ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/65

(2004/C 33 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0658/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq and the use of force

The Conclusions of the European Council of 17 February 2003 declare, inter alia, that Baghdad must ‘disarm and co-operate immediately and fully’, that the Union's objective for Iraq ‘remains full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions, in particular resolution 1441’, and that the Council pledges its ‘full support to the (UN Security) Council in discharging its responsibilities’.

Resolution 1441 makes reference to a number of previous UNSC resolutions pertaining to Iraq including 678 (1990) and 687 (1991). Although principally concerned with the liberation of Kuwait, Paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 reads as follows:

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

Paragraph 3 of the same resolution continues:

Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 above.

UN Security Council Resolution 687, whilst reaffirming ‘the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions’, required Iraq to unconditionally accept the destruction or removal of all biological and chemical weapons as well as research and manufacturing facilities and to accept immediate on-site inspections of its chemical, biological and missile capabilities by UNSCOM.

Does the Commission accept that Iraq's longstanding failure to co-operate with the U.N. in accounting fully for its weapons of mass destruction and the continued threat to regional security which this presents mean that international peace and security have not yet been restored to the area? If so, does the Commission accept that resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 provide an adequate legal basis for armed intervention in the event that Iraq continues to fail to co-operate with the UN in accounting for its stocks of biological and chemical weapons?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

As already stated in previous Council declarations as well as in the last European Council conclusions of 17 February 2003, the Commission agrees that Iraq failed to comply with several United Nations Security Council resolutions from 1991 onwards.

The Commission believes that it is the responsibility of the United Nations Security Council to decide whether the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 provides or not the adequate legal basis for armed intervention. The Commission upholds the authority of the United Nations Security Council as the competent body to provide the adequate interpretation of these resolutions, and to answer the questions the Honourable Member raised.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/196

(2004/C 33 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1998/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject: Penalty clauses relating to access roads in the concessionary agreement concerning Eleftherios Venizelos Airport, Athens

Athens' new airport, Eleftherios Venizelos at Spata, was built under a concessionary agreement concluded between the Greek authorities and the Hochtief consortium in July 1995; the project was completed in March 2001. The EU contributed some EUR 250 million to the project, representing approximately 11 % of the total cost. The concessionary agreement provides for payment of compensation by the Greek authorities to the contractor in the event of the access roads to the airport not being completed on time.

In particular, there is provision for the payment of:

— EUR 35 000 per day for each day's delay in opening the Stavros-Elefsina section of the Attica motorway, to be applied immediately once the airport has become operational, and

— EUR 25 000 per day for each day's delay in opening the western ring-road (Avenue Ymittou), to be applied 12 months after the airport has become operational.

To date, only part of the Stavros-Elefsina section has been opened, while the western ring-road at Avenue Ymittou is expected to open in the autumn of 2003, some 30 months after the airport became operational.

1. Has the Commission been monitoring the operation of the Eleftherios Venizelos airport and compliance by the contracting parties with their obligations since the completion of the project?

2. Is there provision for a post-project evaluation by the Commission and, if so, when is it expected to be carried out?

3. Under what conditions are the penalty clauses activated? Has the contractor claimed compensation from the Greek authorities for failure to complete the access roads on time?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1) does not assign any competence to the Commission to monitor the operation of a project once completed. During the operation of the airport, the Commission would intervene only if it had evidence of failure to comply with European Union legislation. The Commission does not have any such evidence at present.

The question of compliance with the contract between Greece and the concessionaire (penalty clauses, compensation, etc.) does not fall within the Commission's remit. Nevertheless, the national authorities have informed the Commission that no procedure has been launched by the concessionaire to activate penalty clauses.

The Commission intends to carry out an ex-post evaluation of the projects part-financed by the Cohesion Fund as provided for in the regulations. A report on that evaluation will be ready mid-2004 and will be made available to Parliament.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/95

(2004/C 33 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/03

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

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Political debate on the future funding of the Union

Before 1 January 2006, the Commission is to undertake a general review of the own-resources system, although it has already given Parliament an undertaking that this review will be completed by the end of 2004; it will include the issue of creating fresh own-resources.

The Commission is right in thinking that there should be a political debate on the major options for the Union's future funding; what criteria should be used for proceeding to open this debate?

What does the Commission believe is the most appropriate procedure, and who should be responsible for taking the initiative?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Following article 9 of the Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 (1), the Commission shall undertake, before 1 January 2006, a general review of the own resources system. On request of the Parliament, the Commission committed itself to present its review by the end of 2004. As far as possible, the Commission is striving to produce its review even earlier, bearing in mind that the new Own Resources Decision actually came into force only on 1 January 2002.

The Commission recently agreed on a timetable and internal organisation arrangements in view of completing the necessary preparatory work for the Union financial framework beyond 2006. In this regard, the Commission intends to present a Communication to the European Council in December 2003 containing broad orientations for the financial framework, including the own resources system. In a second stage, the Commission intends to be ready by mid-2004 in view of presenting, as appropriate, related legislative proposals.

The Convention is also addressing the issue of the Union's finances. The Commission actively contributes to the discussion in the Convention. In its Communication of 4 December 2002 (2), the Commission encouraged the Convention to examine the funding of the Union's action and more recently it tabled proposals as regards the relevant articles on Union finances to the Convention.

(1) OJ L 253, 7.10.2000.

(2) COM(2002) 728 final: For the European Union — Peace, Freedom, Solidarity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/250

(2004/C 33 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2315/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: Restriction of market access of plasma-derived medicinal products in Australia

In Australia, a monopoly arrangement (The Plasma Fractionation Agreement) allows CSL Limited to be the sole supplier of Australian plasma-derived medicinal products. This is despite that fact that CSL Limited enjoys the same freedom of trade as European manufacturers in the European Union and in other major markets.

The safety standards under which plasma-derived medicinal products are being manufactured and distributed do not differ between CSL Limited and other major manufacturers whose products are being restricted from the Australian market. Indeed, another severe discrimination exists in the fact that plasma-derived medicinal products originating from non-Australian sources have to demonstrate improvements in terms of efficacy and safety to gain market access.

Does the Commission not agree that such a policy is a severe barrier to trade and market access by discriminating against products that are being manufactured following state-of-the-art technology and authorised to the market in Member States of the European Union? And does the Commission not agree that this issue should be raised and discussed at the next WTO round in Cancun in October 2003?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

By way of initial comment, the Commission points out that all plasma-derived products approved by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) for marketing in the Union comply with the strictest safety requirements, regardless of their origin. The basic safety of plasma-derived products is ensured by a wide variety of measures. Given the similar safety and quality requirements applied in Australia and in the Union there seems to be no public health justification for measures discriminating against European products.

The Commission is aware of the situation and agrees that the Plasma Fractionation Agreement in Australia raises concerns in regard to market access.

According to the Commission's understanding, access to the Australian market for plasma-derived products produced outside Australia is only permitted in exceptional circumstances.

Given the World Trade Organisation (WTO) provisions, WTO members should ensure that products imported from the territory of any member should be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating in any other country.

The Commission is currently analysing the situation in order to determine the exact nature and effects of the above mentioned Fractionation Agreement, in particular the economic impact on European manufacturers. The issue as to whether the market conditions constitute a breach of the WTO rules requires further analysis.

Subject to the results of this analysis, the Commission will take the appropriate steps, e.g. raise the subject with the Australian authorities or in the appropriate WTO Committee.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/252

(2004/C 33 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2326/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Discrimination between workers and employees as regards compensation for dismissal

Greek labour legislation does not consider that intellectual and manual workers merit the same degree of protection in the event of redundancy, which is why, when workers are dismissed, they receive proportionally far less compensation than employees. Trade union organisations have called for compensation for these two categories to be standardised, not only for obvious reasons of equal treatment, but also because the very small amount of compensation given to workers constitutes an incentive for dismissing them.

Can the Commission provide information on arrangements in the other Member States? What measures does it intend to take to promote the standardisation of compensation at European level?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

In 1997 the Commission published a report on the legal situation concerning ‘Termination of employment relationships’ in the Member States. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat a copy of this report.

In the European Social Policy Agenda approved by the Nice European Council's meeting in December 2000, the Commission is requested to organise an exchange of views on individual dismissal by the year 2004.

In June 2003 the Commission launched a series of studies in order to ascertain the current position in the Member States. Once these have been finalised it is planned to publish an updated report in 2004. The Commission would then consider what future measures need to be taken.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/189

(2004/C 65 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2679/03

by Jacques Poos (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Customs union between Turkey and the pseudo-state, the TRNC

Can the Commission indicate whether the framework customs union agreement signed by Turkey and the pseudo-state of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is compatible with the Customs Union Agreement in force since 1996 between the European Union and Turkey?

Under this agreement, customs duties were abolished and Turkey is required to apply the Common Customs Tariff to all imports from third countries.

If, however, the TRNC, according to the definition of the European Court of Human Rights, is not a third country, but a province of the Republic of Cyprus, temporarily under Turkish occupation and administration, is the Commission not obliged to make sure that all exports to the EU from the occupied area are accompanied by certificates of origin issued by the island's recognised authorities?

Can the Commission guarantee that Turkish exports to the EU comply with the signed agreement? If not, what does the Commission intend to do to ensure compliance with the law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/195

(2004/C 65 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2710/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Incense

In Ireland there is currently a debate about the health effects of burning incense. Jim McDade, a minister in the Irish government, has issued a warning about the potentially carcinogenic effects of smoke from incense.

Is the Commission aware of this debate?

What, in the Commission's view, are the health risks associated with inhaling smoke from incense?

If it is harmful, what steps will the Commission take to warn the public?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

There are no special European regulations concerning health warnings on commercial products containing incense such as incense cones or candles.

The Commission services are aware of isolated media reports of concern over high levels of potentially carcinogenic substances in the air resulting from burning incense in different settings in Asia. There is no scientific evidence to suggest a comparable situation in the European Union.

Consequently, the Commission is not currently planning to issue a warning to the public on this matter.

However, if the Honourable Member has any scientific evidence, the Commission will be happy to have it examined.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/125

(2004/C 65 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2282/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Fishing opportunities

Can the Commission provide any information on the level of fishing opportunities used by British fishers both within 200 miles of the British coast and beyond 200 miles?

Furthermore, could the Commission provide any information on the level of fishing opportunities used by other EU fishers within 200 miles of the British coast and by non-EU fishers within that same area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The Commission does not have the means of producing the information requested.

The Control Regulation (1) (EEC Council Regulation No 2847/93) sets for each Member State the obligation to notify to the Commission the quantities of each stock or group of stocks landed during the preceding month, when the concerned stocks are subject to total allowable catch (TAC) or quotas. For other stocks (not subject to TAC or quotas and caught either in Community waters, in third countries' waters or on the high seas) Member States have the obligation to notify to the Commission the quantities landed of each stock quarterly. This allows the Commission to monitor the level of fishing opportunities used by Member States.

The notifications of landings received from Member States do not distinguish between catches made within 200 miles of one Member State's coast and those made beyond, as they are based on the areas established by the TAC and quota Regulation.

The fishing or catch areas defined by this Regulation correspond, in general, to entire International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) divisions or subdivisions or to fishing areas as defined by Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) for statistical purposes. They are not established following the line of the 200 miles.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/216

(2004/C 33 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Possible lifting of fish meal ban

As imported commodities have now been checked for MMBM (mammalian meat and bone meal) at the time of entry into the EU for around two years, can the Commission give an account of any positive findings since the introduction of the checks classified by commodity?

Further, as there is now also a new method of analysis which distinguishes fish meal and meat and bone meal which has been ringtested with positive results, will the Commission review its position and consider lifting the temporary ban on fish meal in ruminant diet?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

In accordance with point 2 in Annex I to Commission Decision 2001/9/EC (1), each consignment of imported fishmeal shall be analysed to exclude the presence of mammalian proteins. Member States have reported the result of 10 407 analyses on the presence of animal proteins in feed materials sampled in 2001 and 2002. The frequency of animal proteins prohibited by Council Decision 2000/766/EC (2) was 1,5 % in 2001 and 0,64 % in 2002. Separate data on the number of samples of fishmeal, and of the frequency of mammalian proteins in fishmeal are not available. Since notifications for feed were introduced in the Rapid Alert System in 2002, there has been one notification which informed on the presence of mammalian proteins in fishmeal.

Fishmeal itself is not considered as a risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The reason for banning fishmeal in feed is the control of the feed. In particular, the presence of fishmeal may hamper the control of the presence of ruminant meat-and-bone meal in feed. Results of a recent ring trial indicate that 50 % of the laboratories failed to detect a contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed containing 5 % of fishmeal with the official detection method. Research to improve the method is ongoing.

It therefore seems appropriate to reconsider the use of fishmeal in ruminant feed only when improved control measures are available or in the light of new scientific developments and, where appropriate, the outcome of a risk assessment.

A Commission working document outlining the state of play of the feed ban will be forwarded to the Parliament and the Council in the coming weeks.

(1) Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning control measures required for the implementation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal, OJ L 2, 5.1.2001.

(2) Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/264

(2004/C 65 E/278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3047/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR), Heinz Kindermann (PSE), John McCartin (PPE-DE) and Willi Görlach (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Recreational fisheries and tourism statistics

The Commission and Council are aware that there is a need to improve the common statistical base on tourism. A common platform of know-how is a precondition for benchmarking, for change of views, for learning and for addressing strategic problems in the tourism sector. Also that there is a need to develop statistically valid and comparable data on tourism. A common goal is to initiate the implementation of national Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSA) in the Member States. Recreational fisheries (angling tourism) are a significant part of the European tourism sector.

Will the Commission make sure that recreational fisheries are measured and their figures mentioned in their own right within the overall frame for tourism statistics?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission would like to draw the attention to the usefulness of the existing statistical legislation (Directive 95/57/EC) (1) for the production of internationally comparable statistics in the field of tourism. Its implementation in the Member States has led to constant progress in the availability of valid and comparable data on tourism. This data is published regularly by the Commission. As regards the Acceding Countries, major progress has been made, so that they can provide the same level of information as the present Member States at the moment when they will be joining the Union on 1 May 2004.

In the above-mentioned Directive, many breakdowns of the data are already requested, such as breakdowns by nationality, by length of stay or by principal mode of transport. No breakdown is requested concerning the type of holidays. As a result, it is not possible to distinguish recreational fisheries (or any other type of holiday) in the tourism statistics. In order to limit response burden, an introduction of additional breakdowns is not foreseen.

(1) Council Directive 95/57/EC of 23 November 1995 on the collection of statistical information in the field of tourism, OJ L 291, 6.12.1995.