ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Funding of the Via Baltica motorway in Poland

The EU is financing the building of a motorway called the Via Baltica. This project is threatening the Biebrza marshes in north-east Poland. This is an area of international scientific interest and includes many habitats listed in Annex I and II to the Habitats Directive.

Is the Commission aware of the damage that the building of this motorway would cause to this sensitive environment, and was the project environmentally assessed in accordance with the terms of the EIA Directive?

What is the Commission's view of this project? In the light of its policy of making the payment of structural funds conditional on respect for the environment, is it prepared to suspend payments until the Polish authorities alter the route chosen and comply with EU environmental laws?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to its responses to written questions P-1648/02 by Mr Huhne(1), E-1694/02 by Mr Meijer(4), E-1968/02 by Mr Davies(2) and E-2284/02 by Mr Xarchakos and Mr Dimitrakopoulos(3), confirming that neither PHARE nor ISPA funds have been provided for the construction of the Via Baltica across the Biebrza marshes in north-east Poland.

Furthermore, such a project does not feature in neither the ISPA nor the PHARE project pipeline and, therefore, no request for Union support for this particular project has been made by the Polish authorities. Should the Commission receive such a request, the project will be examined in the light of the relevant Community environmental rules. It is the position of the Commission that all candidate countries should apply and implement the provisions of the environmental acquis, including nature protection, already during the pre-accession period.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 201.

(2) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 181.

(3) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 20.

(4) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 201.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2447/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject: Lone Worker protection

Is the Commission proposing any new legislation concerning the health and safety of Lone Workers?

If so, can it specify what it is planning to do?

If not, is it likely to consider proposing legislation on this subject at some point in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

The Community health and safety of workers at work directives, more than 30, are applicable to lone workers. Especially, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(1), which contains general principles concerning the prevention of occupational risks, the protection of safety and health, the elimination of risk and accident factors, the information, consultation, balanced participation and training of workers and their representatives. All of these principles are applicable to lone workers.

The same Directive points out, among the employers' obligations, the need to produce a workplace risk assessment and to develop a coherent prevention policy which covers technology, work organization, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors related to the working environment. This enables the prevention policy to be tailored to workers' health and safety needs, including those of lone workers.

Another employers' obligation established by the Directive is the need to adapt the work to the individual, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and to reducing their effect on health. This is an issue of a great relevance for lone workers.

Therefore, the Commission does not intend to propose new legislation concerning the health and safety of lone workers, as they are already covered by the existing health and safety directives.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3720/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Trinidad and Tobago

With reference to Trinidad and Tobago, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3710/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Zambia

With reference to Zambia, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Solomon Islands

With regard to the Solomon Islands, can the Commission supply a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001, specifying the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2457/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Clarification of the answer to Written Question P-2104/02 on Violations of the rule of law and democracy in Italy and Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU

The TEU stipulates that the Commission may propose to the Council that it determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1) but does not, in other words, oblige the Commission to do so.

The Italian Constitutional Court operated without the full complement of 15 members required by the Constitution and was convened and handed down rulings with 13 members between 21 November 2000 and 24 April 2002, which undoubtedly amounts to a considerable time.

Politically legitimate though it may be, the agreement to which the Commission refers in its answer to Written Question P-2104/02(1) is plainly unconstitutional because, under a mandatory provision of the Constitution, the Chamber of Deputies has to have 630 members, whereas the agreement states that the Chamber will consist of 617 members for the current parliamentary term.

The Commission:

- Has it had the opportunity to discuss the Italian situation, especially in the light of the manifest and prolonged violation of the Italian Constitution, as described above, with a view to deciding whether it should propose that the Council determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1)? If so, what has made it decide not to propose that the Council determine that the principles concerned have been breached? If not, does the Commission believe that violations of the kind described fall outside the responsibilities conferred on it for the purposes of the TEU;

- How does it proceed in order to ascertain whether breaches have occurred, or can it answer the question already put to it, namely [does] it already [have] or is [it] considering acquiring any instruments to monitor respect for the principles referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 186.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-2104/02(1)

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 186.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Lack of consistency and coherence in EU fisheries legislation

The Commission's recent legislative proposals COM(2001) 764 and COM(2002) 108, are seriously inconsistent with the existing Community legislation and are, besides, internally inconsistent.

In the titles of the documents, the Commission, instead of using the straightforward term deep-sea species, speaks of deep-sea [fish] stocks; the references to the ICES and CECAF geographical areas are inconsistent with those in the earlier legislation; and even in their listing of species eligible for quotas and the corresponding amounts, and their non-inclusion of key species such as wreckfish, these legislative proposals are marred by serious defects which could have extremely adverse consequences for the Azores.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to take proper account (meaning more than a pro forma consultation) of the views of the political and economic agents involved, before drawing up proposals whose implementation will, as in this case, be of major significance for a given region?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

It is a major concern to assure the sustainable exploitation of deep-water species, and the Commission has proposed measures consistent with scientific advice about the state of these species and the fisheries that they can sustain. This is the case for all sea areas concerned, including the Azores.

However, there is no current scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea nor from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries concerning wreckfish, and accordingly the Commission has not made conservation proposals concerning this species at this time.

The Portuguese version of the deep-sea species regulations will be amended to take into account the language issue that is referred to.

Consideration of economic and political factors has its place in the fish stock management process, but the first and most important step must be to ensure that fisheries development is sustainable. Once sustainability is assured, then rational decisions about fisheries exploitation can be made. In any case, the Commission will consult the relevant industry sectors in respect of the development of conservation policy in respect of deep-sea species.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3725/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Chad

With reference to Chad, will the Commission draw up a list of the projects approved for financing under the 2001 EU budget and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3723/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Vanuatu

With reference to Vanuatu, will the Commission draw up a list of the projects approved for financing under the 2001 EU budget and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1957/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Import of goods into the EU

What restrictions, if any, apply to the import of goods into the EU which are made and manufactured in North Korea, but exported from South Korea?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(21 August 2002)

Trade with North Korea is subject to normal trading rules for industrial goods exports to the Union for all sectors, except for textiles and clothing where North Korean exports are subject to a tight regime: only if quotas are opened are their imports into the Union allowed. Such regime was improved in 2000, with increased quotas for a number of textile categories(1). Otherwise, North Korean non-textile exports to the Union are not subject to any restrictions and are subject to most favoured nation (MFN) tariffs.

No particular restriction would therefore apply to imports of products manufactured in North Korea but exported via South Korea, except if these concerned textiles, where the Union autonomous regime vis-à-vis North Korea would still apply. In this respect it should be noted that Union trade in textiles with South Korea is subject to a different more liberal regime based on a bilateral agreement.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) 2878 of 28 December 2000 OJ L 333, 29.12.2000, amending Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Community import rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3492/02

by Renzo Imbeni (PSE) to the Council

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Adapting the occupation of customs agent in response to EU enlargement

EU enlargement will lead to the abolition of customs formalities relating to trade with the new countries, which will then be part of the Union. Will the Council say whether or not such abolition will be gradual and whether or not customs documents will continue to be issued in respect of trade with those countries, such as the T2 form for goods under the internal Community transit scheme which are transported across one of the countries concerned?

If there is to be wholesale abolition of customs facilities, would the Council be in favour of a regulation laying down Community flanking measures for the benefit of customs agents, including special initiatives additional to the Structural Fund measures?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council confirms that the new Member States will have to implement the acquis on customs issues from the day of EU Membership.

All acceding States have committed themselves to take the necessary steps in order to transpose and implement the acquis in this sector well in advance of accession and to adapt their administrative capabilities accordingly. Special emphasis will be paid to effective border management, the introduction of new technologies, customs ethics and cooperation between all relevant services of the administration.

It is up to each acceding State to take the necessary steps in this regard, including redeployment and re-training and to approach to the Commission concerning the funding of relevant initiatives.

It is suggested to the Honourable Member to address questions related to practical details to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3136/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Route for oversized loads

The French Government has decided to create a route for oversized loads between Bordeaux and Toulouse to carry the parts for Airbus A380, and also to construct a special roadway for oversized loads. This route makes an incomprehensible detour via Barbotan Les Thèrmes, although there is a direct route which is 7 km shorter.

Given that:

- Barbotan is a spa employing 1 700 people, which would suffer from the reduction in its activities that the major disruption of the road would cause;

- the Barbotan site has already been suggested to the Commission as a site of Community interest and is home to a number of notable species, one of which is a priority species under the Habitats directive;

- structural funds have been granted to promote the development of the spa and help preserve the environment,

does the Commission not take the view that this route is being created in violation of Community environmental law, more specifically Directives 79/409/EEC(1) and 92/43/EEC(2)? Can the Commission tell me if structural funds and/or EIB loans have been allocated to the building of this route for oversized loads between Bordeaux and Toulouse? If so, would this not be in contradiction with the funding for environmental protection? What steps does the Commission intend to take to help modify this route in order to comply with the environmental directives?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2002)

The Commission very recently received two complaints concerning the project the Honourable Member is referring to for a wide route between Bordeaux et Toulouse to carry parts for the Airbus A 380. It is currently examining whether the project is in any way incompatible with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 may 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Having examined the information contained in the complaint files, the Commission will take the necessary steps to ensure that Community environment law is observed.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that no Community financing is involved in this project.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2950/02

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Information network on education in Europe

The initiative undertaken by the Commission to create a network of national academic recognition information centres (NARIC) in 1984 demonstrates the EU's intention to provide advice and reliable information on the academic recognition and validity of degrees, diplomas and study periods abroad. This initiative has encouraged mobility amongst students in Europe.

Since 1984 improvements and new aims have been introduced, including first and foremost the specific desire on the part of ministers from more than 30 countries to create, by 2010, a European higher education area as referred to in the Bologna Declaration to facilitate the direct comparison of degrees.

With regard primarily to the effectiveness of the centres in the NARIC network and the results achieved by them: Will the Commission provide figures on the number of pupils who have approached the network to obtain information on the recognition of qualifications?

Can it give details as to the outcome of these queries and the advice provided at the offices in the Member States?

If so, how long does it take on average for a reply to be given to a query?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

The Commission does not have at present reliable statistics on the issues raised by the Honourable Member, which would only be available from individual Narics. The Commission will examine, on the basis of recent surveys, whether such statistics can be elaborated and will not hesitate to inform Parliament on its findings.