ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2953/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Air safety

Bearing in mind the appalling events of September 11 and the recent decision of the International Civil Aviation Authority at its meeting in Montreal to revise the Chicago Convention to include common preventive measures against new terrorist threats following a decision to press for such a change at the EU Transport Ministers' meeting of 14 September, and given that the black box flight recorders of the aeroplanes which crashed into the World Trade Centre may not have survived the inferno and that the black box on the Russian aeroplane which exploded (for whatever reason) over the Black Sea last week is unlikely ever to be recovered because of the depth at which it is likely to be situated, hampering the investigations, will the Commission now press for simultaneous cockpit recordings to be transferred to the ground even if access to the tapes is limited to governments and the Civil Aviation Authorities and they are routinely erased in the event of a safe landing?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2001)

The question of the transmission of data from flight recorders to ground stations has been examined on a number of occasions in the past. The main obstacles were of a technical and economic nature.

As regards the technical obstacles, it is true that data transmission has developed to an extent where it would now be possible to consider the transfer of data from aircraft to the ground.

However, the fairly high costs associated with aspects such as the transmission techniques to be used, the geographical area to be covered, the updating rate etc. should be examined in relation to the added value of this new technique, whereas usable recordings are frequently recovered after accidents.

Added to these questions are possible legal problems linked to the possession of such data, as transmissions could be intercepted.

For these reasons, the introduction of a system of direct transmission of data cannot be envisaged at present without a prior analysis of all these implications. The Commission does not therefore intend to include such a measure among its proposals on civil aviation safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2204/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: International agreements on tuna

In its conclusions of 30 October 1997 the Council of Ministers of Fisheries noted that the Commission would have to consider how far it was possible to develop the network of agreements on tuna.

Nearly four years after the Council meeting was held, has any action been taken to this end?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission continues to work towards developing networks of tuna fisheries agreements in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Since October 1997 the Commission has concluded a new agreement on tuna with Gabon and preliminary talks are under way with Ghana and Mozambique.

In June 2001 the Commission also received a new negotiating brief from the Council to conclude tuna fisheries agreements with the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) States of the western central Pacific.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3377/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Administrative authorities for the operational programmes in Greece

Could the Commission state whether it is satisfied with the way in which the administrative authorities for the Third CSF operational programmes in Greece are working? If not, which administrative authorities present problems and why? Has it made any comments on this subject to the Greek authorities?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

The Commission has closely followed the start up in Greece of the new organisation and procedures related to the Community support framework (CSF) for the 2000-2006 programming period.

Since their constitution in March 2001, the managing authorities responsible for the sector and regional programmes have had to meet very demanding deadlines arising from the new procedures, and also to ensure understanding and acceptance of these new methods of work in the wider Greek administration. The Commission is generally satisfied with the initial results.

The managing authority for the CSF itself was formally constituted by the end of November 2001. The recruitment process of the full staff complement for all managing authorities is in progress and should be completed by the end of January 2002.

At this stage, it is too early to form a firm judgement concerning the capabilities of individual managing authorities. However, it was agreed at the recent annual meeting (22 and 23 November 2001) between the Commission and the Greek administration, that the management and organisation unit will seek to improve its capacity to offer technical assistance and support where weaknesses become evident.

For that reason, the Commission has decided to organise a seminar in March 2002 on the assessment and management of risk, concerning in particular the relationships between the managing authorities, the final beneficiaries and intermediary organisations involved in programme implementation. This should clarify the conditions under which projects can be confidently selected and the nature of the monitoring and controls which it is the duty of the managing authorities to carry out.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2686/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from Environment DG

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects which, in 2000 and 2001, were submitted by the Italian Regions of Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta for financing from the funds administered by the Environment Directorate-General, and the names of those which were subsequently approved?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The two tables that list all projects received in 2000 for the first round of the LIFE III Regulation(1) are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The projects retained have been financed in 2001.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE), OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3364/01

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Moroccan exports of tomatoes to the EU

Community farmers report that Morocco is systematically exceeding the quotas allocated by the EU for exports of tomatoes. Is the Commission aware of this? If so, what measures has it taken or will it take to put an end to this practice?

Is the Commission keeping track of the actual volume of Moroccan horticultural products placed on the European market over the past months, and specifically of how many tonnes of tomatoes have been placed on the market? If so, can it provide the corresponding figures?

What is the Commission's opinion of the prices for this product on Central European markets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part(1), tomatoes originating in Morocco may, on import into the Community, benefit from preferential tariffs, either on the ad valorem duty, or on the entry price, subject to a quota(2).

The state of utilisation of quotas, updated daily, is available on the Commission's Internet site at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/dds/es/qotcau.htm.

The order numbers for quotas concerning tomatoes imported from Morocco are 0911 16 (annual quota at nil ad valorem duty), 0911 89 (quota with a reduced entry price for October) and 0911 90 (quota with a reduced entry price from November to March). So far, these quotas have never been fully used.

The Commission also exercises rigorous surveillance of tomatoes and other fruit and vegetables(3) so that it is very rapidly aware of the total quantity imported from Morocco.

Total imports of tomatoes originating in Morocco in recent months amounted to (in tonnes t):

- 372 t in June 2001,

- 0 t from July to September 2001,

- 6 527 t in October 2001 (including 4 717 t at a reduced entry price),

- 26 628 t in November 2001,

- 9 750 t from 1 to 11 December 2001, and

- 16 933 t from 1 to 21 January 2002.

The Commission has no comments on the prices of tomatoes on the markets of central Europe.

(1) OJ L 70, 18.3.2000.

(2) Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 providing for the management of Community tariff quotas and of reference quantities for products eligible for preferences by virtue of agreements with certain Mediterranean countries (OJ L 109, 19.4.2001). Council Regulation (EC) No 2264/2001 introducing certain temporary autonomous concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas applicable to imports into the Community of tomatoes originating in the Kingdom of Morocco (OJ L 305, 22.11.2001).

(3) Oranges, clementines, cucumbers, artichokes, courgettes and strawberries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2955/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Safeguards in granting EU citizenship

Given that those non-EU nationals who are given citizenship of a Member State enjoy rights of EU citizenship in all other Member States, does the Council believe it is time to ensure that certain minimum conditions are met before EU citizenship is granted, including absence of criminal activity and a willingness on the part of the applicant to uphold EU law? Does the Council believe that there should also exist mechanisms to withdraw citizenship in the event of deception on the part of the applicant when applying for citizenship, or serious criminal behaviour including involvement in organised crime or terrorism and incitement to violence against other EU citizens or friendly states?

Reply

(1 March 2002)

1. The questions raised by the Honourable Member concern European citizenship in relation to obtaining nationality in a Member State of the Union.

2. These questions are important insofar as they relate to problems with potential implications for the area of freedom, security and justice. It should be noted, however, that this matter is governed solely by national rules. Each Member State applies provisions of national law when granting or refusing nationality and determining the applicable procedure. Neither the Community nor the Union has any powers in this area.

3. That position is confirmed by Declaration No 2 on nationality of a Member State annexed to the final act of Maastricht, which stipulates that wherever in the Treaty establishing the European Community reference is made to nationals of the Member States, the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned.

4. Section A/III of the Conclusions of the European Council at its meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 set out the parameters for ensuring fair treatment for third country nationals.

5. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the European Commission publishes a regular report on citizenship of the Union. The third report on this subject was published in September 2001 under the reference COM(2001) 506 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3312/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Publicisation of the EU's positions to the world

The Al Jazira satellite TV channel, based in the small emirate of Qatar, has achieved the feat of dislodging CNN as the main reference medium in the Arab world, and has become the window through which large parts of the world are following the events in Afghanistan.

The satellite TV market is now dominated by these two channels, at this present crucial moment in history. As a result, many Europeans are now asking why there is no European satellite TV channel capable of competing with CNN and Al Jazira and broadcasting the voice of Europe worldwide.

Does the Commission believe that it should participate, in whatever manner it considers desirable, in the promotion of a European satellite TV channel, so as to contribute to the creation of a genuine voice of Europe towards the outside world, rather than allowing Europe to remain a mere spectator of global events?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2002)

The Commission already operates a satellite TV channel on behalf of all the Union institutions Europe by Satellite (EbS) providing picture material to broadcasters and TV news agencies.

It's transmitted on a footprint covering the European continental landmass, and available on the internet:

- The European Union on Internet: http://europa.eu.int

- The Audiovisual Library on Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/mediatheque

- Europe by Satellite on Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ebs

- The Press Room on Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/press_room

EbS cannot, however, be truly regarded as a potential competitor to CNN and Al Jazira for two reasons. Firstly, the Commission does not take an editorial line in the broadcasts of EbS, it simply transmits events and picture material from the different Union institutions. Secondly, the multi-lingual character of the Union must be taken into consideration; CNN is in English only, Al Jazirah in Arab, whilst EbS is required to respect the linguistic practices of the European institutions, transmitting in all eleven languages when available.

As the Honourable Member may be aware, there is one satellite channel in Europe that broadcasts directly to the public in several languages Euronews, which is based in France. From its inception, this pan-European initiative has been supported, financially and politically, by both the Parliament and the Commission. A contract assuring full but editorially independent coverage of Union affairs was signed in November 2001 between Euronews and the Commision with the full association of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3060/01

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2001)

Subject: Incorrect designation of the Balearic Islands (Illes Balears)

The name of the Spanish province formerly known [in Spanish] as Baleares [the Balearic Islands] was officially changed to [the Catalan name] Illes Balears by the Spanish government by means of Law No 13/1997 of 25 April 1997, as published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado [the official journal of the Spanish state], No 100, on 26 April 1997.

The single article of this law states that the province hitherto known as Baleares shall henceforth be officially called Illes Balears, in keeping with its cultural and historical tradition and in order to bring its name into line with that of the corresponding autonomous region. The single implementing provision of the same law adds that it shall come into force on the day following its publication in the Boletín Oficial del Estado.

The European Commission is systematically failing to implement this law, which forms part of the juridical order of the Spanish state. It habitually calls the Illes Balears Baleares or Islas Baleares, in the maps it publishes and in its documents, and has done the same in its replies to the questions asked by the author of the present question in relation to this autonomous region.

In general, it is the Commission's habit to use the official names of other regions and cities of the European Union.

The author of this question is aware of the need to translate the official names of cities and regions into the language used in the text concerned. However, he does not believe that this practice can justify the systematic translation of Illes Balears as Baleares or Islas Baleares.

1. Will the Commission undertake to respect and use the existing official name, as laid down in law, of this autonomous region, i.e. Illes Balears?

2. Can the Commission state its position as regards its failure to comply with this law while the official names of other regions and cities in the Union are, by contrast, respected?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

The Commission would thank the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the name of the Balearic Islands.

It proposes to ask the Spanish Government to indicate the official designation which it should use in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3265/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Modification of research programme to combat anthrax

In order to counter the threat of the spread of anthrax in letters, the American Society of Microbiology has announced that it is undertaking research to adapt X-ray machines so that they destroy anthrax.

Does the Commission intend through the research programme of the European Union to find ways of building machines able to destroy anthrax and other such microbiological substances contained in parcels or cases?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The current 5th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD) does not foresee support to the kind of research suggested by the Honourable Member and therefore no research into machinery able to destroy anthrax will be undertaken at the moment.

The Commission however agrees that a Community strategy to combat biological terrorism will necessarily involve mobilising Europe's research and technology development potential, in order to increase knowledge in the field, provide scientific support to the policies concerned and develop more effective ways of protecting European citizens.

Therefore, once adopted, the new Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) will incorporate the means to respond to urgent research challenges, of which the new threats of bioterrorism could be an example. The section of the programme entitled Anticipating the EU's scientific and technological needs will provide support to policies, including those concerned with public health, and security and justice. Considerable flexibility is available in this part of the programme not only to respond to new policy needs but also to unforeseeable developments in science and technology. Furthermore, under the thematic priorities, the new Framework Programme may also include longer term research on importance in the fight against bioterrorism, for example within the priorities Genomics and biotechnology for health and Food safety and health risks.

More generally, in response to the Ghent European Council (19 October 2001) conclusions on bioterrorism, the Commission has presented a Communication on Civil Protection State of preventive alert against possible emergencies(1). This Communication presents the basis for co-ordinating an optimal response by the Community to all types of emergencies. It sets out the main lines of action desirable for improved co-operation across the Union including in the field of research and development.

(1) COM(2001) 707 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3303/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Alleged irregularities at the International Programme Office in Stockholm

In February 2001, a former employee informed the Swedish media that the International Programme Office in Stockholm had massaged the accounts to obtain more money from the EU. The former employee said that he had been asked to add more costs to a project's budget than were required despite the fact that there are strict contractual rules prohibiting the use of earmarked funds for any other purpose.

The financial controller of the International Programme Office rejected the allegations saying that they included joint staff costs for finance and administration in all project budgets. He denied that there had been any massaging of figures. An external auditor was also appointed to examine the in-house accounts.

Is the Commission aware of this matter and has it examined it in detail?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

Commenting on the events referred to by the Honourable Member, the European Anti-fraud Office has stated that:

- it was aware that a former employee of the International Program Office for Education (IPOE) in Stockholm had made allegations of irregularities in press articles and Swedish television programmes and that an audit had been carried out by a Swedish body (National Audit Bureau);

- it has started an investigation (end of first quarter of 2000).

The Commission would point out that it has no further details to add: it emphasises that OLAF acts independently in carrying out investigations and that it is for OLAF, when the time comes, to inform the institutions under the provisions applicable in the matter(1).

(1) See European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Obstacles for Austrian service providers posed by the prescribed minimum wage in Germany

The Austrian Economic Chamber (WKÖ) lodged an internal market complaint with the Commission concerning the above obstacles to the freedom to provide services in November 1999. The complaint was registered under reference number 99/5307, (SG 99), A/16232. The Commission sent Germany a reasoned opinion, to which Germany replied in summer 2001. No information has since been received from the Commission on the current state of proceedings.

Austrian service providers must pay their workers seconded to Germany the German minimum wage laid down by the collective agreement for the construction industry if they provide construction services chiefly in Germany. The comparison between the wages paid in Austria and the German minimum wage takes no account of Austrian wage components such as the 13th and 14th monthly wage. If the 13th and 14th monthly wage are included, Austrian wage levels can be seen to correspond to German wage levels. Given that the German supervisory authorities (Land employment offices and customs authorities) do not recognise the 13th and 14th monthly wage, Austrian workers must be paid the difference between their Austrian wages and the German minimum wage as well as the 13th and 14th monthly wage. This makes Austrian workers more costly than comparable German workers.

What stage has been reached regarding the above internal market complaint to the Commission? When will the Commission open infringement proceedings against Germany?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to infringement proceedings against Germany and wishes to obtain information on the current state of proceedings. This relates specifically to the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services(1).

The Commission has carefully examined the German authorities' responses to the formal notice and the reasoned opinion. However, the information provided is not sufficient to put an end to the infringements and close the proceedings.

The Commission has recently decided to bring an action against Germany before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.