do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/02 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Nuclear waste management.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU research policy, non-governmental organisation, nuclear research, radioactive waste, research body, scientific cooperation, waste management

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/253

(2002/C 301 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1961/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Management and disposal of radioactive waste

(3 July 2002)

In respect of the statement included in the Commission press release IP/02/872 on 17 June 2002 which
said the nuclear fission programme ‘will focus on the management and disposal of radioactive waste and
foster close research cooperation between EU national waste management agencies,’ will the Commission
explain why it has not included independent research institutes and non-governmental experts in the list of
those bodies the Commission wishes to foster close research coordination?

(2002/C 301 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Nuclear waste management

In respect of the statement included in the Commission press release IP/02/872 on 17 June 2002 that, ‘As
far as nuclear waste management is concerned, each Member State will be in charge of its own strategy
and build its own facilities, but the cooperation with the Commission will ensure a harmonised approach
across Europe, and the pooling of world-class expertise,’ will the Commission state all of the bodies from
which it intends to draw expertise?

(2002/C 301 E/272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1963/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Participation in the co-ordination of EU nuclear research

In respect of the statement included in the Commission press release IP/02/872 on 17 June 2002 which
said The Euratom Research Framework Programme ‘sets the conditions for creating a true European
Research Area in the nuclear sector and paves the way for more efficient co-ordination of existing research
activities in Member States.’ Will
the Commission state which (a) non governmental organisations;
(b) EU-independent research institutes not part of the nuclear industry; and (c) academic institutes not
contracted with the nuclear generation industry will be asked to participate in the co-ordination of EU
nuclear research?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1961/02, E-1962/02 and E-1963/02
given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

The Euratom Research Framework Programme contributes to the establishment of the European Research
Area in the nuclear sector, and thereby for the efficient pooling of expertise and co-ordination of existing
research activities in the Member States. The programme is open to any legal entity, that is performing
research in the areas covered by the Programme, and fulfils the Rules for Participation. All legal entities
fulfilling these requirements, national waste management agencies, nuclear industry, universities and other
research organisations will be invited.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2071/02 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European Region of the Year.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Region, European cultural event

C 92 E/132

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

The principle of differentiation whereby the individual candidate countries are judged solely on their own
merits remains fully applicable. The European Council in autumn 2002 will therefore decide, on the basis
of the Regular Reports to be submitted by the Commission, which will be the candidate countries with
which negotiations can be concluded at the end of 2002. Furthermore, only those countries which
successfully conclude negotiations on the basis of the principle of differentiation will be party to the Treaty
of Accession.

By virtue of Article 49, first paragraph of the TEU, the applications from those countries are subject to the
assent of the European Parliament.

(2003/C 92 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2071/02

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: European Region of the Year

(8 July 2002)

Does the Commission know the organisation called ‘European Region of the Year’ and if so, can it confirm
whether this organisation has anything in common with the designation of European cultural capitals
which the Council decides on according to a binding legal basis.

Can the Commission confirm whether its President Romano Prodi has backed this initiative on the
Commission’s behalf or has granted it any institutional support and, if so, on what legal basis?

Can it confirm that Mr Prodi is a seconded member of the organisation or of the international panel which
chose the Balearics and Karelia as the European regions for the year 2003? If not, has any other
Commissioner or Commission official been delegated to replace him?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2002)

The Commission was informed of the existence of the body entitled Organization of the European Region
of the Year through a letter from its President to the Commission President. This organisation has nothing
at all to do with the process of designating European cultural capitals.

The Organization of the European Region of the Year is a body governed by private law. It has received no
support from the Commission.

An official of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy was invited in a personal capacity
to serve on the jury to name the European region of the year. Only three regions (Karelia, Balearics,
Lower Danube) submitted application files and since none of the three proposals met all the criteria set by
the organisation it has decided to issue a fresh call for applications in the hope of obtaining enough to
make a choice on a wider basis.

(2003/C 92 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 July 2002)

Subject: European border police force

The Presidency Conclusions from the Seville Summit make reference to a ‘European border police force’.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2002 of 8 July 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2540/2001 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1148/2001 as regards conformity checks at the stage of import applicable to fresh fruit and vegetables
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: food inspection, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, marketing standard, preparation for market, quality standard

L 179/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.7.2002

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1225/2002

of 8 July 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 2540/2001 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1148/2001 as regards
conformity checks at the stage of import applicable to fresh fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28
October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in
fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Commission Regula-
tion (EC) No 545/2002 (2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2540/2001 (3) tempora-
rily extends the scope of Article 6(4) of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1148/2001 of 12 June 2001 on
checks on conformity to the marketing standards applic-
able to fresh fruit and vegetables (4), as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 2379/2001 (5), to cover all lots, irre-
spective of weight, with a low risk of non-conformity.

At the time Regulation (EC) No 2540/2001 was adopted,
the Commission had approved checking operations at
the point of export in accordance with Article 7 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 1148/2001 in only one third country.
Since that date, the Commission has approved checking
operations in three new third countries. However, a

number of other requests from third countries are still
being examined but will not be able to be approved
before the second half of 2002. Under these circum-
stances, application of Regulation (EC) No 2540/2001
should be extended for a period of six months.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
the Management
accordance with the opinion of
Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2540/2001, ‘30 June 2002’
is replaced by ‘31 December 2002’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 July 2002.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 July 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 84, 28.3.2002, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 79.
(4) OJ L 156, 13.6.2001, p. 9.
(5) OJ L 321, 6.12.2001, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Sale and marketing of tobacco products.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canada, consumer survey, marketing, public awareness campaign, public health, tobacco, visual arts

C 28 E/162

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

(2003/C 28 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Sale and marketing of tobacco products

Has the Commission made, or does it intend to make, any assessment of the effectiveness (in terms of
discouraging smoking or raising public awareness of health issues) of the use in Canada since 1 January
2001 of colour illustrations and warnings on cigarette packs?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In the course of the preparatory work for the Commission’s Decision on the rules for the use of colour
photographs,
(in terms of
the Commission will evaluate the research assessing the effectiveness
discouraging smoking and raising public awareness of health issues) of the Canadian system in use since
1 January 2001. The Canadian regime calls for the inclusion of colour photographs or other illustrations
inside the health warning areas covering 50 per cent of the display surface.

(2003/C 28 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1972/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Waste-water depuration plant at Novelda (cid:1) Monforte del Cid, Valencia Region

The Novelda depuration plant at Monforte del Cid (Region of Valencia) was included in the National
Waste-water Depuration Plan by means of an agreement signed on 27 February 1995 (Official Bulletin 16/
12/95) and declared to be of public interest. Since then no project has emerged, although it will serve a
population of more than 30 000 people, who at present have no alternative but to discharge their waste
water into the already contaminated river Vinalopó. This situation is in blatant contravention of Council
Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, Articles 3 and 4 of
which set a deadline of 31 December 2000 for this size of population to be provided with waste-water
collection and depuration systems.

In view of this blatant infringement, what steps will the Commission take to remedy the problem and
improve the situation?

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1) lays down clear
objectives as regards deadlines and the environmental targets to be achieved.

It should be noted that urban areas with a population equivalent (p.e.) (2) above 15 000 must have
secondary (i.e. biological) collection and treatment systems at the latest by 31 December 2000.

The Commission is currently checking whether all major urban areas in the EU comply with the above
Directive and may shortly initiate infringement procedures against Member States in which delays have
caused the date specified to be missed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2003/02 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Namibia.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, Namibia, activity report, aid policy, exchange of information, investment, statistics

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/109

(2003/C 92 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2001/02

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

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Mozambique

With respect to Mozambique, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from
the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year’s investment total?

(2003/C 92 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/02

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

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Namibia

With respect to Namibia, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

(2003/C 92 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2003/02

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

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Namibia

With respect to Namibia, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the
EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year’s investment total?

(2003/C 92 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2004/02

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

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Nauru

With respect to Nauru, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

(2003/C 92 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2005/02

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

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Nauru

With respect to Nauru, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU
budget in 2001 and indicate that year’s investment total?