ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2117/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Colza

Given the fact that colza, coming as it does from oil seed rape, is a renewable source of energy, what steps does the Commission plan to take to encourage the wider use throughout the European Union of this resource, which is already being used by a bus company in Toulouse?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Under Community programmes such as the 5th Framework Programme in the field of research and technological development (RTD) and the programme for the promotion of alternative energy sources (Altener), the Commission has supported projects concerning the production of biofuels, including their use in public transport. Biodiesel produced from colza is one of the standardisation mandates funded under the Altener programme that the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) is in the process of drawing up for the Commission.

The Commission maintains its intention to promote the use of biofuels in transport, including biodiesel produced from colza and other crops, extending beyond support under Community programmes.

To this end, a communication is being prepared on a medium- and long-term strategy for alternative fuels, together with two proposals for Directives, one on a minimum level of biofuels in the total volume of fuels sold on the European market, and the other on the possibility of a tax reduction for biofuels.

According to its work programme for 2001, the communication should be adopted by the Commission in the fourth quarter of 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2308/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 July 2001)

Subject: Health effects of sulphites in wine

Is the Commission aware of the medical evidence to suggest that high amounts of sulphites in wine may produce adverse reactions in some drinkers, particularly in a proportion of asthmatics?

Does it consider that wine labelling should be introduced on health grounds?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to written question E-2200/01 from Mr Davies(1).

(1) See page 78.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/01

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Subject: Statement of value added tax

In some European Member States it is common practice for prices to be quoted exclusive of value added tax, for example on menus in restaurants and on products in shops. This can create confusion for travellers and visitors from other Member States as the price which is payable is different from the price quoted.

Can the Commission say if there are any proposals to encourage Member States to require prices to be quoted inclusive of VAT?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

A number of actions have already been taken at the Community level to ensure full transparency on prices paid by consumers. Community legislation imposes common basic standards for price indication throughout all Member States. The most important and recent example is Directive 98/6/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices

of products offered to the consumer(1). Member States were required to implement this Directive by March 2000. The Directive's full text is available on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/pric_indi/index_en.html.

VAT is expressly included in the definition of selling price and unit price in Article 2 (a) and (b) of Directive 98/6/EC. The Directive includes in Article 4(1) a general obligation to indicate the selling price and the unit price. Only limited and optional exemptions are permitted, none of which provides for leaving taxes out of these prices.

It is the obligation of the Member States to properly implement the above-mentioned provisions.

(1) OJ L 80, 18.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Pine-tree processionary caterpillar in Greece

Can the Commission state whether it is aware of the problems caused by the pine-tree processionary caterpillar in Greece and what corrective action it is taking or intends to take?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

Defoliation of forest trees by the pine processionary caterpillar (Thaumetopoea pityocampa Denis & Schiffermüller) has been a problem for some time now in the southern regions of the Union. The worst affected species are the Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) and the Corsican pine (Pinus nigra). As a rule, trees attacked by the caterpillar are stunted, but they do not usually die as a result of defoliation.

In the autumn and winter of 2000, damage in Greece was mainly observed near large cities, such as Athens and Salonika. According to the inventory of damage in Greece in 2000 drawn up by the Community forest monitoring network, out of a total sample of 422 pines covered by 22 observation points, 29 % of Aleppo pines and 25 % of Corsican pines had been damaged by pine processionary caterpillars.

Forest health protection is a matter for the local authorities. In Greece, both biological control (treatments using Bacillus thuringiensis) and mechanical treatments were applied in autumn 2000 in the worst affected areas, mainly in or near towns and villages. The treatments will be repeated in autumn 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3376/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Illegal deductions of aid for farmers

In its report on the 2000 financial year the Court of Auditors finds once again that in Greece the Community aid paid to producers at both central government and local levels is subject to deductions which are not permitted by any Community legislation. Greece again deducted a charge of 3 % for ELGA (the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation) from all aid granted for citrus fruit, cotton, olive oil and tobacco. This contribution represents approximately EUR 64 million. For olive oil, there is also a second deduction, equivalent to 1 % of the aid paid, for the national confederation of producers.

There are also local levies charged by agricultural cooperatives or producers' associations for arable crops (2 %), olive oil (1 % plus a standard charge), fruit and vegetables (1 %) and tobacco (2,63 %).

In the report on the 1999 financial year by the Court of Auditors a similar situation was described. In its reply to my question E-3807/00(1), the Commission recognised that Community aid was being reduced and informed me that it intended to look into the issue and, probably, to take action.

Since the Court of Auditors has returned to the same issue, could the Commission state its position on this problem, and say what measures it intends to take to ensure that Community aid is paid in full to those entitled to it without the slightest financial deduction being made?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 148.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

The Commission is well aware of the various problems that exist and have existed in Greece as far as the respect of the full payment clause by the Greek government is concerned. The Commission has endeavoured at different instances and by applying more than one tool, to ensure the scrupulous respect by the Greek government of the full payment obligation.

The Commission is looking into this matter within the scope of the infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. In addition, this matter gave raise already to financial corrections within the procedure of clearance of accounts of the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: New Temelin nuclear power-station

The Commission is surely aware that since October 2000, according to press reports, as many as 18 faults have occurred at the new Czech Temelin nuclear power-station, which has entered the technical trial stage.

Does the Commission know the nature of these faults?

Can it say that safety standards at the power-station are as high as those accepted in the Union?

If not, what steps will it take to protect Union citizens from the risks posed by inadequate safety standards?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission is aware of the events at the Temelin nuclear power plant (NPP) mentioned by the Honourable Member. According to international practice, events occurring at nuclear installations are classified according to the so-called INES scale (International Nuclear Events Scale). A recent Operational Safety Review Team mission by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) noted that the events reporting system at the Temelin NPP has a sufficiently low threshold. Up to 15 events were classified in accordance with the INES methodology as conforming to INES 0 and none as INES 1 or higher. The Commission is not aware of any different classification warranted with regard to other events.

It is also a common operational experience that the number of events is relatively higher during the initial test phase of a new reactor. The frequency of events usually decreases after that period. It is unfortunate that some press reports have highlighted automatic or manual shut downs at the Temelin NPP during the early start-up phase as hazardous incidents although a shut down is a deliberate measure to preclude any possibility of nuclear safety events even happening.

The responsibility for the safe operation of nuclear power plants lies with the operator under the supervision of the respective national nuclear regulatory authority. On behalf of the Community, the Atomic Question's Group of the Council has recently concluded a report on nuclear safety in the context of enlargement. The Commission has provided expert support to the elaboration of this report. The Commission will orient its interventions with candidate countries towards holding them to the implementation of the recommendations contained in the said report and will provide them assistance in this task.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2777/01

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Compliance with the additionality principle in connection with the EU's structural fund policy in Finland

Can the Commission supply information on how Finland claims to be complying with the additionality principle in the context of the EU's structural fund policy?

Is this in line with the principles set out in the structural fund regulations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

In accordance with Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), the main rationale for the additionality principle is that Structural Funds should not replace public or other equivalent expenditure incurred by a Member State. In order to verify this additionality, assessments are carried out in three phases: ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post.

The Commission and the Finnish authorities have agreed on the level of public expenditure, which is to be maintained over the 2000-2006 period for the objective 1 areas. Compared to the previous period (1995-1999), this represents an increase of 0,7 % on the annual average. This estimate is based on the assumption that municipal and state income is expected to grow annually by 2 % on average, and that the expenditure incurred by state-owned companies is not included in the calculation.

Throughout the programming period, the Finnish authorities will inform the Commission, in due course, of any developments which may undermine their ability to comply with additionality.

A further verification of this principle will then be undertaken at the mid-term phase in accordance with the above mentioned Council Regulation.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3279/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Exemption from prescription charges

In the UK, people suffering from certain illnesses (such as diabetes) are exempt from prescription charges for their medication.

However, this exemption is applied to some illnesses and not to others. For example, thalassemia and sickle cell anaemia sufferers must still pay prescription charges.

The British Medical Association (BMA) has stated that the current situation is unfair and needs updating. However, to date the UK Government has refused to change the law.

Can the Commission indicate if there is any EU legislation that covers this subject?

If not, does the Commission intend to legislate on this issue?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

It must be observed, first of all, that, according to settled case-law, Community law does not detract from the powers of the Member States to organise their social security systems.

In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, it is therefore for the legislation of each Member State to determine, first, the conditions concerning the right or duty to be insured with a social security scheme and, second, the conditions for entitlement to benefits.

As there is no Community legislation on prescription charges, the rules concerning the reimbursement or free provision of certain medical treatments fall therefore within the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission has no plans to propose such legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3687/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Community funding for regasification plant at the bay of Ferrol (Spain)

The company Regasificadora del Norte S. A. (Reganosa) is promoting a project for the creation of a liquefied natural gas plant at Punta Promontoiro, on the inner side of the narrow bay of Ferrol (Ría de Ferrol) in Spain. This major project would entail the construction of four tanks of 150 000 cubic metres, and would also mean the entry each year of over 40 methane tankers (dimensions: 280 m x 42 m x 12-13 m).

Reganosa is in receipt of financing from the Galician regional government as well as from the companies Unión Fenosa, Endesa and Mugardesa de Energía, S. A.

The project has met with widespread rejection from the local community, and the Ferrol city council has declared itself against. A number of citizens' organisations have filed complaints with the Commission's DG Environment and DG Transport and Energy, in view of the severe risks of such an industrial development in this area. The Ferrol city council believes the plant could be located within Ferrol's projected outer port complex (this was in fact the original option). Nonetheless, the location currently proposed, i. e. the inner side of the bay, is a densely populated area which is only one kilometre from the built-up area of Mugardos and Ferrol. This location means that the plant could become a real accident trap: displacement would be virtually impossible, and the methane tankers could only put to sea at high tide. The proposed site of the regasification plant would border on such existing installations as fuel tanks, military vessels and a military arsenal, and there could be a domino effect in case of accident, with unforeseeable consequences.

Is this project, or has it ever been, in receipt of Community funding of any kind? Has any request for funding been received? If so, what amounts were asked for, and from which of the Community Funds?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3347/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Payment of maternity benefit

According to the founding Treaties, the Community is to ensure the social protection of workers, and the payment of social security benefits, irrespective of the country in which they are

resident. To that end, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1) on the application of social security systems to employed persons and their families moving within the Community. As far as can be judged, this ought to apply also to the payment of maternity, paternity and parental benefits. Under current Finnish health insurance legislation, an insured person is entitled to full maternity, paternity and parental benefits only is he/she has been resident in Finland for at least 180 days immediately preceding the estimated date of confinement.

How does the Commission plan to ensure that maternity benefit is paid in full to mothers who, prior to their confinement, have worked in a country other than their home country? How does it intend to guarantee free movement for workers without jeopardising their entitlement to social benefits?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

The Commission wishes to confirm that Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community(1), which coordinates the different national social security systems and aims to offer effective protection to persons moving within the Union, coordinates maternity benefits, paternity benefits and parental benefits awarded under the Member States' statutory social security systems.

This Community instrument specifies that the law of the state of employment is the applicable law. Hence, a worker has a right to maternity benefits in kind provided for in the social security legislation of her state of employment, even if she resides on the territory of another Member State. As to paternity and parental benefits, the Court of Justice has already pronounced on the German education allowance and the Swedish parental benefits, which it has defined as family benefits within the meaning of the abovementioned Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(2).

The Commission recalls that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 organises a system which guarantees the payment of benefits to migrant workers and their dependents residing on the territories of the Member States, as provided for by Article 42 (ex Article 51) of the EC Treaty itself. For example, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 provides for the exportation of social security benefits such as invalidity, old age or survivors' benefits in kind, or pensions for accidents at work or occupational diseases.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, OJ L 28, 30.10.1997.

(2) Judgment of 10 October 1996, Hoever and Zachow, C-245/94 and C-312/94, ECR 1996, I-4895. Judgment of 11 June 1998, Kuusijärvi, C-275/96, ECR 1998, I-3419.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2285/01

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foie gras force feeding of ducks

In its 1999 recommendations concerning domestic geese and ducks, the Council of Europe's Standing Committee of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes recommended that countries allowing foie gras production should encourage research on its welfare aspects and on alternative methods which do not include gavage.

Is the Commission aware of any action taken by Member States to meet these recommendations? Since the Council of Europe's 1999 recommendations allowing foie gras production encouraged research on its welfare aspects and on alternative methods which do not include gavage, has this research been undertaken by such countries?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2284/01, E-2285/01 and E-2286/01given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The recommendations adopted by the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes are addressed to the Parties of the Convention.

The definition of current practice to limit the production of foie gras to certain areas in Europe has been agreed by the Parties to the Convention. They are entrusted with enforcing the requirements of these recommendations as adopted, such as the ones mentioned by the Honourable Member.

All Member States have implemented Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes(1) into their national legislation. However, it should be mentioned that a ban on force-feeding is neither foreseen by Directive 98/58/EC nor by the recommendations mentioned above.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2891/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(12 October 2001)

Subject: Environmental risks from the Sellafield nuclear power plant

Given the new security environment following the 11 September terrorist attacks in the USA, the proximity of British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield Plant in Cumbria, UK, to major population centres on the eastern Irish coast and the appalling safety record of this plant, will the Commission as a matter of urgency carry out an on-the-spot assessment of the risks to the Irish population of the continued operation of this plant and, in the interim, urge the British authorities to rescind their recent decision to approve an expansion of the plant at a cost of more than EUR 500 million?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

The security and safety of nuclear installations is a national competence as long as compliance with the provisions of the Euratom Treaty is assured.

Following the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, operators of nuclear installations and national authorities will each undertake their own analysis of the situation and will accordingly take a number of additional measures to increase the physical protection of the nuclear installations and the material they use or store. It is expected that all the different options will be fully analysed. For security reasons, additional measures put into place are unlikely to be made public. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will also co-ordinate major international efforts of co-operation in this area.

Concerning the operation of the Sellafield plant, the Commission would point out that the plant's operation has to be carried out within the strict limits set by the British nuclear regulator and meet the requirements of the Basic Safety Standards Directives.

The decision of British authorities to approve an expansion of the Sellafield plant concerns a new facility for the fabrication of Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Elements. In accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, the Commission has already given an opinion on whether the disposal of radioactive waste from this plant is liable to affect another Member State(1).

(1) OJ C 68, 5.3.1997.