ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3572/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Community support for the companies belonging to the ARA e GRANIT international consortium

The directors of the Portuguese companies belonging to the ARA e GRANIT international consortium and based in Avintes/Vila Nova de Gaia and in Seia/Guarda are forcing their workers to accept temporary lay-offs: they are instructed to stay at home for two weeks at a time without knowing when and under what terms the company will require them to make up the lost working hours. This is quite unacceptable and it constitutes an infringement of the workers' rights.

The director of the Seia-based ARA company recently revealed that the latter's productivity rates are as high in Portugal as they are in Germany.

In Avintes, entry was denied to 18 workers who, despite being placed under pressure, refused to sign the agreement.

In view of the above, would the Commission provide the following information:

- Has the consortium received Community financial assistance in any EU Member State? If it has, how much money is involved and where and when was it made available?

- What action should in the Commission's view be taken in order to protect the rights of the companies' workers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds for the period (2000-2006)(1) assigns the responsibility for implementing and monitoring European Social Fund (ESF) assistance to the Member States.

Therefore, the decision to approve projects submitted by private companies for Community funding is the responsibility of the Member State, through the power assigned to the managing authorities for the various operational programmes.

To answer the question posed by the Honourable Member, the Commission had to rely on the information supplied by the Portuguese authorities. The Commission has been informed by the Instituto de Gestão do Fundo Social Europeu (IGFSE) that it has no record of any ESF funding for the companies belonging to the international group Ara e Granit.

The suspension of employment contracts, in particular for economic reasons, is not specifically covered by Community legislation. Nevertheless, decisions such as those referred to by the Honourable Member must be preceded by the effective informing and consulting of workers' representatives in accordance with Directive 2002/14/EC(2). However, Portugal, like all other Member States, is not obliged to incorporate this Directive into national law until 23 March 2005.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2020/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Survey concerning the beer market in Portugal

About a year ago the Commission department responsible for competition launched a public survey concerning the supposed cartelisation of the Portuguese beer market by the country's two main producers.

The results of the survey, which was widely publicised in all the media and constituted a campaign of unheard-of proportions, have not yet been published in Portugal.

Can the Commission say why?

Can the Commission say why it decided to do this in this particular sector in Portugal, and has never done so in any other sector in the country?

Can the Commission say when it intends to explain its actions to Portuguese public opinion?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to the investigation by the Commission into an alleged cartel in the Portuguese brewing sector. This investigation started by means of verifications pursuant to Article 14(3) of the EEC Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty(1) in the premises of the two leading Portuguese brewers and their national association. These verifications took place on 17 and 18 January 2001. The Commission officials were assisted by representatives of the Portuguese competition authority.

1. and 3. In this case, the Commission is still in the fact-finding stage. They assess the numerous documents copied during the verifications as well as the companies' replies to further requests for information. Should the Commission come to the provisional conclusion that the companies have infringed the competition rules, it will issue a statement of objections and the companies will have the possibility to make their opinion known in writing and at a oral hearing. In view of the above procedural constraints which aim at preserving due process for the companies concerned, the Commission is at this stage not in position to indicate whether and if so, when, it will take a formal decision and inform the public at large about its findings.

2. The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its annual reports on competition policy to find numerous sectors outside the brewery industry where the Commission has fined companies for their participation in cartels.

(1) OJ P 13, 21.2.1962, Portuguese version: Chapter 8, Tome 1, p. 22.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2838/02

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

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Delimitation of the fishing area in the mouth of the River Guadiana

The recent incident in the mouth of the River Guadiana on the border between Spain and Portugal, which resulted in the seizure of a Spanish fishing boat by the Portuguese navy, has revived demands from the Assembly of Andalucia and the Huelva Fishing and Agricultural Commission for clear demarcation of the above fishing area between Spain and Portugal.

For the Huelva fishermen, the boundary between Spanish and Portuguese waters is not sufficiently clear and they believe that a new fishing agreement between the two countries would prevent similar incidents in the future.

Given the Commission's role in the fisheries common policy, could it intervene to meet the demands of the Huelva fishermen regarding clear demarcation of the fishing area, and thus avoid future recurrences of incidents such as that concerning the Spanish fishing vessel described above?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2002)

The Commission wishes to inform that it has not received any request from the national authorities to intervene in the referred matter.

Anyway, the question related to the delimitation of the fishing zone does not fall within the Community competence. It is clear, however, that the Commission wishes that the fishing activities are carried out in this area in satisfactory conditions for all the parties concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2910/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Democratic Republic of Congo

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for EU budget funding in 2001 for the Democratic Republic of Congo and give details of the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2663/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Discrimination by French authorities

Is the Commission aware of the discrimination against Sikhs in France, whereby identification photographs are not accepted should a Sikh be wearing a turban on his head? Does this Commission find this practice by the French authorities acceptable?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The rules concerning the way in which identification photographs must be taken are a matter of national competence of each Member State. Although Community law provides for the issue of residence cards to Union nationals and to the members of their families whichever their nationality, it does not refer to identification photographs which are regulated by national measures.

However, the Commission remarks that the purpose of identification photographs is to permit a quick and clear identification of the person in question. This may require on the part of Member States the application of specific guidelines on the use of items such as the turbans worn by the Sikhs to which the honourable Member refers to.

When laying down such guidelines Member States should ensure the balance between legitimate public order and public safety requirements and the right to freedom of religion. This right is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), wich has been ratified by all Member States. Any limitations thereto should respect article 9(2) of the Convention which reads as follows:

Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief shall be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Should the Sikhs consider that the French administrative instructions concerning identification photographs are in violation of the ECHR, they should appeal to the European Court of Human Rights once all possibilities of domestic appeal have been exhausted and within six months of the final ruling by a national court.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2363/02

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Follow-up question on EU preferential tariff arrangements (H-043/02)

Following on from the Commission's answer to my question of 30 May 2002 (H-0453/02(1)) on EU preferential tariff arrangements, I should like to put a supplementary question. The Commission's own proposal on the need for immediate action against third countries, where errors and omissions outweigh the general risks of trading with countries with preferential tariffs, implies the possibility of suspending the preferential arrangements. The proposal also implies that the trader should be notified where there is reasonable doubt as to how a preferential system works.

My supplementary question is therefore this: Why has the Commission opted not to suspend the preferential tariff as long as there is any doubt about the country from which the fish originates? Why did the Commission choose not to warn the Danish fish importers of the Norwegian situation, when it was aware of circumstances in Norway as early as August 2001?

(1) Written answer of 11 June 2002.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

1. referential agreements such as the EEA are based on the mutual trust and co-operation of the parties concerned. Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement only allows for the temporary suspension of preferential rates for specific individual exports during the period of verification of the proofs of origin covering those exports. This is applied by Member States on a case by case basis.

2. In August 2001 the Commission received the first indications about doubts concerning the origin of fish exports carried out prior to that time. It immediately advised the Norwegian authorities and asked them to ensure that the determination and control of the origin status of such products be secured in order to prevent situations prejudicial to EU-importers.

Given the very co-operative attitude of the Norwegian authorities and their willingness both to quickly remedy the situation and fully investigate the past cases, the Commission cannot conclude that doubts exist concerning the co-operation of Norway which would justify the publication of a notice to importers. In any case, such a notice would not affect the situation which occurred in the past.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3433/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Withholding of URBAN II funding from Frosinone

According to information from the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and from the Commission, Frosinone is currently completely excluded from Urban II funding since it is not one of the 10 first cities listed at European level or the next 20 cities in the Urban Italia list (Law 388/2000). Urban is undeniably one of the European Union's most successful projects to date and a valuable instrument for the development of the outskirts of large metropolitan areas and urban areas in general affected by environmental and social deterioration, for example, in Milan the second city on the list.

In view of this, can the Commission say whether the municipality of Frosinone has submitted projects for Urban II funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

Following the Commission's communication of 28 April 2000 to the Member States on the guidelines for the Urban II Community Initiative(1), the Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport published in Gazzetta Ufficiale No 168 of 20 July 2000 a call for proposals to select the Italian cities eligible for finance under that Initiative.

That announcement correctly reflected the eligibility criteria set out in the Commission's communication and also gave further details of the arrangements for evaluation and selection used by the Italian Ministry to draw up a general merit ranking of the applications received.

In view of the funding allocated to Urban II in Italy, only the top ten cities in the ranking were eligible for Community finance; the Italian authorities submitted the programmes for them to the Commission in accordance with point 19 of the communication.

As a result, the Commission has no information about whether the municipality of Frosinone submitted projects under Urban II. If it did so, the Commission has no information about why its programme did not put Frosinone in the top ten eligible cities.

(1) COM(2000) 1100 final OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1859/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: European regions' responsibilities as regards compliance with the Stability Pact

The Stability Pact of December 1996 imposes strict budgetary discipline on the Member States. Some Member States find it hard to operate within such financial constraints, and this is certainly true of Member States' regions and federal states.

Does the Commission acknowledge this problem and will it urge Member States to take action against federal states and regions that systematically spend more than is permitted under Stability Pact rules?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Commission acknowledges that the effective respect of the medium-term objective of budgetary positions of close to balance in surplus objective, to which the Stability and Growth Pact commits the Member States, depends on behaviour at all levels of government. Within the framework of multilateral surveillance set out by the EC Treaty and complemented by the Stability and Growth Pact, the Commission has recommended that national governments ensure strict budgetary implementation at all levels of government, where this was a significant issue. The Commission follows with interest developments in Member States aiming at coupling fiscal decentralisation with making sub-national levels of government responsible for the achievement of the overall budgetary objectives. However, national government remains responsible for ensuring the respect of Community law, and this includes the obligations deriving from the Stability and Growth Pact.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3637/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Economic integration

Following the Commission's answer to question E-1816/02(1), will the Commission please note that the question referred to the stock (not the flow) of foreign direct investment in each Member State, and will the Commission please now answer the question posed:

Will the Commission give figures for the most recent available year, for five years previously and for ten years previously, for the stock of quoted equities held by non-residents in each Member State of the Union as a percentage of that Member State's GDP, and will it in addition break down that figure into non-resident holdings of equities held by Member State residents and by non-Member State residents?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 233.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

In the International Investment Position statistics, equity stocks held by non-residents are classified as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) stocks (if the non-resident holds at least 10 % of the equity capital of the enterprise) or as portfolio investment stocks if this is not the case. Both types of stocks refer to quoted and non-quoted shares. Data for Union equity stocks held by non-residents are available only for the FDI part without distinction between quoted and non-quoted shares. They are a subset of total FDI inward stocks, which also include stocks of FDI debt liabilities vis-à-vis non-resident parties.

All data available are given in the table sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat. They are broken down by owner as required (intra-Union/extra-Union) and cover the period from end-1994 to end-2000. The same kind of data is also given at the level of individual Member States, in nearly all cases. Main exceptions are Belgium-Luxembourg and (as concerns the split between intra-Union/extra-Union) also Spain and Ireland. For other Member States, the time series are not complete and/or part of the distinction equity/total FDI is missing. Missing Member States are however counted in the Union aggregate, either on the basis of non-publishable information sent by the Member States concerned, or on the basis of Eurostat estimates made using all available information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3726/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Comenius programme

Is the Commission aware that schools wishing to participate in the Comenius programme are experiencing serious difficulties in finding partners from other EU countries?

Does the Commission intend to take steps to coordinate the exchanges between schools more effectively?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission is not aware of serious difficulties of this nature arising out of the systems in place. The feedback received by the Commission so far would indicate that the systems generally operate in a satisfactory manner.

Comenius 1, the Comenius action relating to school partnerships, has been defined as a decentralised action in the Decision No 253/2000/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 24 January 2000 establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education Socrates(1). Thus, the implementation of decentralised actions is devolved to National Agencies, designated by the national authorities in the participating countries(2).

These National Agencies have the responsibility to inform the target public about the programme and to advise institutions on how to find partners abroad. It is the role of the national authorities to see to it that their National Agency provides the necessary support to interested parties in their country.

Nevertheless, the Commission is co-financing a number of tools aimed at helping schools to find partner institutions abroad, such as the Internet database PartBase, as well as the partner search tool in Comenius Space.

(1) OJ L 28, 3.2.2000.

(2) Address of the National Agency in the United Kingdom:Central Bureau for International Education and TrainingBritish CouncilUK London SW1A 2BN.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2483/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Uncontrolled tuna fishing in Mediterranean waters

Complaints have been made by the small-scale Mediterranean fishery specifically on this occasion by the Association of Fishermen of Carboneras (Almería, Spain) concerning the uncontrolled tuna fishing practised by vessels belonging to certain Mediterranean fish farms. The Association's secretary, Mr Simón Pérez, has stated that its fishermen catch some 500 tonnes per week, while 40 tuna seiners fishing under the French flag (even if for Spanish enterprises) catch 7 000-8 000 tonnes, with the aid of light aircraft which help them locate the fishing grounds.

The local small-scale fleet employs 400 people, who are now anxious that their jobs may disappear thanks to the operations of these seiners, which, according to the Association, transport cages from their farms to the fishing grounds in order to capture the tuna, which they then transfer to the larger cages which have existed for fifteen years now in Cartagena and Mazarrón (Murcia), with the authorisation of Murcia's regional government. The small-scale fishermen's longlines and tackle are destroyed by these cages, which can go down as deep as 35 m.

It appears that these cages are manufactured in Sète and exported from there over a large part of the Mediterranean.

Is the Commission aware of these practices?

What is its opinion on this state of affairs?

What action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

Bluefin tuna management in the Mediterranean is entrusted to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). The Community is a member of both organisations and implements all the management and conservation measures they adopt.

Fattening tuna in cages is a new practice that has been growing in the Mediterranean in the last few years and ICCAT, GFCM and the Community are well aware of this.

ICCAT and GFCM are studying the situation to work out what management measures are essential. The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, is taking an active part in this work. The Community participated in the last joint GFCM/ICCAT meeting on Mediterranean stocks of large pelagic fish, which examined the problem.

The interaction of fishing gear and transported cages is a problem that has to be dealt with at local level. Designating specific routes for boats moving cages into inshore waters might be an effective solution.

The Commission is astonished to hear of catches of 500 tonnes a week by the Cofradía de Pescadores de Carboneras. Such a volume takes Spanish catches well above those authorised and declared to ICCAT by the Spanish authorities. The Commission will enquire into the accuracy of this figure.