ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2800/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Clitheroe cement works, England

In view of the decision by the Commission to send the UK a reasoned opinion for the failure to undertake an environmental impact assessment with regard to a change in the fuel used at cement kilns at Clitheroe in Lancashire, is it the Commission's intention to insist upon remedial works or the imposition of new conditions to curtail the burning of hazardous waste at this location?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to the Reasoned Opinion of the Commission in relation to cement kilns at Clitheroe in Lancashire. This concerns the implementation in British law of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) in its original form and also as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2).

The Reasoned Opinion was issued under Article 226 of the EC Treaty because the Commission is of the opinion that the British Government is not correctly applying Directive 85/337/EEC. In particular, the Commission is concerned that the United Kingdom's use of so called material change of use provisions in planning law may preclude a decision in accordance with the criteria in Directive 85/337/EEC as to whether a new project, or change in a project, requires an environmental impact assessment. In addition, the system for issuing pollution control authorisations in the United Kingdom has not been required to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC (which has only been incorporated into the land-use planning system), as required by Directive 85/337/EEC. These concerns came to light as a result of various complaints, including the one relating to a cement kiln in Clitheroe. However, the main focus of the Commission's action under Article 226 of the EC Treaty is to ensure that the United Kingdom correctly aligns its legislation to Directive 85/337/EEC rather than upon remedial works or the imposition of new conditions to curtail the burning of hazardous waste in Clitheroe.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3638/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Banking assets

Will the Commission please give the figures for the most recent available year for each Member State for the proportion of banking assets in that Member State held by financial companies whose principal ownership is in the Member State concerned, and the proportion of banking assets held by financial companies whose principal ownership is outside the Member State concerned?

Will the Commission also state within the latter total what is the proportion of banking assets in financial companies owned by EU Member States (other than the Member State concerned)?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

The table which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat includes figures for the total assets of credit institutions, the assets of branches of credit institutions established according to the law of another European Economic Area (EEA) country, the assets of subsidiaries with principal ownership situated in another EEA country, the assets of branches of credit institutions established according to the law of a non-EEA country and the assets of subsidiaries with principal ownership situated in a non-EEA country. On the basis of these figures different percentages in the total assets of credit institutions are calculated. The data refers to 2000 and 2001 and is available from the European Central Bank.

The table contains figures for branches and subsidiaries. A branch means a place of business which forms a legally dependent part of a credit institution and which conducts directly all or some of the operations inherent in the business of credit institutions. Contrary to the subsidiaries, branches do not have a legal personality in the country they are established in.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3290/02

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2002)

Subject: Emergency in Catania

Following the natural disasters which occurred recently in Sicily and which hit the area around Catania particularly hard, and in view of the spirit of solidarity which the European Union has traditionally shown towards less-developed regions and the particular importance it attaches to cohesion policy, would the Commission not agree that it should redeploy the resources available under Agenda 2000 with a view to giving absolute priority to making good the damage caused by the above disasters and that this emergency calls for Agenda 2000 funding to be used in a flexible, targeted manner, even if this means exceeding the specific forecasts set out in the Regional Operational Programme for Sicily?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that under the new decentralised management arrangements for the Structural Funds (Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1)), it is the managing authority (in this case Sicily Region) that is directly responsible for implementing the regional Operational Programme. The Commission is ready to respond to the emergency around Catania by examining the proposals sent by the Italian authorities within the limits of the Community rules in force.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2985/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 4 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) calls for a gradual ban on fishing to be applied to vessels older than 20 years, except for those that have passed annual safety tests.

Paragraph 6 calls on the Commission to continue co-financing the replacement of fishing vessels older than 20 years that do not meet minimum standards with regard to safety and the health of workers on board.

The average age of fishing boats is very high, and in some countries over 20 years; as they get older, fishing boats are increasingly prone to accidents.

What steps has the Commission taken since the adoption of this resolution to modernise and renew the fleet, reducing the average age of fishing boats, and increasing the number of inspections of older fishing boats?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Concerning point 6 of the Parliament Resolution, the Commission recognises the need for a renewal of the fleet, but thinks this objective has to be compatible with that of reducing excess of capacity and adjusting the size of the fleet to the available resources. This is why, in the framework of the

Common Fisheries Policy reform, the Commission has proposed to keep the financial support to the scrapping of vessels and to eliminate aid for the construction of vessels. The Commission expects these measures to have a positive impact on the average age of the fleet, as older and less efficient vessels would be scrapped first. At the same time, the Commission has proposed to continue Community co-financing for safety investments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2249/02

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Construction of a hydroelectric power station on indigenous land in Chile

The company Endesa Chile, which has been privatised and acquired by Endesa España, is in the process of constructing the Ralco hydroelectric power station. This will result in the flooding of 630 hectares of indigenous land and the disappearance of two Pehuenche Indian communities which have always existed in the Alto Bio Bio, and contravenes Indigenous Law No 19.253 of 5 October 1993 and the Basic Law on the Environment No 19.300 of 9 March 1994.

Furthermore, adverse opinions on this construction project have been issued by 22 relevant Chilean public bodies, and the World Bank has refused to grant it funding because it contravenes its code of ethics.

Eight of the 93 families living in the area have asserted their rights under the Indigenous Law and refused to be relocated, while the others have caved in to pressure, threats and blackmail.

The Chilean government is affecting ignorance of its own laws, and has set up a Committee of Wise Men to put a figure on the compensation payable to these eight families. This is unlawful and sets an alarming precedent for the indigenous peoples of Chile and their survival.

1. Is the Council aware of this situation?

2. Does it not feel there is a need, in the light of the recently signed EU-Chile Association Agreement, to demand respect of democracy clauses and the indigenous rights they contain?

3. What measures is it considering taking with regard to this violation of indigenous rights and therefore of the EU-Chile Association Agreement?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

1. As the situation referred to in the Honourable Member's written question has not come to the Council's notice, the Council has not had occasion to discuss it.

2. The EU-Chile Association Agreement was initialled by its negotiators the Commission and the Chilean authorities on 10 June 2002. The Council received the Commission proposal on 7 October 2002. The signing of the Agreement has been placed on the agenda for the Council meeting on 18 November 2002. Following the signing, the Chilean authorities will set in motion their domestic ratification procedure. Once that ratification has been completed and notified, the Council will take a decision, in accordance with established procedures, on the implementation of measures for the provisional application of the Agreement.

3. The Council would point out, however, that it does hold regular political dialogue meetings with the Chilean authorities, at various levels. If necessary, it will not hesitate to raise with the Chilean authorities any questions concerning serious violations of human rights in general or any specific cases of violation of indigenous communities' rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Consumer product contents

A German survey just conducted shows that consumer goods including foodstuffs, drinks, cosmetics, washing products and tobacco contained less than the amount indicated on the packaging in some 12 percent of cases. German consumers' organisations say that manufacturers systematically underfill their products.

Is the Commission aware of this practice?

If so, what is it doing to stop it?

Does it have access to investigations and figures that can confirm the German findings?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The Commission is not aware of these practices, nor does it possess any information which would support the findings of the German survey. Responsibility for checking the weight or volume of products rests with the national authorities. The Commission is always willing to bring a clearly explained and cogently argued complaint to the attention of those authorities.

In addition to any national legislation governing the weight or volume of products, manufacturers may also benefit from Community legislation governing checks on the indicated contents. Products which have been filled in accordance with a standardised method may have the e-mark affixed to the pack. The e-mark is recognised in all the Member States, and may be affixed alongside any mark awarded under national legislation.

As part of the SLIM-IV initiative (Simplification of Legislation on the Internal Market) on pre-packed products, the Commission is preparing a draft Directive which will make the e-mark method compulsory throughout the Union. If underfilling proves to be a problem for consumers, it could be dealt with in the public consultation exercise which is planned for the autumn.

Checks on the weight or volume of products must be distinguished from the issue of whether pack sizes should be fixed or free, which is currently the subject of a public discussion forum: http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/prepacking_nl.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2589/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Council

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Single European Sky

The European Parliament has just adopted the report by Marieke Sanders-ten Holte on the Single European Sky: Air Navigation Services / Airspace / Interoperability of the European network (A5-0266/2002).

There are significant political aspects to this resolution, and political problems relating to national interests have always arisen in the Council whenever this matter has been addressed. I would therefore like to know whether all these problems have now been resolved, or whether these differences still exist and are still an obstacle to agreement.

Given that this is an urgent matter, public opinion is very sensitive to it and the public expects a swift and definitive solution. I myself have been keeping abreast of the work done by the European Commission in this area, but what stage have negotiations reached in the Council?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The package of four legislative proposals aimed at creating a Single European Sky basically envisages the application of common principles and rules in airspace in order to tackle problems of air-traffic congestion and aircraft delays.

Almost immediately after its presentation by the Commission, the Council started its work on the Single European Sky package. The European Council of Barcelona pledged its support for this work. At its meeting in March 2002, the Council discussed certain specific issues of the package, giving valuable input to the ongoing work, and at its meeting in June 2002, it took note of the work carried out under the Spanish Presidency on the development of this dossier.

The current Presidency, from the outset of its term in office, made it clear that work on the package remains a top priority; work within the Council has been organised in consequence, allowing for considerable results to be achieved. At its meeting on 3 October 2002, the Council took note of a Presidency progress report outlining the current state of play regarding the work in the Council on the Single European Sky package.

Work is now being carried forward with a view to enabling the Council to reach a political agreement on the Single European Sky package at its December session in line with the conclusions of the European Council of Barcelona.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2446/02

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject: GATS negotiations

Will the Commission publish its views on how it would like to see GATS reformed before the European Parliament debates the issue in November 2002? In particular, will the Commission make available to Members what its requests are and how its requests were formulated?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Community submitted sectoral proposals to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2000 setting out its negotiating objectives in 12 services sectors covered by the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and a Communication on the Community's general objectives for the negotiations was submitted in March 2001. These documents have been publicly available since the spring of 2001 through the Community and WTO web sites.

In addition, an extensive summary of the Union's requests to third countries has been published on the Commission's (DG Trade's) web site since July 2002(1). This summary describes the importance of these negotiations and provides an overview of the Community's negotiating objectives.

Although the Parliament has no formal role in the formulation of trade policy under the existing Treaties, it is in accordance with the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000, regularly briefed on trade policy issues and consulted on key questions. Furthermore, in keeping with the Commission's desire to keep Members fully abreast of developments in the trade policy area, the initial requests to other WTO Members for improved market access on services have recently been made available to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Given their restricted status, special arrangements have been worked out with the Parliament to secure the appropriate treatment of these documents.

For the reasons clearly explained in the recent reply by the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade to an open letter from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) regarding the services negotiations also available on the Commission's (DG Trade's) web site , that although the Commission intends to be as transparent as possible with all stakeholders, it has no intention of making the initial requests available to the general public.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/wto_overview/index_en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2981/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 1 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) urges those Member States which have not yet done so to ratify the Torremolinos Protocol and the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel (STCW-F), both drawn up by the International Maritime Organisation, and the ILO and FAO conventions on fishing safety and working conditions, so that their entry into force can help to increase safety in the fishing industry throughout the world.

Has any Member State subsequently ratified the Protocol and Convention?

Which Member States have not yet ratified them?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The 1993 Torremolinos Protocol has so far been ratified by six Member States (Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden) and the STCW-F Convention by Denmark alone.

According to our information the ILO Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (C134) has so far been ratified by eight Member States (Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Finland, Sweden).

The Commission does not know of any FAO Conventions on fishing safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1773/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: 9 May public holiday

Does not the Commission think that it would be appropriate to declare and establish 9 May as a binding public holiday in all the Member States and to designate it as a day of joy on which to celebrate the founding of the European Union and as an exhortation to peace?

At the same time, would it not be sensible to abolish all public holidays in the Member States which commemorate war-related events?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

The Commission always marks 9 May, which is a very important date for the Union. It organises appropriate celebrations in all the Member States in cooperation with the national authorities.

The Union has no remit to declare a European national holiday; that would be possible on the basis of an agreement freely entered into by the Member States. Nor can the Commission propose that the Member States abolish national holidays which form an integral part of their traditions. However, the Honourable Member will note that even where these national holidays recall terrible conflicts between Europeans or reciprocal blood-letting, they increasingly tend to emphasise a rejection of certain ideologies and the fact that, in contrast to the events marked, the Europeans of today are committed to unity rather than division and conflict. Increasingly, representatives of enemy countries take part in the celebrations for precisely that reason. The Commission regards this development as extremely positive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Discrimination on the ground of nationality in Bayeux, France

A museum in Bayeux, France, charges a reduced entrance fee for families, but only if those families are French.

1. Does this constitute discrimination of the ground of nationality, which is prohibited pursuant to Article 12 of the EC Treaty?

2. If so, what will the Commission do to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Honourable Member has asked a question about the entrance fees for families to a museum in Bayeux, which differ according to the nationality of the family.

The question does not provide sufficient information concerning the specific circumstances under which different rules of admission to this museum are applied. However, the Commission would like to recall that, in principle, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the freedom to provide services set out in Article 49 of the EC Treaty also covers the freedom for recipients of services, including tourists, to go to another Member State in order to enjoy those services under the same conditions as nationals of that Member State. Discrimination based on nationality applying to entrance fees to museums has been explicitly recognised by the Court as being prohibited under Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty(1). The Court has confirmed that, since visiting museums is one of the determining reasons for which tourists, as recipients of services, decide to go to another Member State, there is a close link between the freedom of movement which they enjoy under the EC Treaty and museum admission conditions. The discrimination with regard to admission to museums may have an effect on the conditions under which services are provided, including the price thereof, and may therefore influence the decision of some persons to visit the country(2).

(1) Judgement of 15 March 1994, Commission v Spain, C-45/93.

(2) Judgement of 15 March 1994, Commission v Spain, C-45/93.