ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0260/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Treatment of seignorage revenue and payments to the public exchequer

1. Will the Commission detail the treatment, for Maastricht Treaty purposes and those of the Stability and Growth Pact, of seignorage revenue accruing to national central banks?

2. How is the revenue treated?

3. Does it enter into public surplus/deficit calculations when accruing to the central bank, or when paid as a dividend or transfer to the public exchequer?

4. What guidelines or policies are there concerning payments to national exchequers?

5. Can these include payments on account of accumulated past reserves, and would these be counted as revenue in assessing public deficits?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

1. According to the decision by the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) on 6 December 2001 monetary income will be pooled and allocated to the national central banks according to Article 32.5. Neither the Statute of the ECB nor Decision 2001/914/EC of the ECB of 6 December 2001 on the allocation of monetary income of the national central banks of participating Member States from the financial year 2002 (ECB/2001/16)(1) contain regulations for the use of monetary income. For this reason the treatment could differ across the Member States that have adopted the single currency. In particular the treatment of monetary income allocated by the ECB for other purposes in accordance with the EC Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact will not differ from the treatment of monetary income in preceding years.

2., 3. and 5. The European system of national and regional accounts (ESA) framework does not identify monetary income (so-called seigniorage) as it is an analytical concept only. The transactions and balance sheet adjustments involved are below the line and should therefore not affect the general government surplus/deficit. In case that there are exceptional gains from the transition to the single currency (euro cash changeover) any resulting transfers to a euro area central government should be treated as a financial transaction not affecting the government surplus/deficit but potentially affecting government debt.

4. The Commission is not aware of a policy guideline applicable to all the Member States. Thus, it is up to the Member States to decide upon these issues and information about the actual decisions there have to be collected at the level of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 337, 20.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1079/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Cross-border railway between Groningen and Bremen; continuing failure to resume the service because of conflicting interests

1. Can the Commission confirm that the fact that the train service between Nieuweschans in the Netherlands and Leer in Germany following replacement of the track and despite the announcements made in the German Railways Kursbuch (line 397 or H5) and in the Dutch Railways Spoerboekje (line 520 or 12int) has still not been resumed because of an endless series of disputes about invitations to tender? First of all it was evident that the Deutsche Bahn (DB) no longer had any interest, subsequently the Land of Lower Saxony excluded the Dutch company NoordNed which operates an hourly service between Groningen and Nieuweschans and could easily have continued on to Leer, from participating. After that the price quoted by Nordwestbahn, the regional operator in Lower Saxony for seven trains a day between Groningen and Leer was considered too high. Finally, the DB were nonetheless forced to resume the service in some way because of the existing concession.

2. Can the Commission also confirm that the end result of the situation described in paragraph 1 above has not been achieved, firstly because DB wanted to subcontract the service to NoordNed but subsequently the two companies failed to agree on the financial terms, with the result that on 1 March 2002 the West Lower Saxony DB Regiobahn regional railway was to operate a short shuttle service between Leer in Germany and the Dutch border town of Nieuweschans which is to be used as the connecting station?

3. Is the Commission also aware that even the solution proposed for 1 March 2002 has not gone ahead because the West Lower Saxony DB Regiobahn is not a recognised operator in the Netherlands which means that for the time being it is not authorised to run trains on the 1 200 km of track in Netherlands territory and that it is not easy to cross to the other side of the platform because of the arrangement of the tracks at Nieuweschans station?

Source: Het Openbaar Vervoer/Railnieuws, Volume 45 No 522, March 2002. rail@wanadoo.nl.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1078/02, E-1079/02 and E-1080/02given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The Commission is in the process of gathering the information required to answer the question. It will communicate its findings to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0510/02

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Religious liberty

Is the Commission aware of the French law of 30 May 2001 regarding restriction on religious liberty aimed at protecting society from threats passed by dangerous sects? Given the importance of religious liberty among European fundamental rights, is the Commission satisfied that the law of 30 May is sufficiently narrow in specification to avoid an infringement of rights that would be relevant to Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2002)

The attention of the Commission has been drawn several times to the French Law No 2001-504 aimed at reinforcing the prevention and the repression of the sectarian movements affecting the human rights and the fundamental freedoms to which the Honourable Member refers.

The above mentioned French legislation does not fall within the scope of Community legislation. The Commission is therefore not in a position to intervene.

Although the Commission does have a right to take initiatives under the terms of Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union, this is limited to cases of serious and persistent violation by a Member State of the principles stated in Article 6, paragraph 1, which is manifestly not the case.

The Commission would add that if a person considers that his or her fundamental rights have been violated, there is always the possibility of a recourse before the European Court of Human Rights, after all internal means have been exhausted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/02

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) and Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Improper use of the European Social Fund in training courses for waitresses and waiters in Tenerife

The Canary Islands Government in Tenerife's programme of training courses for 2002 includes training courses for floor waitresses and restaurant waiters that are financed by the European Social Fund. The training programme will be run by Ashotel (Asociación de Empresarios de Hostelería de Tenerife) in various hotels on the island. Training is to be provided in two specialist areas: floor-waitress (335 hours in 4 months) and restaurant waiters (800 hours in 9 months).

Does the Commission feel that this is exploiting Community funds to dress up seasonal employment contracts as training courses?

Does the Commission consider that, by economising on staff costs during the tourist season, hotel operators are profiting greatly from these funds?

What measures will the Commission take to gauge whether Community funds are being used in an appropriate manner?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

The integrated operational programme for the Canary Islands includes a measure to develop the tourism sector. The actions mentioned in the Honourable Members' written question follow on from the vocational training measures provided for in order to develop the skills of the workforce in this sector. The programming documents contain undertakings by the Spanish authorities to ensure compatibility with Community policies, also with regard to aid for training.

Following the reform of the Structural Funds, and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, project management and selection procedures are the responsibility of the Member State. The Commission does not therefore have any information to support the reservations put forward by the Honourable Members. It will make the necessary arrangements with the national authorities to ensure that the Community funds in question are used properly, and the Commission will inform the Honourable Members accordingly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0302/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Structural fund

Why did the Commission not carry out any on-site visits to Member States during 2000 in order to review the system for reporting irregularities connected with the structural funds?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

During 2000 the Commission carried out audits in the Member States on their application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2064/97 of 15 October 1997 establishing detailed arrangements for implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as regards financial control by Member States of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds(1). These were designed inter alia to assess compliance with Article 7 on treatment of irregularities.

Following publication of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field(2) the Commission gave the Member States precise written instructions on the timetable and structure of the irregularity reports. It plans a specific audit for each Member State on the notification system provided for by that Regulation and on its information system.

(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(2) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1689/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Air traffic control and weather forecasting

Air traffic control in Europe is extremely important as its effectiveness determines flight safety and avoidance of delays. Equally as important (and closely linked) is the smooth operation of meteorological services providing accurate long-range weather forecasts at the right time.

Are there civil aviation services in the Member States which suspend operations during the weekends? Are there national meteorological services which do likewise? If so, in which countries do those services close at midday on Friday and resume operation on Monday? What problems does such an arrangement create for civil aviation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Civil aviation services in Europe are designed to deal with traffic demands which vary from place to place and according to particular periods of use.

The demands are made every day of the week and the services must therefore be available at all times to ensure that flights operate according to schedule and in safety. This concerns more especially the air traffic control services, which include the meteorological services.

As far as air traffic control is concerned, the services available have sometimes been insufficient due to reduced staffing levels at weekends. This has led to reduced air traffic management capability and therefore more flight delays. It does not affect safety. The management problem, for which the EU does not have power to act, could be solved by organising air traffic control services in a manner which reflects user demand. The Single sky initiative is aimed at increasing the safety, capacity and efficiency of air traffic management. The regulatory framework proposed by the Commission will lead to stricter surveillance of service providers' performance by the national authorities and will introduce the harmonised rules and standards which service providers need to improve their management of human resources and infrastructure.

Some airports specialised in certain kinds of flights (general aviation) may be partially or fully closed at weekends.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1793/02

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Nominating heads of delegations in third countries during the period 1999-2002

Can the Commission provide information on:

- the names and nationalities of the heads of delegation in third countries, except for ACP and Central and Eastern European countries, at 1 September 1999;

- the names and nationalities of the heads of delegation in the same countries at 1 June 2002;

- the number and nationality of heads of delegations who have taken old-age or other forms of retirement, and the number and nationality of heads of delegation who now work in the central administration of the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1671/02

by Martin Schulz (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Firearms legislation in the European Union

The tragic events of 26 April 2002, when a final-year pupil shot 16 people at the Gutenberg-Gymnasium in Erfurt, led to a broad public debate in Germany and the EU concerning the approach to violence in our society. Attention has particularly focused on firearms legislation.

Would it be possible to harmonise firearms legislation in the EU in such a way as to make access to firearms subject to uniform criteria?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2002)

At European level, Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991(1) already constitutes a common set of regulations to control the acquisition, possession and transfer of weapons from one EU Member State to another.

This Directive sets out categories of firearms whose acquisition and possession by private persons is either prohibited, subject to authorisation or subject to declaration. The Directive also lays down that firearms may only transferred from one Member State to another in accordance with the procedures stipulated therein, by which Member States are informed that a firearm has entered their territory. For most of its provisions, Directive 91/477/EEC allows the Member States to adopt measures which are even stricter than those it has laid down and the Directive is without prejudice to the application of national provisions concerning the carrying of weapons, hunting or target shooting.

These arrangements were the subject of a report from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council at the end of 2000(2). In this report, the Commission pointed out that Directive 91/477/EEC was the result of a compromise reached after several years of negotiations and that, generally speaking, the Member States and the interested parties were satisfied with the instruments of the Directive. Since the latter were not inclined to see the balance struck by the Directive upset by substantial modifications to its framework, the Commission stated that revision of the Directive would consist more in clarifying some of its provisions than in making substantial changes, in order to ensure that the Directive was applied in a uniform manner throughout the Community.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.

(2) COM(2000) 837 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1683/02

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption (Drinking Water Directive)

Experts involved in the transposition into national law of Directive 98/83/EC(1) on the quality of water intended for human consumption (Drinking Water Directive) have criticised a fundamental error in the Directive which regulates the quality of drinking water but not the measures necessary to guarantee this quality. The current limit values for lead of 40 µg/l are already frequently exceeded, particularly when drinking water stands in lead pipes for long periods of time.

Does the Commission have any information on specific measures taken by the Member States to reduce levels of lead for the population?

Compliance with the future limit values of 25 µg/l and 10 µg/l by 2013 will be impossible unless lead pipes are replaced.

Does the Commission have any information on which Member States provide aid or subsidies for the replacement of lead pipes?

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2002)

With respect to the measures needed to guarantee the quality of drinking water, Article 13(6) of the Drinking Water Directive(1) requires Member States to produce a report (to be forwarded to the Commission) on the measures they have taken or plan to take to fulfil their obligations pursuant to Article 6(3) and Annex I, Part B, note 10. The first report has to cover the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 and is due before the end of 2005. Concerning the exceeding of the current standard for lead, which is fixed in the Directive at 50 micrograms per liter (µg/l), the relevant information will also be available by 2005.

The information of the Commission on specific measures taken by the Member States to reduce levels of lead for the population is only due by the end of 2005. Nevertheless, some facts are already known at the present stage. The Commission has been informed of measures taken, or foreseen, by Member States such as lead pipe replacement (Germany, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and United Kingdom), water treatment such as phosphate dosing and water softening (France, the Netherlands and United Kingdom). Also many Member States provide consumers with information on health risks of lead exposure and on measures to take when they have lead plumbed installations within house.

In other Member States as Denmark, Sweden and Finland lead pipes in the supply of drinking water have never been used.

With regard to aid or subsidies for the replacement of lead pipes, within consumers' premises, the Commission is aware of some Member States already using this incentive (grant schemes) to promote pipe replacement (the Netherlands, United Kingdom), while some other Member States are still considering such an incentive.

(1) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0570/02

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

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Imports of tinned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines

During the Fourth World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial Conference held in November 2001 in Doha and in the course of the negotiations intended to secure approval of the waiver which is needed if the EU is to be granted the necessary authorisation allowing it to maintain tariff preferences with the ACP countries, Thailand and the Philippines made their votes conditional upon improved access for their tinned tuna to the Community market. The EU Commissioner responsible for trade, Pascal Lamy, undertook to carry out a study into the possibility of bringing about such an improvement.

Could the Commission say what stage has been reached in that study and whether or not the EU is willing to grant improved access for tinned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines?

Could the Commission report on the trends which have been recorded over the last five years in EU sales of tinned tuna from the ACP countries, the GSP-drug countries, Thailand and the Philippines?

Is the Commission aware that any reduction in the customs tariffs applicable to tinned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines would seriously harm the EU's tuna sector (which provides much employment in the EU) and threaten European investment, both private and public, in the ACP and GSP-drug countries?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission is in the process of carrying out the promised consultations. The commitment given was to examine the claims of Thailand and the Philippines that their legitimate interests were unduly impaired as a result of the implementation of the preferential tariff treatment for canned tuna originating in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states.

The Commission has examined the situation of the tuna industry in general and has gathered pertinent information on imports into the Community of canned tuna from all sources, especially ACP states as well as Thailand and the Philippines, since 1987. The Commission has also studied information provided by Thailand and the Philippines on their exports to the Community and has met with authorities from those countries twice to discuss the information provided and to seek clarification on the information.

The Commission is currently analysing the situation as presented by Thailand and the Philippines and is taking into account information and opinion provided by other parties. A third round of consultations is expected to take place in the coming weeks, following which the Commission will draw up a report on its findings.

A table on imports of canned tuna into the Community over the last five years (excluding tuna loins and bonito) is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission is aware that the Community's tuna sector is an important one and that its viability is assured by a fine balance between producers, importers and exporters and is also conscious of European, and local, investment interests in ACP and other third countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0387/02

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Division of the Westdeutsche Landesbank (WestLB) into a parent company and a subsidiary company

Is the Commission aware of the exact nature of the planned new legal structure linking the subsidiary WestLB AG, a private law commercial bank and the parent Landesbank NRW (LB RW), a public law investment bank?

Is the Commission aware of the future balance sheet structure of the WestLB AG and the LB NRW and of the contracts on the transfer of staff and for services between the parent and subsidiary companies?

Does the Commission consider that the parent-subsidiary contractual relations constitute a real and sufficient division and separation of the WestLB in terms of the restructuring called for by the Commission and does the Commission have a definite opinion on the future structure of the WestLB? If so, what is it?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The Commission has received details of the envisaged split into a public-law mother company and commercial daughter company of private legal form from the authorities of the Land of Northrhine-Westfalia. The model is in principle in line with the State aid rules of the EC Treaty. Details are still being investigated into.

The Commission is not yet aware of all details regarding the future structure of the balance sheet or of the transfer contracts concerning staff and business relations between the mother and daughter company. To the extent it will consider this necessary for State aid analysis, it will ask for such details.

The WestLB split-model, as presented to the Commission, constitutes in principle an effective and sufficient solution to the State aid problems. The evaluation is not yet concluded as regards all details, e.g. the public mortgage bond business within the public part and the modalities of repayment of the amount to be recovered from the commercial activities pursuant the Commission decision of 8 July 1999 on the WestLB/Wfa-capital transfer case.