in mind that freelance translators work for the Commission as external service-providers, are paid on a piecework basis, and are therefore not Commission staff in the broad sense of the term.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1938/02

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the .eu TLD

The European Commission has been given the task to define and adopt, following the procedure referred to in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002(1), public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the. eu TLD and the public policy principles

on registration. As part of the framework where registrars, registrants and the Registry are included, WHOIS databases are an essential instrument to promote users' confidence and to allow the good functioning of the. eu TLD. In order to ensure that WHOIS databases are efficiently used, it is necessary to take into account all legitimate interests.

Which mechanisms does the Commission intend to implement to ensure that IP rights holders have a direct and fast access to WHOIS databases and obtain all necessary information to protect their rights?

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.2002, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Regulation 733/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the. eu Top Level Domain (TLD)(1) provides in Article 5, paragraph 1 as part of the public policy provisions the treatment of intellectual property and other rights. Within this framework the Commission is required to adopt public policy rules for the implementation of the. eu TLD, in accordance with the procedure described in Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Regulation and after consultation with the selected Registry. These public policy rules would also aim at ensuring an adequate level of protection for intellectual property rightholders in addition to the possibility provided already in the Regulation for holder of prior rights recognised or established by national and/or Community law to register their names during a sunrise period.

The purpose of the Whois database is the provision of information about the technical points of contact that administer the different domain names of a particular TLD. When adopting the public policy rules, the Commission will take into account all the legitimate interests at stake and comply with the existing community legal framework.

In particular, it should be stressed that general information about information society service providers are required to be accessible under the Directive 2000/31/EC (Directive on electronic commerce) and that following recital 12 of the Regulation, Who is type of databases should be in conformity with Community law on data protection and privacy.

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1803/02

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: EU aid to the Palestinian Authority

It is hard to obtain a detailed picture from the EU budget of the amount of resources allocated each year by the EU to the Palestinian Authority. What is the amount in fact? What is the Commission's estimate of the financial value of the destruction caused by the Israeli Army to objects which had received EU subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2002)

Information on the aid allocated annually to the Palestinian Authority from the Community budget is publicly available; see the annual report on the implementation of external aid published by the Commission and, up to the year 2000, in the annual report on the MEDA programme.

Copies of the summary Table in Annex 1, setting out the financial aid provided by the Community and the European Investment Bank (EIB), have been sent to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

The Table in Annex 2 gives estimates for the damage and destruction caused by the activities of Israeli forces in the Palestinian territories, and particularly by Operation Rampart in the West Bank in April 2002, to infrastructure that was financed from Community and/or EIB funds. Copies of the Annex have been sent to the Honourable Member and the Secretary-General of Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2222/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Commissioner de Loyola's calls for new nuclear plants in the EU

Is it sensible for Commissioner de Loyola to call so publicly, as she has done this year, for new nuclear plants to be built in the EU, and indeed in the applicant countries, when Euratom's inspectorate is evidently operating with insufficient staff to implement properly the safeguards and security requirements for the current nuclear plants?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Euratom safeguards applies to all civil nuclear materials in the Union. Safeguards on these materials are applied according to established Commission's goals and objectives, commensurate with the strategic value of the material concerned and independent of the Member State on which territory the materials are processed or stored. The Commission will therefore attribute the necessary resources to implement safeguards in the installations (existing or those to be built) of the applicant countries on their accession to the Union.

The Commission has recently reaffirmed its position on nuclear energy in the Final Report on the Green Paper Towards a European Strategy for the security of energy supply(1) adopted by the College on 26th of June 2002.

The Honourable Member may also wish to refer to the oral question H-0287/02(2) on these issues.

(1) COM(2002) 321 final.

(2) Written reply, 14.05.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1378/02

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Power-sharing dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo

The closure on 19 April 2002 of the power-sharing dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) without a global agreement having been signed by all parties has left the national peace and reconciliation process in suspense. A number of EU Member States have called on the representatives of the opposition groups UDPS, PALU and FONUS to give their assent to the agreement signed by the DRC government, the MLC led by Mr Bemba and other groups participating in the dialogue.

Has the Commission taken a position on this partial agreement?

Does the Commission intend to take action to encourage the launching of a further stage in the official power-sharing dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The position of the Commission on the partial agreement reached in Sun City is reflected in the Declaration issued by the Presidency on behalf of the Union on 30 April 2002.

The Commission fully supports the implementation of the Lusaka Agreement and has contributed to funding the operational costs of the facilitation office as well as of the Intercongolese Dialogue.

The Commission strongly supports the reaching of an inclusive agreement and encourages all the parties to continue the negotiations. The Commission strongly supports the ongoing initiatives of United Nations Security Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2388/02

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Desecration of Jewish graves at the Rome Verano cemetery

On 18 July 2002, a date corresponding to the Fast of Ab 9, a day of mourning in the Jewish calendar, more than forty Jewish graves were desecrated at the Verano cemetery in Rome. The entire city was appalled at this despicable act, the first anti-Semitic attack of such alarming seriousness to have occurred in Rome in many years.

What action will the Commission take in the wake of the barbaric desecration of the Verano cemetery?

How will it prevent and respond to the long series of anti-Semitic outrages of the kind perpetrated, before the Rome incident, in Strasbourg, Marseilles, and Brussels?

How will it combat the crazed subculture which, by fomenting hatred of the Jews while demonising the state of Israel, leads to shameful episodes of the sort that occurred in Rome?

Is in a position to ascertain whether anti-Semitic organisations are pursuing a calculated strategy and perhaps cooperating on an international basis?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission resolutely condemns all forms of racist, xenophobic or anti-Semitic violence, which constitute an intolerable violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms on which the Union is founded and which are shared by all Member States. It reiterates its commitment to combating racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic phenomena by all the means for which the Treaty makes provision.

In this connection, the Commission would point out that it is not empowered to administer justice in the Member States and that it is the responsibility of the Member States' judicial authorities to take criminal justice measures with respect to the events referred to by the Honourable Member, should they see fit to do so.

In its conclusions of 25 and 26 April 2002 on combating racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, the Council reiterated, in particular, that there is a need to approximate national law on combating racism and xenophobia, while at the same time guaranteeing respect for the constitutional rules and principles relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms, and stressed the importance of the proposal for a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia which the Commission presented in November 2001(1) and which is currently under discussion within the Council.

Moreover, the Commission has already taken significant action to combat racism and xenophobia and to increase public awareness of these issues in areas including employment, immigration and asylum policy, support for refugees, education, research and external relations.

Finally, the European Monitoring Centre for Racism en Xenophobia also has an important role to play in consciousness-raising and disseminating best practice from the Member States.

(1) COM(2001) 664 final, OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2195/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: Clarification of the definition of waste

In my written question E-0885/02(1) I asked the Commission to clarify the definition of waste, so as to enable firms whose processes result in the creation of by-products to be freed from double taxation. In her reply, Commissioner Wallström referred to the request for a preliminary ruling on ferrochromium scrap currently pending before the Court of Justice.

The request for a preliminary ruling currently before the Court of Justice will hopefully lead to the clarification of the position of scrap metal materials in the directive and thus to a more appropriate situation with regard to such materials. However, the request for a preliminary ruling relates to scrap and not to the waste products to which my question referred, and thus does not simplify the current situation of firms whose processes create waste products.

How does the Commission propose to resolve the problems related to the creation of waste products so that such products are not taxed twice?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 155.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2170/02 and E-2195/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2002)

The Decision of the Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Environmental Action Programme (EAP), as adopted by Council on 11 June 2002(1), establishes as one of its priority actions concerning the sustainable use and management of natural resources and wastes clarification of the distinction between waste and non-waste(2).

The definition of waste is set out in Article 1a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(3) as amended and constitutes a fundamental component of Community legislation on waste management. Within the framework of the 6th EAP, the Commission will take steps in the early stages of the Programme to undertake a review on how best to achieve the task of clarifying the distinction. This will be done with a view to considering ways, if proven necessary and appropriate, of building upon the parameters that already exist in both Community legislation and jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice relating to the definition.

The decision concerning the imposition of a waste tax is a matter exclusively within the competence of individual Member States. Member States are not required under Community legislation to impose a waste tax. Therefore, it is for individual Member States, as appropriate, and not the Community to address the question of double taxation as posed by the Honourable Member.

(1) 2435th Council Meeting Fisheries Luxembourg, 11 June 2002 (C/02/172).

(2) See Article 8(2)(iv) of the adopted Decision.

(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1867/02

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

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Eritrea

With respect to Eritrea, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000? Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

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-2019/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Repeal of Council Regulation No 1275/94

According to information stored on the European electronic data base EUR-lex Council Regulation (EC) No 1275/94(1) of 30 May 1994 is no longer in force.

This Regulation established the guiding principles for the necessary adjustments to the arrangements in the fisheries chapters of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal due to enter into force on 1 January 1996 and constituted the basis for Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95(2) of 27 March 1995.

In these circumstances, can the Commission say what legal act repealed Regulation (EC) No 1275/94, whether its repeal implies the repeal of Regulation (EC) No 685/95, and what legal effect the possible repeal of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92(3) of 20 December 1992 would have on either of these two regulations?

(1) OJ L 140, 3.6.1994, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 71, 31.3.1995, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2002)

The information to which the Honourable Member refers is not correct. No legal act of the Community has repealed Council Regulation (EC) No 1275/94 of 30 May 1994 on adjustments to the arrangements in the fisheries chapters of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal.

No link can be made between repeal (should it occur) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture and the two Council Regulations (EEC) No 1275/94 and (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on fishing effort management for certain Community areas and resources, since these two Regulations constitute specific arrangements adopted in the context of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2542/02

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Flooding

In view of the communication of the Commission entitled The European Community response to the flooding in Austria, Germany and several applicant states would the Commission comment on whether any fund set up to deal with any such natural disasters would be applicable to all Member States of the Union, and would the Commission confirm that structural measures may be adapted in any Member State in order to access any funding?

Finally, would the Commission confirm the criteria necessary in order to access such funding as may be available?

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-1935/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Issue of multiple-entry Schengen visas

In his 17 July 2001 reply to my written question E-1345/01(1) on transit through EU Member States by workers from third countries who are legally resident in Switzerland, Mr Vitorino (Commissioner), writing on behalf of the Commission, says that Member States could issue multiple-entry Schengen visas which are valid for a longer period, thus making it easier for such persons to transit via Member States.

He also says that the Commission will look into the matter, with due account also to Switzerland's recent request to participate in Schengen.

At a recent initiative organised by the Swiss trade union representing workers in industry and the construction sector, I took part in a meeting in Berne which was also attended by ambassadors from a number of EU countries (Austria, Germany and Italy) and a representative of the French embassy, all of whom expressed their willingness to find a solution to the existing problems, with particular reference to workers holding Swiss residence and work permits valid for periods of one year or more.

Would the Commission say what action has already been (or is to be) taken with a view to solving those problems?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 129.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

The Swiss trade union representing workers in industry and the construction sector has expressed the same views to the Commission as those contained in the Honourable Member's question.

The Commission takes the view that the relevant Community legal provisions do not preclude the issue of multiple-entry transit visas valid for a year or more, provided, of course, that the general conditions governing the issue of the standard visa are observed.

It considers that the issue of multiple-entry transit visas could greatly reduce waiting times for foreign nationals, particularly in the run-up to the annual holidays, until such time as Switzerland's request to participate in the Schengen-Dublin arrangements results in a bilateral agreement between the Community/the Union and Switzerland, thereby resolving the problem altogether.