ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: The dwarf tapeworm and the free movement of animals within the Union

In its answer to my question E-3988/00(1) concerning the possibility of an exemption for Sweden on this matter, the Commission wrote that one would be possible. Article 8 of the Commission proposal provides that a Member State may obtain additional guarantees where justified by a particular situation. Sweden's application for an exemption would be dealt with on the basis of this article, but the Commission does not state whether it considers that Sweden should be granted an exemption on the grounds of the supreme importance of the deworming requirement for keeping the dwarf tapeworm out of Sweden.

In the issue of Aftonbladet of 20 January 2002, the Swedish Minister of Agriculture, Margareta Winberg, referred to the delays in obtaining a Swedish exemption for the deworming requirement for animals entering Sweden.

What is the Commission's actual view? Can Sweden or can it not obtain an exemption for compulsory deworming of animals?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 209.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

In its answer to written question E-3988/00(1), the Commission pointed out that the Echinococcus problem linked to the movement of carnivores to Sweden could be solved by Sweden making use of the possibilities offered by Article 8 of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals(2).

Moreover, Parliament considered that the provisions of this Article offered sufficient guarantees for the three Member States concerned (Ireland, United Kingdom and Sweden), as no amendments on this issue had been tabled at the plenary session of Parliament on 2 and 3 May 2001.

Usually, the Commission thinks it appropriate to contemplate exemptions to a general rule, particularly concerning matters related to movements between Member States, only when this is in compliance with specific principles, namely those described in the above-mentioned Article 8. This approach avoids an increase in exceptional arrangements that are not sufficiently justified.

With regard to Echinococcus, the Commission considers that the concerns shared by Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom are totally justified and nothing must hinder the adoption of special provisions (on deworming) for the movement of carnivores to the territories of these three Member States.

Moreover, the length of the procedure cannot give rise to any particular difficulties, as it is specifically laid down that, pending adoption of these additional guarantees, the Member States concerned can continue to apply their national rules provided these comply with the provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28 to 30.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

(2) OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0534/02

by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Brominated flame retardants in toys

There are at present no regulations on the use of brominated flame retardants in toys. What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that toys do not contain brominated flame retardants which are harmful to health?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Brominated flame retardants are used in certain consumer products to prevent fire from taking hold quickly. They are most commonly used in housings of electric and electronic goods, in foams for vehicle upholstery, furniture and insulation and in certain textiles.

The most widely used brominated flame retardants are subject to risk assessments in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of existing substances(1). The risk assessment of pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDE) is finalised and concluded that the substance poses risks to health and the environment. The Commission has proposed an amendment to Directive 76/769/EEC on restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations introducing a ban on pentaBDE in all articles, toys included(2). Following completion of the other risk assessments the Commission will, if appropriate, and with particular attention to children's health risks propose risk reduction measures.

Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, on toys safety(3) sets the essential requirements that any toy has to fulfil before being placed in the Community market. One of the essential requirements that concerns chemicals is that toys must not present health hazards or risks of physical injury by ingestion, inhalation or contact with skin, mucous tissues or eyes.

The toys safety Directive requires that toys do not contain dangerous substances or preparations within the meaning of Council Directives 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(4) and 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys(5) in amounts that may harm the health of children using them. The toys safety Directive itself sets limit values for the bioavailability resulting from the use of toys.

In the field of standardisation work, the Commission has given a mandate to the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) to prepare three European standards concerning the risks associated with the presence

of organic chemical compounds in toys. This standardisation work includes among other substances two brominated flame retardants: octabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDE). The European Committee for standardisation will develop a method to detect the presence of these substances in toys.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(2) OJ C 154 E, 29.5.2001.

(3) OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.

(4) OJ P 196, 16.8.1967.

(5) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0265/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Corrections imposed on each Member State in the context of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section

What was the amount of the corrections imposed on each Member State per year, from 1997 to 2000, in the context of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

The table below shows the corrections made by the EAGGF Guarantee Section to expenditure declared by Member States. As requested the breakdown is by Member State and year.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0202/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: European artistic heritage

Europe is the home of a considerable part of the world's architectural and cultural heritage. Despite the fact that this heritage is of immense value to all Europeans, in many cases we have only a patchy knowledge of what it actually involves and what condition it is in. It would therefore be extremely useful to draw up an inventory of Europe's artistic and cultural heritage, both with a view to gaining a clearer idea of its extent and so as to be able to ensure the protection, restoration, upkeep and promotion of Europe's many treasures.

On 27 November 1996, on behalf of the Commission, Mr Oreja answered a question of mine (E-2761/96(1)) on whether an inventory had been made of Europe's artistic and cultural heritage, saying that an initial approach to the matter could be made on the basis of a directory of cultural statistics in Europe, which was currently under preparation and the aim of which was to provide an overview of the organisations producing cultural statistics on a regular basis.

Given the above, would the Commission state whether this directory was ever produced, whether an inventory of Europe's artistic and cultural heritage has been drawn up since 1996, and what its views are on the matter?

(1) OJ C 83, 14.3.1997, p. 64.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

In March 1997, in response to a request by Member States, the Statistical Programme Committee set up a working party within Eurostat on cultural statistics (Leadership Group (LEG)-Culture). In November 1999, the Commission adopted the conclusions and recommendations of the LEG project, which proposed, in particular, the establishment of a working party on cultural statistics in order to safeguard the continuation of activities.

The LEG final report on cultural statistics in the EU appeared in 2000 and looked at, moreover, those organisations that produce cultural statistics on a regular basis. The working party carries out its work in cooperation with Member States. This report is available on request from Unit E3 (Eurostat: Population and social conditions 3/2000/E/No 1).

In 1996, the Commission financed two studies in collaboration with France and Spain. The project was coordinated by the French Ministry of Culture.

These two studies were carried out by ERIES and DAFSA, which published the following:

- Reference index for cultural statistics in Europe 1996 edition Office for Official Publications (OPOCE), Luxembourg ISBN 92-827-9207-2;

- Cultural statistics in Europe; initial data, 1996. Printed in France ISBN 2-11003721-0.

Furthermore, regarding the point about an inventory, the Commission has neither the instruments nor the expertise needed to draw up an inventory of Europe's artistic and cultural heritage. The protection of artistic and cultural heritage is the sole responsibility of Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0599/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Use of health warning photographs on cigarette packs

When does the Commission expect to be in a position to adopt the rules and internal market guidance for Member States regarding the use on cigarette packs of colour photographs or other illustrations to depict and explain the health consequences of smoking, as required by the directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Under Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/37/EEC of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products(1), the Commission is required to adopt, before 31 December 2002, rules for the use of colour photographs

or other illustrations to depict and explain the health consequences of smoking, with a view to ensuring that internal market provisions are not undermined. In this process, the Commission has to submit to the Regulatory Committee established by Article 10(1) of the above Directive a draft of the measures to be taken, on which the Committee has to give an opinion.

The Commission has started work on the establishment of such rules and will do its utmost to respect the above time frame. However, the Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member of the fact that when the above Directive was adopted, the Commission made a formal statement in which it drew the Parliament's and the Council's attention to the difficulty it envisages in respecting the deadline imposed in Article 5(3) of this text in which to obtain an opinion from the Committee established in Article 10 and subsequently to adopt rules on the use of colour photographs.

(1) OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Closure of the Petrogal refinery at Leça de Palmeira

The firm Petrogal, with plants in Sines and Matosinhos, is of great value for Portugal. It is the only Portuguese company in the fields of the exploration, production and distribution of petroleum, its derivatives and natural gas, which guarantees thousands of jobs directly and indirectly, thereby making a decisive contribution to hundreds of companies upstream and downstream of its activities.

The closure of the refineries (in the immediate future the one at Leça da Palmeira in Matosinhos) would have serious consequences for the Portuguese economy and workers.

It should be noted that unemployment in Portugal is rising once again and the socio-economic indicators are the weakest in the European Union.

Can the Commission therefore say what support can be granted at Community and national level to keep the refineries in operation and thereby safeguard Petrogal's employees' jobs and their rights?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

The Commission does not know the reasons for the possible closure of the Petrogal refinery in Leça da Palmeira, nor the circumstances in which this might take place.

It would point out to the Honourable Member that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), both the selection of projects and their implementation are matters for the national and regional authorities that are responsible for the management and monitoring of the programmes co-financed under these Funds. The Commission is therefore unable to provide direct support to enterprises in order to safeguard jobs there, and calls on the enterprises concerned to contact the said authorities in order to obtain information on the possibility of co-financing.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0013/02

by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the Community initiative Interreg III, strand A

What is causing the delay in the approval of the 50 to 60 Community initiative programmes under Interreg III A since the start of the new financing period on 1 January 2000? In particular, until when can the amount allocated for Interreg III A funding in the indicative financial plans be paid to those carrying out projects in the areas covered by the programmes? Does the Commission see any risk that it might not be possible for the Interreg III A funds earmarked in the indicative financial plans to be paid to the recipient regions in full, and that the ERDF contribution to the Interreg III A programmes might be reduced accordingly pursuant to Article 31(2)(2) of the General Regulation governing the Structural Funds? How many programme complements have there been so far in respect of Interreg III A Community initiative programmes already approved?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

On 13 October 1999 the Commission published a draft communication laying down guidelines for the Interreg III Community Initiative(1), to which Parliament proposed amendments in its resolution adopted on 15 February 2000(2).

In accordance with point 55 of that Commission communication, adopted on 28 April 2000(3), almost all the programmes were submitted before the deadline of 22 November 2000.

By the end of 2001, the Commission had adopted 44 of the 53 programmes provided for under strand A of this Community Initiative. The budget appropriations carried over from 2001 will be used for the two programmes which were ready to be adopted on 31 December 2001.

The seven programmes not adopted at this stage have not yet been submitted to the Commission or are still being negotiated. The appropriations for those programmes will not be lost and can be committed in 2002 and subsequent financial years.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that, because the Interreg programmes involve several Member States, both the submission to the Commission and its examination require more time than in the case of monoregional programmes.

Expenditure under these programmes is eligible until 31 December 2008.

Provided the programmes are implemented by the management authorities efficiently way and by the deadlines laid down, they should not be affected by the n+2 rule in the second subparagraph of Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(4).

By 1 February 2002, eleven programme complements had been submitted to the Commission and two approved.

(1) COM(1999) 479 final.

(2) A5-0028/2000.

(3) OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.

(4) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0598/02

by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Bereavement grants for widows and widowers

A constituent of mine, whose husband died last November, has discovered that the British Government last April changed the law within Britain, without publicity she says, to limit the Bereavement Grant which is paid to widows and widowers to a maximum of one year.

Can the Commission inform me what is the comparative situation in other Member States of the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

It is true that reforms were introduced in the United Kingdom in April 2001.

They include:

- doubling the value of the lump sum to GBP 2000;

- paying a Widowed Parent's Allowance until the youngest child ceases full time further education;

- paying a time limited bereavement allowance where there are no dependent children. Widows and widowers aged 45 and over with no dependent children will receive a weekly benefit for one year;

- for the first time providing widowers with children with assistance on an equal footing with widows.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat copies of tables from its MISSOC publication which show the situation on survivors' benefits in the different Member States.

The MISSOC publication is also available on the Commission's website: www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc2001/index_en.htm
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0047/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: National markings on vehicle number plates

The new EU-format number plate is meeting resistance from some of the inhabitants of Catalonia and the Basque Country, who refuse to have the State symbol (E or F) imposed on them. Several cultural movements in these countries have produced stickers on which the E or the F is replaced by CAT (Catalunya) or EUS (Euskadi).

A number of incidents have occurred at the Franco-Spanish border in Perthus. Drivers of vehicles registered in France but displaying the CAT sticker on their number plates have been ordered to remove it by the Spanish police. Those refusing to do so have either been obliged to spend long hours in detention or have been advised to turn back or be detained. This is equivalent to being refused entry.

Does the Commission consider such measures taken by the police to be compatible with the free movement of goods and persons between the Member States a freedom which is enshrined in the Treaties?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

A Member State is authorised to require that every motor vehicle registered in another Member State and circulating in its territory display a distinguishing sign of the State of registration, pursuant to two equivalent provisions: the 1968 Convention on Road Traffic(1) (sign in an ellipse which is separate from the registration plate) and the Community legislation(2) (sign on the extreme left of the registration plate together with a representation of the European flag). In the latter case, the distinguishing sign is an integral part of the vehicle's registration plate.

The police authorities of a Member State may legitimately ask for the entire registration plate to be visible and, in particular, for the distinguishing sign of the State of registration not to be obscured.

(1) Convention drawn up in Vienna on 8 November 1968 under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (Article 37 and Annex 3).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 on the recognition in intra-Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered (OJ L 299, 10.11.1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0117/02

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Transport of radioactive material within EU Member States

Can the Commission list incidents in which trains in the Member States carrying radioactive material have been involved in (a) accidents (b) safety-related incidents in each of the last five years, indicating the date and the location of each incident, what EU guidelines there are to follow should an accident involving the transportation of radioactive material occur, and what information a Member State is expected to give the Commission and the public were any such incidents to occur on its railways?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Council Decision 87/600/Euratom of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency(1) and Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989, on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency(2) are of application for the transport of radioactive material both for the information of the Commission and of the public.

The Commission has not received during the last five years any information on accident or safety related incident during transport by train of radioactive material, from which a significant release of radioactive material has occurred.

Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation(3) sets the EU guidelines to follow when an accident involving the transportation of radioactive material occur.

According to this Directive, each Member State shall also make provision for the immediate notification to its competent authority by the undertaking responsible for the practices involved of any radiological emergency occurring in its territory. The Member State shall establish relations to obtain co-operation with any other Member State or third country, which may be involved. Each Member State shall ensure that the provision is made for intervention related to reduce or stop the radiation and emission of radionuclides, to reduce the exposure and transfer of radioactive substances to individuals and to organise the treatment of victims.

(1) OJ L 371, 30.12.1987.

(2) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989.

(3) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.