ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2134/01

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Coal mine methane

A large number of small former mining sites emit methane into the atmosphere. The coal mine methane industry taps CMM from disused mines to use it to generate electricity.

The UK Government refused to include CMM in the renewables obligation introduced under the Utilities Act 2000. The German Parliament, however, has included CMM in its Renewables Sources Act 2000. As a result, in Germany, a 5p/kWh incentive is given to mine gas and it is reported that more than 80 planning applications have already been made for CMM power plants on abandoned sites.

What measures does the EU intend to take to support the use of CMM?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The final report of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) (available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/eccp.htm) organised by the Commission recognised that recovery of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from disused coal mines contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, while methane recovered from landfill sites can be regarded as renewable, this can hardly be considered to be the case for methane derived from coal

in either abandoned or operating mines, as coal has a renewable period of several hundred million years. The upcoming Directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources(1) reflects this position. Its definition of renewable energy sources in Article 2 (a) includes landfill gas but not coal mine methane. It should be noted that the Parliament, with the support of the Commission, reached an agreement with the Council on this Directive during its second reading on 3/4 July 2001.

Methane recovery can clearly be a profitable economic activity with environmental benefits (as shown, for example, by the activities of the British Association of Coal Mine Methane Operators). Member States may find that it is desirable to support or not to support methane recovery, depending on their particular national circumstances. The Commission considers that national measures are desirable, in particular on environmental grounds and should be encouraged by Community action where this is appropriate. However, the Commission has no specific plans for such action at the moment.

(1) Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000) as modified (OJ C 154 E, 29.5.2001).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1779/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Technical assistance for China

On the basis of Council Directives 91/492/EEC(1) and 91/493/EEC(2), Commission Decision 97/20/EC(3) listing the countries authorised to export bivalve molluscs to the EU was drawn up. The list did not include China on account of the fact that the reports on the chemical, microbiological and toxicological checks carried out in the areas concerned were not reliable.

In view of the fact that, under the General Agreement with China, the EU undertook to help that country overcome its technical problems and thus honour its commitments, is the Commission planning to provide technical assistance in order to enable China not only to satisfy EU requirements but also to honour the commitments it takes on when it joins the WTO?

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 15.

(3) OJ L 6, 10.1.1997, p. 46.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office carried out a mission in China in 1999. The mission took note of Chinese efforts to achieve the necessary standards of compliance with Community sanitary requirements regarding bivalve molluscs (shellfish). It concluded, however, that the Chinese authorities were not yet in a position to guarantee the control and safety of shellfish intended for the Community market. In particular, the monitoring system for biotoxins and contaminants in the field of live bivalve molluscs was considered insufficient. It was therefore decided not to propose an inclusion of China in the list of countries authorised to export shellfish to the Community for the time being.

The Union in the context of the May 2000 bilateral agreement on China's World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession has stated its commitment to working in partnership with China in order to help smooth the process of implementation of China's WTO undertakings. Technical assistance will clearly play a key role, and with this in mind, the Union has a number of co-operation projects, worth 25 million, in place or lined up for the near future. They include a framework programme, under way since last year, which is designed specifically to help build the capacity of China's Government and administration to implement its impending commitments under the WTO. The programme consists of a series of specialised modules targeting segments in the Chinese administration which will be dealing with different aspects of WTO implementation - including in the area of sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

Support for economic reform and for WTO implementation has also been earmarked as a focal area for future funding. Projects will be proposed in consultation with China, to ensure that help is targeted where it is most useful. This could well include further activities in the area in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 August 2001)

Subject: Breakdown of R & D funds

Will the Commission provide details of the funding so far received by each Member State for projects submitted under the fifth R & D framework programme (1998-2002) and describe the scope of each project?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Funding under the Community research framework programme is given to consortia of legal entities (universities, research centres ) from different member countries, carrying out specific research projects jointly and through transnational collaboration. Member States as such are not beneficiaries of Community research funding.

The added value of the framework programme resides in the promotion of European research collaboration and networking. The main advantage of the programmes consists in the fact that every single partner has access to the totality of the results of the projects in which it is involved whatever its financial contribution and whatever Community funding it receives.

Information on the number of participations of the individual Member States in each specific research programme is available in the Annual Report on research activities published every year(1). The statistical annex prepared for the 2001 report will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.

The Cordis database accessible on Internet (http://www.cordis.lu) also provides access to information and search facilities. It allows for example all projects with participants from a given region to be listed and provides details about the objectives of the projects and the total cost and Community funding.

(1) COM(2000) 842 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2628/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Council meeting of 20 July 2001

Will the Commission state whether any votes were taken in the Budget Council on 20 July 2001 and if so, how many and on what matters?

Will it further record the votes of all those who voted on each issue during the meeting?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2620/01, E-2622/01, E-2624/01, E-2626/01 and E-2628/01given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that, under Article 9 of its Rules of Procedure, it is for the Council to make public the results of votes and explanations of votes by its Members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1789/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Consumer protection

The Commission has recently concluded a number of studies into the level of charges levied on small-scale bank transfers between various countries within the European Union.

The findings speak for themselves: such transactions attract charges averaging 17 % and are 10 times more expensive than domestic transfers.

What action is to be taken and on what timescale in order to remedy this state of affairs?

When are charges for transfers between the EMU countries to be brought into line with those for domestic transfers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2001)

The Honourable Member rightly points out that former, recent and ongoing studies show no substantial decrease of banking charges for retail cross-border credit transfers.

It is the Commission's political goal that fees of cross-border and domestic transfers should converge. This has been repeated by the Commission on numerous occasions; e.g. in the Communication Retail Payments in the Internal Market of January 2000, in the reply of the Commission responsible for Internal Market, Taxation and Customs Union on the Peijs-Report in the Parliament on 26 October 2000, in the Commission's Round Table Conference Establishing a Single Payment Area on 9 November 2000 as well as in the Report on the Preparations for the Introduction of euro notes and coins of 3 April 2001.

It had always been the Commission's strong belief that the determination of charges and fees should be left to competition and market forces and that European legislation should not aim at price regulation. The Commission has therefore for more than a decade urged the banking industry to make the necessary investments for efficient and automated (hence cheaper) cross-border payment systems. The Commission acknowledges the banks' efforts in order to provide cheaper cross-border payments to their customers, especially in connection with implementing the International Bank Account Number (IBAN) and the Bank Identifier Code (BIC).

However, given that all former non-legislative efforts to lower charges for cross-border payments remained virtually ineffective, the Commission has adopted on 25 July 2001 a proposal for a regulation on charges for cross-border payments(1). The proposed Regulation aims at a reduction of charges for cross-border payments of up to 50 000 in euro, so that by 1 January 2002 (concerning electronic payment transactions), respectively by 1 January 2003 (concerning cross-border credit transfers and cross-border cheques) charges would be aligned to those for corresponding payments at national level.

The Commission is aware that banks face various external costly obstacles and obligations, which are presently at least partly responsible for the existing difference of charges. The proposed regulation includes measures to remove these obstacles.

(1) COM(2001) 439 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 August 2001)

Subject: New round of WTO negotiations, Qatar, 9-13 November

Launching a full new round of multilateral trade negotiations is currently an important objective of Community trade policy.

What action does the Belgian Presidency intend to take with respect to the IVth Ministerial Conference in Doha with a view to strengthening the Commission's negotiating mandate so that in November at Qatar it is able to present a strong position, defend its agenda and, above all, achieve a consensus within the WTO?

Reply

(6 December 2001)

The Council will be asked to discuss the preparation of the 4th WTO Ministerial Conference at one of its forthcoming meetings. In this context, the Council would recall that its Conclusions of 26 October 1999 remain the basis of the European Union's position on multilateral trade negotiations in the WTO, particularly as regards continuing trade liberalisation, strengthening the WTO's rules and integrating developing countries into the multilateral trade system. On that basis, the EU will actively continue trying to persuade its WTO partners to launch a comprehensive round of multilateral trade negotiations at the Doha Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1963/01

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Marco Galucci, a European Union aid worker arrested in and deported from Israel

On 8 June 2001 Mr Marco Galucci, who is working on a Commission-funded humanitarian aid project, was arrested at Ben-Gurion Airport and, although he was able to show clearly why he had come to Israel, questioned for several hours. He was not allowed to telephone his consulate, his computer was searched, his diskettes confiscated, and he was eventually sent back to Italy.

Will the Council respond to the actions of the Israeli authorities, bearing in mind that this kind of behaviour severely impedes the smooth running of Union-funded humanitarian projects to aid the Palestinian population hard pressed by war?

What specific steps will it take?

Reply

(29 November 2001)

The Commission, responsible for implementing humanitarian aid, has not raised the case of Mr Marco Galucci with the Council.

It is first for the Commission to judge whether arrest and deportation of Mr Galucci violate the agreements, which the Commission has concluded with Israel, and whether the Israeli actions impede the implementation of the project and, if this is the case, to take the necessary steps.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1579/01

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Council

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Right to family reunification

The next meeting of the JHA Council on 28 and 29 May 2001 will discuss the proposal for a Council directive on the right to family reunification.

This measure is essential for ensuring normal family life, a requirement set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates that Everyone has the right to respect for his () family life.

At present, however, there are grounds for concern for the future of this proposal, since certain states want to move backwards and make substantial changes to the text, even though it is the first firm and courageous step that has been taken towards bringing the third pillar within the Community sphere. They are seeking:

- to extend to more than one year the waiting period required before third country nationals are authorised to apply for family reunification;

- to impose strict limits on the number of family members eligible for reunification, excluding those in the ascending line, married couples and grown-up dependent children;

- not to grant family members the right to work immediately on arrival in the host Member State;

- to allow Member States to withdraw residence permits from members of reunified families if, in the two years following their arrival, the conditions laid down are no longer being fulfilled.

The proposal for a directive, as amended by the European Parliament, is an important measure which must secure firm and definitive backing from the Council. Will the Council clearly spell out its views on this matter? Will it take steps to banish ideologies based on a selective and anachronistic view of European citizenship?

Reply

(21 November 2001)

On 21 January 2000 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council Directive on the right to family reunification. Following the Opinion delivered by the European Parliament on 6 September 2000, the Commission submitted an amended proposal on 11 October 2000.

The amended proposal has been examined in detail during several readings of the text. Since it has not yet been possible to reach agreement on a number of fundamental questions, concerning inter alia who should be eligible for family reunification and the various time limits to be respected, discussions on the proposal are continuing in the competent bodies of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1341/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Employment rights for ministers of religion

Does the Council take the view that its aim should be to ensure all workers have full employment rights no matter what their occupation? When does it plan to extend these rights to ministers of religion, who are currently being treated in some cases in an almost feudal manner by illiberal religious authorities?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

The Council agrees, in accordance with Article 136 of the EC Treaty, that one of the objectives of the Community and the Member States is to promote improved working conditions and proper social protection for workers.

However, it recalls that Declaration No 11 annexed to the final act of Amsterdam states that the European Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religions associations or communities in the Member States.

Furthermore, this declaration is cited in Recital No 24 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, which goes on to state that Member States may lay down specific provisions on genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements which might be required for carrying out an occupational activity.

It is also recalled that Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time provides for specific derogations (Article 17(1) (c)) for workers officiating at religious ceremonies in churches and religious communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2044/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Athens metro: poor quality construction work and fines

According to the report drawn up by experts from the company Attiko Metro, the Athens metro is being affected by failings, shortcomings and sloppy workmanship. This state of affairs led the Greek Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works to impose a GRD 5,35 billion fine on the consortium responsible for the construction project. The report states that the shortcomings involve faulty rolling stock, serious noise pollution, engine problems, premature wearing-out of wheels, a lack of protection against lightening and insulation problems in certain tunnels and stations, resulting in damp conditions in many parts of the system.

The EU contributed a significant share of the funding for this project. What is the Commission's view of the above shortcomings? Were its services aware of them before they were reported by the Greek authorities? What is the Commission's view of the extension of the metro along the Monastiraki-Aigaleos line? This line is to be completed within a period of 1 160 calendar days, whilst the contract provides for only 90 days of excavation work, a period which Greek archaeologists have termed manifestly insufficient for completion of their work?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

On the basis of information provided by the Attiko Metro company, project manager of the Athens Metro new lines, and prior to the provisional acceptance of the project, it has held back from payment to contractors an amount corresponding to a number of items which are not in full compliance with the contract provisions. This amount held back is a motivation for the contractor to implement the necessary corrective actions, in which case payment of the full amount will take place. In case of failure to make the corrections, this amount will be used to pay for the services of other contractors needed to perform the repair work.

This is normal good practice followed by the project manager, on the basis of international standards for the management of big projects of civil, electromechanical and electronic systems.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, and the decentralised management of European regional programmes, the Commission is not systematically informed, unless it expressly asks to be, on the implementation of contracts signed by the Member States for the construction of public works co-financed by Community funds.

Concerning the Monastiraki-Egaleo extension, Attiko Metro has informed the Commission that since the Egaleo area represents a major archaeological challenge, investigations had been launched in all stations and shafts in 1998. This extensive archaelogical investigation programme has been completed in many locations and is in an advanced stage of completion in others. The 90 days allowance for archaelogy provided by the tender documents is only to cover any unexpected investigation needs. This allowance would be extended if needed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2416/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Subject: Single-room supplement

It has long been customary for holiday operators to charge a single-room supplement, whereby people travelling on their own have to pay an extra sum of money in order to have a room to themselves.

Although the initial reason was that it enabled holiday establishments to recoup the cost of a single traveller staying in a double room, it is nowadays frequently the case that single travellers are being charged a supplement to stay in a single room.

What is the Commission's opinion on this unfair supplement, particularly when the traveller is, in any case, staying in accommodation designed for one person (i.e. a single room)?

Does it have any plans to review this matter with a view to having this charge abolished?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The way in which hotel rooms may be charged for varies from country to country for instance, the price may be on a per capita occupancy basis or on a room basis. The Commission is, of course, aware that it is customary for hotels to make an additional charge for single room occupancy.

However, the Commission has no competence in this issue. It is therefore a matter for the Member State and the company concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1825/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Decision-making and constructive abstention in defence matters

Title V, Article 23 of the Treaty of Amsterdam [Treaty on European Union] states that Decisions under this Title shall be taken by the Council acting unanimously. This article also enshrines the principle of constructive abstention. How does the Council interpret this passage? Should the Treaty be interpreted as meaning that even a single Member State may in accordance with the requirement for unanimity prevent the deployment of the Crisis Management Force for particular duties if it votes against the decision and does not favour abstaining from taking a decision?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

Article 23(1) of the TEU states that decisions under Title V of the Treaty (which concerns the Common Foreign and Security Policy) are taken by the Council acting unanimously. It also stipulates that abstentions by members present in person or represented do not prevent the adoption of such decisions.

The second paragraph of the same Article lists cases in which, by way derogation from paragraph 1, the Council acts by a qualified majority, with the stipulation that this paragraph shall not, however, apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

It follows that decisions having military or defence implications are taken by the Council acting unanimously. Consequently, a single member of the Council may prevent the adoption of a decision by voting against it.