ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C46E Volume 44 of the European Communities 13 February 2001
English edition Information and Notices
Notice No Contents Page
I (Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(2001/C 46 E/001) E-1926/99 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Shortcomings in the ‘Casa de Campo’ improvement project in Madrid (Supplementary Answer) ...... 1
(2001/C 46 E/002) E-2036/99 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Knorr Bremse and European funding (Supplementary Answer) ...... 2
(2001/C 46 E/003) E-2629/99 by Francesco Speroni, Umberto Bossi and Gian Gobbo to the Commission Subject: Participation of the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, in the international summit of the left .2
(2001/C 46 E/004) P-2711/99 by Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Noise pollution ...... 3
(2001/C 46 E/005) P-0100/00 by Theresa Zabell to the Commission Subject: Social security arrangements for sportsmen and women ...... 4
(2001/C 46 E/006) E-0183/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Pollution of the ground water in various regions of Greece ...... 4
(2001/C 46 E/007) E-0194/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Community funds ...... 5
(2001/C 46 E/008) E-0337/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Implementation of the second Community support framework ...... 7
(2001/C 46 E/009) E-0366/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez to the Commission Subject: Inability to provide data on tuna fillet imports ...... 7
(2001/C 46 E/010) E-0408/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Different rates of import duty for Alaska pollack and hoki (longtail hake) (7,5 %) ...... 8 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/011) E-0420/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Indicative allocation of ERDF resources earmarked for investment in Galicia as an Objective I region during the 200-2006 period ...... 9 (2001/C 46 E/012) E-0505/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers ...... 10 (2001/C 46 E/013) E-0527/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Abolition of duty-free and tax privileges for diplomats ...... 11 (2001/C 46 E/014) E-0546/00 by William Newton Dunn to the Commission Subject: Welfare of laying hens ...... 11 (2001/C 46 E/015) E-0553/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Consumption of the meat of endangered primates ...... 12 (2001/C 46 E/016) E-0562/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Legislation and the manufacturing industry ...... 13 (2001/C 46 E/017) E-0566/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Implications of asymmetrical legal position of ownership ...... 14 (2001/C 46 E/018) E-0570/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Extension of qualified majority voting ...... 15 (2001/C 46 E/019) E-0589/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: European sustainable transport policy ...... 16 (2001/C 46 E/020) E-0592/00 by Margrietus van den Berg and Jan Wiersma to the Commission Subject: The Moluccas ...... 16 (2001/C 46 E/021) E-0605/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Possibility of granting the outermost regions permanent Objective 1 status ...... 17 (2001/C 46 E/022) E-0608/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Lack of a left-luggage facility at Malaga airport ...... 18 (2001/C 46 E/023) E-0614/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Language use in the provision of information to consumers ...... 19 (2001/C 46 E/024) E-0630/00 by María Ayuso González to the Commission Subject: Companies in receipt of export refunds ...... 21 (2001/C 46 E/025) E-0631/00 by María Ayuso González to the Commission Subject: Consequences of abolishing export refunds for certain sectors of agriculture ...... 21 (2001/C 46 E/026) E-0633/00 by María Ayuso González to the Commission Subject: The social and economic effects which the progressive withdrawal of export refunds would have on the processing and export sector ...... 22
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0631/00 and E-0633/00 ...... 22 (2001/C 46 E/027) P-0638/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Aid for farmers ...... 22 (2001/C 46 E/028) P-0640/00 by Lissy Gröner to the Commission Subject: Access to the EU interpreting service ...... 23 (2001/C 46 E/029) E-0648/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Genetically modified seeds ...... 25 (2001/C 46 E/030) E-0650/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Regional policy ...... 26 (2001/C 46 E/031) E-0655/00 by Michel Rocard to the Council Subject: International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention on the ‘worst forms of child labour’ (No 182) .... 27 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/032) E-0685/00 by Andrew Duff to the Commission Subject: IGC ...... 28 (2001/C 46 E/033) E-0686/00 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop to the Commission Subject: State aid from the Spanish Government to the electricity sector ...... 28 (2001/C 46 E/034) E-0701/00 by Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Rules on information ...... 29 (2001/C 46 E/035) E-0710/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Implementation of the electricity directive ...... 30 (2001/C 46 E/036) E-0717/00 by Carlos Carnero González to the Commission Subject: Preparations for the Eighth summit on progress and development in Equatorial Guinea ...... 31 (2001/C 46 E/037) P-0735/00 by Anneli Hulthén to the Commission Subject: Fishing agreement with the Baltic States ...... 33 (2001/C 46 E/038) E-0736/00 by Karin Scheele to the Commission Subject: Sinking of the oil tanker ‘Erika’ in December 1999 ...... 34 (2001/C 46 E/039) E-0741/00 by Jannis Sakellariou to the Commission Subject: Municipal enterprises and fair competition ...... 35 (2001/C 46 E/040) E-0744/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Support for South Tyrolese citizens sentenced by Italian courts in breach of the provisions of the European Human Rights Convention ...... 36 (2001/C 46 E/041) E-0745/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: EU health, Aids and population policies ...... 37 (2001/C 46 E/042) E-0746/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: EU health, Aids and population policies ...... 37
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0745/00 and E-0746/00 ...... 38 (2001/C 46 E/043) E-0753/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Regional funding for southeast Ireland ...... 38 (2001/C 46 E/044) E-0765/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Tax reforms in Southern Africa ...... 39 (2001/C 46 E/045) P-0769/00 by Maria Carrilho to the Commission Subject: Mozambique ...... 40 (2001/C 46 E/046) E-0774/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Council Subject: Funding of the meeting of Ministers of Defence ...... 41 (2001/C 46 E/047) E-0783/00 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez to the Commission Subject: Checks on the use of vegetable fats ...... 41 (2001/C 46 E/048) E-0784/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Compliance with environmental priorities and Sogama plan ...... 42 (2001/C 46 E/049) E-0785/00 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the Commission Subject: Failure by DG XIII to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival ...... 43 (2001/C 46 E/050) P-0792/00 by W.G. van Velzen to the Commission Subject: Data protection ...... 44 (2001/C 46 E/051) E-0796/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Transport of farm animals ...... 45 (2001/C 46 E/052) E-0798/00 by Sami Naïr to the Commission Subject: Commission communication on its strategic objectives 2000-20005 and work programme for the year 2000 (COM(2000) 154 final) ...... 46 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/053) P-0807/00 by Elizabeth Montfort to the Commission Subject: Financial assistance to disaster areas in the Auvergne region of France ...... 48 (2001/C 46 E/054) E-0814/00 by Agnes Schierhuber and Xaver Mayer to the Commission Subject: Transhumance of cattle ...... 49 (2001/C 46 E/055) E-0820/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act ...... 50 (2001/C 46 E/056) E-0821/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act ...... 51
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0820/00 and E-0821/00 ...... 51 (2001/C 46 E/057) P-0829/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Field margin regulations leading to environmental damage (Supplementary Answer) ...... 52 (2001/C 46 E/058) P-0830/00 by Maria Berger to the Commission Subject: Interception of international telecommunications ...... 53 (2001/C 46 E/059) P-0831/00 by Claude Desama to the Commission Subject: Regulation 2790/1999 providing for a block exemption for vertical agreements ...... 55 (2001/C 46 E/060) E-0833/00 by Bertel Haarder to the Commission Subject: Right to apply for compensation for expropriated property in Poland ...... 56 (2001/C 46 E/061) E-0835/00 by Anna Karamanou to the Council Subject: Environmental damage inflicted on the Danube and neighbouring regions by NATO bombing ...... 57 (2001/C 46 E/062) E-0838/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Use of chemical substances against demonstrators ...... 57 (2001/C 46 E/063) E-0843/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Human resources in the Commission’s Transport Directorate-General ...... 58 (2001/C 46 E/064) E-0844/00 by María Rodríguez Ramos and Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Exports of tomatoes from the Kingdom of Morocco ...... 58 (2001/C 46 E/065) E-0845/00 by Astrid Lulling to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of the conditions of production of family fruit growers and family producers of natural spirit ...... 59 (2001/C 46 E/066) E-0848/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the Council Subject: Action of the European Union against landmines ...... 60 (2001/C 46 E/067) E-0852/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Mozambique ...... 62 (2001/C 46 E/068) E-0859/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Construction of a bottling plant on the island of La Gomera (Canaries, Spain) ...... 63 (2001/C 46 E/069) E-0861/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Problems arising in multinational research programmes funded by the European Union ...... 65 (2001/C 46 E/070) E-0866/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Protection of consumers against the deficiencies of audio equipment incorporating the new DAB technology ...... 67 (2001/C 46 E/071) E-0874/00 by Lucio Manisco to the Council Subject: Embargo against Iraq and the price of oil ...... 68 (2001/C 46 E/072) E-0880/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Sea transport: European accident ...... 69 (2001/C 46 E/073) E-0882/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Fraud investigation at the Stockholm office ...... 70 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/074) E-0887/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium ...... 70 (2001/C 46 E/075) E-0889/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium ...... 71 (2001/C 46 E/076) P-0899/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Taxation Policy Group ...... 72 (2001/C 46 E/077) E-0900/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Medicines for children ...... 74 (2001/C 46 E/078) E-0903/00 by Anna Karamanou and Minerva Malliori to the Council Subject: Steep rise in drug abuse among European schoolchildren ...... 74 (2001/C 46 E/079) E-0904/00 by Anna Karamanou and Minerva Malliori to the Commission Subject: Steep rise in drug abuse among European schoolchildren ...... 75 (2001/C 46 E/080) E-0907/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Polluting activities of olive kernel oil plant in Crete ...... 76 (2001/C 46 E/081) E-0908/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Council Subject: Referendum in Western Sahara ...... 77 (2001/C 46 E/082) E-0912/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Viagra ...... 77 (2001/C 46 E/083) E-0915/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Repeal of legislation ...... 78 (2001/C 46 E/084) P-0926/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the Commission Subject: New relations between the EU and Indonesia ...... 79 (2001/C 46 E/085) P-0930/00 by Stefano Zappalà to the Commission Subject: Earthquake victims in Lazio ...... 81 (2001/C 46 E/086) E-0934/00 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the Commission Subject: Commission’s responsibility for monitoring the cross-border shipment of large quantities of hazardous waste from Hungary into EU Member States ...... 82 (2001/C 46 E/087) E-0938/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Community aid for the processing of grape juices (DG Agriculture) ...... 83 (2001/C 46 E/088) E-0940/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Turin and the Italian proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas ...... 84 (2001/C 46 E/089) E-0941/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Ban on the use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood ...... 85 (2001/C 46 E/090) E-0942/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Ban on the Use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood ...... 86 (2001/C 46 E/091) E-0944/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Commission Subject: Renewable energy ...... 88 (2001/C 46 E/092) E-0945/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Release of airspace ...... 89 (2001/C 46 E/093) E-0954/00 by Giles Chichester to the Commission Subject: MCI Worldcom/Sprint telecoms merger ...... 90 (2001/C 46 E/094) E-0955/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Production of nuts in Catalonia ...... 91 (2001/C 46 E/095) E-0962/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Hazelnut production in Catalonia ...... 92 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0955/00 and E-0962/00 ...... 92 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/096) E-0960/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Support for venture capital firms in the EU ...... 93 (2001/C 46 E/097) E-0965/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Community aid to scrapyards ...... 94 (2001/C 46 E/098) E-0967/00 by Colette Flesch to the Commission Subject: New technology training ...... 95 (2001/C 46 E/099) E-0968/00 by Stefano Zappalà, Antonio Tajani, Francesco Fiori, Giuseppe Gargani, Enrico Ferri, Giorgio Lisi, Mario Mauro, Amalia Sartori, Raffaele Costa, Raffaele Fitto, Mario Man- tovani, Francesco Musotto and Jas Gawronski to the Commission Subject: Dog fights ...... 96 (2001/C 46 E/100) E-0969/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Extraction and marketing of sand from the River Lima ...... 97 (2001/C 46 E/101) E-0970/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Construction of an incinerator at Meia Serra ...... 98 (2001/C 46 E/102) E-0971/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Extraction and marketing of sand from the Aveiro estuary ...... 98 (2001/C 46 E/103) E-0974/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Relations between the European Union and Iran ...... 99 (2001/C 46 E/104) E-0991/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: New issue procedures ...... 100 (2001/C 46 E/105) E-0996/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety ...... 101 (2001/C 46 E/106) E-0999/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Ferry services in remote areas ...... 102 (2001/C 46 E/107) E-1012/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Regulation, import and possession of dangerous animals ...... 102 (2001/C 46 E/108) E-1014/00 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: Limestone quarrying, concrete, cement and asphalt plant in the Tavira region of the Algarve ...... 103 (2001/C 46 E/109) E-1017/00 by Struan Stevenson to the Commission Subject: Transfer of surplus EU fishing vessels to third world countries ...... 104 (2001/C 46 E/110) E-1018/00 by Jean-Claude Martinez to the Council Subject: Community preference for nuts, chestnuts and carob beans ...... 105 (2001/C 46 E/111) E-1019/00 by Lucio Manisco to the Council Subject: Five cases of torture and violation of human rights in Turkey ...... 106 (2001/C 46 E/112) P-1023/00 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Payment of co-responsibility levy ...... 106 (2001/C 46 E/113) E-1031/00 by Ulla Sandbæk to the Commission Subject: Petrol and MTBE ...... 107 (2001/C 46 E/114) E-1036/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Fall in the water table in the Les Marínes region (Valencia, Spain) ...... 108 (2001/C 46 E/115) E-1040/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Financial aid to the British oil industry ...... 109 (2001/C 46 E/116) E-1041/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Financial aid for the French oil industry ...... 110 (2001/C 46 E/117) E-1042/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Financial support for the Italian oil industry ...... 110 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1040/00, E-1041/00 and E-1042/00 ...... 110 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/118) E-1046/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: EPAC restructuring plans ...... 111 (2001/C 46 E/119) E-1050/00 by Ole Krarup to the Commission Subject: Cost of changeover to euro ...... 111 (2001/C 46 E/120) E-1053/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Draft proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of pedestrians and other road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle ...... 112 (2001/C 46 E/121) E-1055/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Cyprus ...... 112 (2001/C 46 E/122) E-1058/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the Commission Subject: Exemptions from the ban on leaded petrol ...... 113 (2001/C 46 E/123) E-1059/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrente, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia) ...... 114 (2001/C 46 E/124) E-1064/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Registration of GMOs in the USA based on deception and the misrepresentation of evidence ...... 115 (2001/C 46 E/125) E-1070/00 by Gianfranco Fini and Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Objective 2 funding for Viterbo and the surrounding province ...... 116 (2001/C 46 E/126) P-1072/00 by Salvador Jové Peres to the Commission Subject: Reform of the system of aid for cotton ...... 117 (2001/C 46 E/127) E-1078/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Failure to publish the ‘explanatory directive’ of 19 July 1999 (COM(1999) 372 final) in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities ...... 118 (2001/C 46 E/128) E-1081/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Taking account of protests at the devastation of residential and natural areas by the construction of a dam in the Spanish region of Navarre ...... 119 (2001/C 46 E/129) E-1083/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Reservoir at Caldas, Cuntis and Moraña (Galicia, Spain) ...... 120 (2001/C 46 E/130) E-1087/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez to the Commission Subject: Problems peculiar to the Italian canning industry ...... 121 (2001/C 46 E/131) E-1094/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Cotton-growing in Greece ...... 122 (2001/C 46 E/132) E-1100/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The use of Nandrolone ...... 123 (2001/C 46 E/133) E-1102/00 by María Izquierdo Rojo to the Commission Subject: Promotion of quality beef in Spain ...... 123 (2001/C 46 E/134) E-1104/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Synthetic drugs and consequences for health ...... 124 (2001/C 46 E/135) E-1105/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Effects of exposure to asbestos ...... 125 (2001/C 46 E/136) E-1117/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Competition in the Spanish electricity sector ...... 126 (2001/C 46 E/137) E-1119/00 by Lucio Manisco to the Council Subject: Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey ...... 126 (2001/C 46 E/138) E-1121/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 127 (2001/C 46 E/139) E-1124/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 128 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/140) E-1126/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 128 (2001/C 46 E/141) E-1129/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 128 (2001/C 46 E/142) E-1130/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 129 (2001/C 46 E/143) E-1131/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 129 (2001/C 46 E/144) E-1132/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 129 (2001/C 46 E/145) E-1135/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 130 (2001/C 46 E/146) E-1136/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 130 (2001/C 46 E/147) E-1137/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 130 (2001/C 46 E/148) E-1138/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 131 (2001/C 46 E/149) E-1139/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 131 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 ...... 132 (2001/C 46 E/150) E-1123/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 132 (2001/C 46 E/151) E-1125/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 133 (2001/C 46 E/152) E-1133/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 133 (2001/C 46 E/153) E-1134/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 134
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1125/00, E-1133/00 and E-1134/00 ...... 134 (2001/C 46 E/154) E-1154/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 135 (2001/C 46 E/155) E-1163/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 136 (2001/C 46 E/156) E-1164/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 136
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1163/00 and E-1164/00 ...... 136 (2001/C 46 E/157) E-1165/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority ...... 137 (2001/C 46 E/158) E-1172/00 by Marialiese Flemming to the Commission Subject: Age discrimination in health care ...... 138 (2001/C 46 E/159) E-1177/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Council Subject: EU enlargement and regions ...... 139 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/160) E-1178/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: EU enlargement and the regions ...... 139 (2001/C 46 E/161) P-1192/00 by Antonio Di Pietro to the Commission Subject: Closure of the SGL Carbon plant in Ascoli Piceno ...... 140 (2001/C 46 E/162) E-1194/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Illegal slaughter of sheep in France ...... 141 (2001/C 46 E/163) E-1195/00 by William Newton Dunn to the Council Subject: Religious persecution in India ...... 142 (2001/C 46 E/164) E-1196/00 by William Newton Dunn to the Commission Subject: Religious persecution in India ...... 143 (2001/C 46 E/165) E-1203/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack carried out by the Turkish army ...... 143 (2001/C 46 E/166) E-1204/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack carried out by the Turkish army ...... 144 (2001/C 46 E/167) E-1205/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack carried out by the Turkish army ...... 145 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00 ...... 146 (2001/C 46 E/168) E-1211/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Deutsche Post and the German Government ...... 146 (2001/C 46 E/169) E-1212/00 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission Subject: Fire resistance standards for furniture in the single market ...... 147 (2001/C 46 E/170) E-1217/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Employment, education, and geographical mobility: the Galician situation ...... 148 (2001/C 46 E/171) E-1226/00 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the Commission Subject: Environment ...... 149 (2001/C 46 E/172) E-1232/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Presence of regions such as Galicia at meetings of the Fisheries Council of the European Union ...... 149 (2001/C 46 E/173) P-1233/00 by Rosemarie Müller to the Commission Subject: Emergency phone number in the EU ...... 150 (2001/C 46 E/174) E-1238/00 by Karin Scheele to the Commission Subject: Legal classification of tattooing dyes ...... 151 (2001/C 46 E/175) E-1239/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Postal rates in Germany ...... 152 (2001/C 46 E/176) E-1241/00 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: Provisions of the working time directive ...... 153 (2001/C 46 E/177) E-1242/00 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: Teachers and the working time directive ...... 154 (2001/C 46 E/178) E-1244/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Ministerial concessions for radio-relay systems frequencies ...... 155 (2001/C 46 E/179) E-1248/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Council Subject: Turkish ‘green passports’ ...... 155 (2001/C 46 E/180) E-1249/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Turkish ‘green passports’ ...... 156 (2001/C 46 E/181) E-1252/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the Commission Subject: Tar content of tobacco in Greece ...... 157 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/182) E-1253/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Guidelines of 19 July 1999 (COM(1999) 372 final) concerning the free movement of Community citizens in the European Union ...... 158
(2001/C 46 E/183) P-1262/00 by Mogens Camre to the Commission Subject: Thought control directed against the EU Member States ...... 159
(2001/C 46 E/184) P-1264/00 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: Animal waste incineration ...... 160
(2001/C 46 E/185) P-1265/00 by Hugues Martin to the Commission Subject: Clarification regarding the admissibility of special export aid under Community law ...... 161
(2001/C 46 E/186) E-1276/00 by Jan Andersson to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s plans for promoting lifelong learning agreements ...... 161
(2001/C 46 E/187) P-1281/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Export of waste to third countries/Basle Convention ...... 162
(2001/C 46 E/188) E-1284/00 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Rescue flight contracts with the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions ...... 164
(2001/C 46 E/189) E-1293/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Limited companies annual accounts on the Internet ...... 165
(2001/C 46 E/190) E-1298/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Animal testing for cosmetics ...... 165
(2001/C 46 E/191) E-1299/00 by Charles Tannock to the Council Subject: Ability of Council to answer Parliamentary questions on time ...... 166
(2001/C 46 E/192) E-1300/00 by Charles Tannock to the Council Subject: Solutions to the Council’s frequent inability to answer Parliamentary questions on time ...... 166
(2001/C 46 E/193) P-1541/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Infringement of Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament ...... 167
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00 ...... 167
(2001/C 46 E/194) E-1303/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: The EU and Austria ...... 167
(2001/C 46 E/195) E-1305/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Question H-0191/00 ...... 168
(2001/C 46 E/196) E-1310/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Labelling of textiles ...... 168
(2001/C 46 E/197) E-1315/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Gianfranco Fini to the Commission Subject: Implementation of Directive 86/653/EEC in Italy ...... 170
(2001/C 46 E/198) P-1324/00 by Astrid Thors to the Commission Subject: Psychological support in the event of major accidents and natural disasters ...... 170
(2001/C 46 E/199) E-1328/00 by María Ayuso González to the Commission Subject: Proposal for an European Parliament and Council regulation on the closure of the ECIP programme . . . 171
(2001/C 46 E/200) E-1336/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Measures to combat high unemployment in the Prefecture of Pieria ...... 172
(2001/C 46 E/201) E-1337/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Merger of Commercial Intertech Corporation with Parker Hannifin Corporation ...... 173
(2001/C 46 E/202) E-1342/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: IAF and the Directorate-General for Competition ...... 173 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/203) E-1349/00 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: Compulsory metrication of British weights and measures (loose goods) ...... 174 (2001/C 46 E/204) E-1353/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Delay by the EU in reaching a decision on an increase of capital for the Santana Motor company .... 175 (2001/C 46 E/205) E-1354/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Research on the work of Estanislao Sánchez Calvo ...... 176 (2001/C 46 E/206) E-1364/00 by Marielle De Sarnez to the Commission Subject: Lifelong training ...... 177 (2001/C 46 E/207) E-1366/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Twinning in the Commission’s work programme ...... 178 (2001/C 46 E/208) P-1446/00 by Massimo Carraro to the Commission Subject: Twinning of towns ...... 178 (2001/C 46 E/209) E-1467/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Town twinning ...... 179 (2001/C 46 E/210) E-1519/00 by Roberto Bigliardo to the Commission Subject: Town twinning in the European Communities ...... 179 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1366/00, P-1446/00, E-1467/00 and E-1519/00 . . 179 (2001/C 46 E/211) P-1373/00 by Sérgio Marques to the Commission Subject: Madeira Free Zone ...... 180 (2001/C 46 E/212) P-1374/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Confidentiality of the data contained in the file relating to the state aid made available to the Spanish electricity sector ...... 181 (2001/C 46 E/213) E-1376/00 by Giles Chichester to the Commission Subject: Payment of a pension to an EU national moving to Australia ...... 182 (2001/C 46 E/214) E-1382/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Positive discrimination in favour of women as a means of promoting equality ...... 183 (2001/C 46 E/215) E-1384/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: The Swedish example as a model for the equality of women in the public sector ...... 184 (2001/C 46 E/216) E-1385/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Education and training as a means of preventing inequality between women and men ...... 185 (2001/C 46 E/217) E-1386/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Expiry of the NOW Programme ...... 185 (2001/C 46 E/218) E-1388/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Measures to promote paternity leave ...... 186 (2001/C 46 E/219) P-1394/00 by Gary Titley to the Commission Subject: Principles of the Single Market ...... 187 (2001/C 46 E/220) E-1396/00 by Bernd Lange to the Commission Subject: Standardisation of clothing for motorcyclists ...... 187 (2001/C 46 E/221) E-1409/00 by David Sumberg to the Commission Subject: Consumer protection fire prevention in the home ...... 188 (2001/C 46 E/222) P-1411/00 by Per Gahrton to the Commission Subject: Details concerning information about the euro ...... 189 (2001/C 46 E/223) E-1495/00 by Per Gahrton to the Commission Subject: ‘Infeuro’ ...... 189 (2001/C 46 E/224) E-1496/00 by Per Gahrton to the Commission Subject: Swedish edition of ‘Infeuro’ ...... 189 Joint answer to Written Questions P-1411/00, E-1495/00 and E-1496/00 ...... 189 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/225) P-1413/00 by Carlos Coelho to the Commission Subject: Internal market: validity of certificates of origin in another Member State ...... 190 (2001/C 46 E/226) E-1418/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Import penetration ...... 191 (2001/C 46 E/227) E-1419/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Fixed investment ...... 191 (2001/C 46 E/228) E-1435/00 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero to the Commission Subject: Dual discrimination on grounds of gender and disability ...... 192 (2001/C 46 E/229) E-1444/00 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero to the Commission Subject: Specific directive to combat discrimination against disabled people ...... 193 (2001/C 46 E/230) E-1450/00 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the Commission Subject: Leasing of commercial vehicles in the European internal market ...... 193 (2001/C 46 E/231) E-1455/00 by Béatrice Patrie to the Commission Subject: Directive on food supplements announced in the White Paper on food safety ...... 194 (2001/C 46 E/232) E-1461/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Conflicts of interest within the Commission ...... 195 (2001/C 46 E/233) E-1475/00 by Gilles Savary to the Commission Subject: ‘Nationalisation’ of Leonardo programme ...... 196 (2001/C 46 E/234) E-1476/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the Commission Subject: Euro-Mediterranean Partnership revival: Euro-Med Humanities Programme ...... 197 (2001/C 46 E/235) E-1493/00 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Use of ESF for vocational retraining courses in Italy ...... 198 (2001/C 46 E/236) E-1508/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Establishment of Limited Companies in Austria ...... 198 (2001/C 46 E/237) E-1517/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Infringements of human rights in Vietnam ...... 199 (2001/C 46 E/238) E-1538/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Nepal ...... 200 (2001/C 46 E/239) P-1540/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Science and Research Foundation ...... 200 (2001/C 46 E/240) P-1542/00 by Margrietus van den Berg to the Commission Subject: Sponsorship for Euro 2000 ...... 201 (2001/C 46 E/241) P-1560/00 by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo to the Commission Subject: Duty of the Member States to submit reports ...... 202 (2001/C 46 E/242) E-1561/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Amendment of the Bosman ruling ...... 202 (2001/C 46 E/243) E-1577/00 by William Newton Dunn to the Commission Subject: Pensions for part-time lecturers in the UK ...... 203 (2001/C 46 E/244) P-1582/00 by Maurizio Turco to the Commission Subject: Use of consumer association funds ...... 204 (2001/C 46 E/245) E-1590/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: European City of Culture ...... 205 (2001/C 46 E/246) E-1601/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Inaugural meeting of the Interparliamentary Association for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ...... 206 (2001/C 46 E/247) P-1604/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Anti-competitive conduct of Motorola ...... 206 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 46 E/248) E-1613/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Unstable situation of AT3 staff at the JRC in Ispra ...... 207 (2001/C 46 E/249) P-1622/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: Error in authorising medical device ...... 207 (2001/C 46 E/250) P-1623/00 by Roberto Bigliardo to the Commission Subject: Workforce of Tonno Nostromo in Vibo Valentia ...... 208 (2001/C 46 E/251) P-1663/00 by Jas Gawronski to the Commission Subject: Information campaign on enlargement of the Union ...... 209 (2001/C 46 E/252) E-1672/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers ...... 210 (2001/C 46 E/253) E-1712/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: ESF Projects and time-scales ...... 210 (2001/C 46 E/254) P-1720/00 by Cecilia Malmström to the Commission Subject: IGC ...... 211 (2001/C 46 E/255) E-1731/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Commission linguistic policy and the safeguard and promotion of minority and regional languages .... 211 (2001/C 46 E/256) P-1734/00 by Antonio Di Pietro to the Commission Subject: The Ispra Joint Research Centre’s new research staff policy ...... 212 (2001/C 46 E/257) E-1788/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Asturian Rural Accommodation Network ...... 213 (2001/C 46 E/258) P-1828/00 by Gilles Savary to the Commission Subject: Social security coordination at European level ...... 214 (2001/C 46 E/259) E-1903/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou to the Commission Subject: The Adnan Oktar case ...... 215 (2001/C 46 E/260) E-1904/00 by Nirj Deva to the Commission Subject: EC Phare programme tender li 9701.01.04.02 ...... 216 (2001/C 46 E/261) E-2011/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Tax payable on entering Greek waters ...... 216 (2001/C 46 E/262) E-2034/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Direct aid to the farming sector ...... 217 (2001/C 46 E/263) E-2193/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Revision of the Programme of specific options to the remote and insular nature of the Canary Islands (Poseican) and the drawing up of permanent statute for the ultra-peripheral regions of the European Union .... 217 (2001/C 46 E/264) P-2237/00 by Jean-Claude Fruteau to the Commission Subject: Banana import fraud ...... 218 (2001/C 46 E/265) P-2264/00 by Vincenzo Lavarra to the Commission Subject: Right to market table grapes included, and approved for cultivation, in the catalogue of national varieties in Italy in accordance with Community rules ...... 218 (2001/C 46 E/266) P-2319/00 by Véronique Mathieu to the Commission Subject: Civil protection and combatting fires caused by storms ...... 219 (2001/C 46 E/267) P-2321/00 by Roy Perry to the Commission Subject: European funding ...... 220
EN 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/1
I
(Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(2001/C 46 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/99 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(4 November 1999)
Subject: Shortcomings in the ‘Casa de Campo’ improvement project in Madrid
On 31 March, 20 November 1997 and, more recently, 1 October 1999, the civic association ‘Save the Casa de Campo’ wrote to DG XVI of the Commission setting out the numerous shortcomings that, in their opinion, were affecting the implementation of project 95.11.61.021-E relating to the ‘development of degraded areas and general improvements to the environment of the Casa de Campo park’, financed by the Cohesion Funds and carried out by Madrid city council’s environmental department.
In particular, the two much trumpeted dams in the Meaques river built in the first phase of the project; these simply turned into foul-smelling stagnant ponds producing hordes of mosquitoes, quite contrary to their initial purpose, as provided for in the project, namely keeping the watercourse biologically clean. These two dams were later destroyed.
Furthermore, on 28 February 1998, the Madrid city council approved the Second Integrated Improvement of Madrid Scheme, also financed by the Cohesion Fund, which included various plans relating to the conditioning of the Meaques river, at a cost of 388 million pesetas, and the construction of four more dams.
Could the Commission check whether the construction and destruction of these dams has not been paid for twice over? Has the project been delayed, and if so, for what reason? What are the reasons for modifying the project to include the creation of new car parks, instead of implementing measures to control the risk of soil erosion? Why have historical and environmental features not been restored as in the case of the historical adobe wall built in the 18th Century? Why has the daily traffic flow of more than 50 000 cars across the Casa de Campo park not been restricted, in view of its detrimental effect on the environment?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2000)
In the first phase of the project, the Commission part-financed two small dams. On the basis of new hydrological studies the responsible authorities considered these dams inadequate and proposed, in the second phase, the construction of five lagoon areas as a natural purification system. The Commission will examine the results of this proposal. C 46 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
All payments by the Commission are based on the specific items listed in the decision, which means that assistance cannot be provided twice for the same expenditure. The first phase of the project was finished according to the timetable drawn up when the part-financing decision was adopted.
Car parks were provided for in the initial decision to prevent vehicles parking in the protected areas. The rebuilding of the boundary wall of the park is included in the second phase of the project and is largely complete. The two phases of the project made no provision for a ban on traffic on the road system in the ‘Casa de Campo’ park.
(2001/C 46 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(3 November 1999)
Subject: Knorr Bremse and European funding
Knorr Bremse has announced several hundred redundancies in Kingswood, Bristol (UK), in order to transfer work to its factories in France, Italy or Germany and Hungary.
Can the Commission say whether any financial assistance of any kind has been asked for by this company or given to this company for job creation in France, Italy or Germany or through TACIS and PHARE programmes in Hungary?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2000)
According to information from the European Social Fund Mission in France, in 1997 and 1998 the Knorr Dahl Freinage branch in Lisieux (Lower Normandy) received financial assistance under Objective 4 for training (improving skills in various fields) amounting to FRF 909 000. This assistance was not aimed at job creation, to which the Honourable Member refers in his question.
In Berlin, Germany, Hasse & Wrede GmbH, a subsidiary company of Knorr Bremse AG, received DEM 533 000 for investments in machinery and equipment, mainly in order to retain existing jobs.
In Italy this company received no Community part-financing.
As far as the Commission is aware, Knorr Bremse has never asked for or benefited from Community assistance through the P programme in Hungary, and this country is not eligible for the T programme.
Finally, Knorr Bremse received no funding under the Community initiatives A or E.
(2001/C 46 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2629/99 by Francesco Speroni (TDI), Umberto Bossi (TDI) and Gian Gobbo (TDI) to the Commission
(12 January 2000)
Subject: Participation of the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, in the international summit of the left
On Saturday 20 and Sunday 21 November 1999, Romano Prodi, in the capacity of President of the Commission, participated in the international summit of left-wing leaders, together with Jospin, D’Alema, Clinton, Blair et al. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/3
In taking part in this meeting, does Mr Prodi believe he has fully represented the various strands of political and cultural opinion within the EU and its institutions?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(21 February 2000)
Mr Prodi took part as an observer in a meeting between centre-left Heads of State and Government on Sunday 21 November 1999 on topics directly concerning Europe’s development prospects in relation to globalisation. The day before, he had addressed the opening session, which was separate from the formal proceedings of the summit.
His contribution to the meeting can be summarised as a presentation of his vision for and ideas on the European social model and the fight against unemployment.
He has expressed his ideas on numerous occasions, before Parliament and elsewhere. The President of the Commission has a political function to perform. In keeping with the obligations imposed by that function, he retains the right to express his political views in complete independence and on his own responsibility.
(2001/C 46 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2711/99 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission
(11 January 2000)
Subject: Noise pollution
Everybody who lives near noise sources run risks to his or her health. The effects may vary according to the physical characteristics of the noise, the times when and the way in which the noise is emitted, and can be classified as causing damage, nuisance or annoyance. Exposure to noise can have serious effects on the hearing, as well as causing light-headedness, speech difficulties, memory problems, fatigue, violent headaches, general exhaustion, irritability and anxiety. Sleep disturbances caused by noise lead to problems and personality changes.
Can the Commission therefore say what has been and is being done in Europe to safeguard the health of all citizens and what measures have been put into effect to mitigate the problem and reduce noise levels?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(3 February 2000)
The effects of noise pollution on health, for example memory loss, fatigue, irritability and others, have been widely documented in medical literature. They have been a public health concern for some time. The reduction of noise in the environment, in the home and in the workplace is a long-term task. Several European legislative texts regulate noise by limiting emission levels. The most important of these are Council Directives 86/594/EEC of 1 December 1986 on airborne noise emitted by household appliances (1) and 86/188/EEC of 12 May 1986 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work (2). The latter will shortly be revised within the process of revising the Directive on protecting the health of workers from exposure to vibrations, noise and electromagnetic fields (3). This Directive has now been split, and only the vibrations aspect is currently being discussed in the Council.
A Green Paper has been published on exposure of the public to noise: the Commission Green Paper of 4 November 1996 Future noise policy (4). The Commission is also working to reduce noise emissions from aeroplanes by using silencers, and is funding research and noise prevention work via the programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases (5). C 46 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
As a result of these factors the noise levels to which the public is subjected will be progressively reduced and public health will therefore improve, in accordance with the competence conferred on the Com- mission by Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ L 344, 6.12.1986. (2) OJ L 137, 24.5.1986. (3) COM(94) 284 final. (4) COM(96) 540 final. (5) OJ C 219, 30.7.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0100/00 by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000)
Subject: Social security arrangements for sportsmen and women
Can the Commission provide information regarding the social security arrangements introduced in the various European Union countries for the benefit of sportsmen and women who are regarded as amateurs but who nonetheless engage in sport at Olympic and/or some other high level?
1. What cover is provided during and after any sporting activity?
2. What are the entitlements in the event of temporary or permanent disablement?
3. Is there any relevant EU legislation?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (7 February 2000)
The legislation applicable to amateur sportspersons is the same as that applicable to employed or self- employed persons, and their contributions are paid into the national social security systems in accordance with the laws of the Member States in which they are insured. For information on social protection systems in the Member States, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its MISSOC (Mutual Information System on Social Protection in the European Union) Report which can be found on the Europa website at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/soc-prot/missoc98
Where amateur sportspersons move within the Member States their rights are coordinated by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), which also covers, among other things, the risk of disablement.
(1) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0183/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (31 January 2000)
Subject: Pollution of the ground water in various regions of Greece
According to recent Greece press reports, the ground water in a number of regions of Greece, and in particular in the plains of Thessaly, Ilia, Messinia and Thessaloniki, contains concentrations of nitrates far above the permitted limit. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/5
Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the pollution of the ground water in the above regions, what the probable consequences of concentrations of nitrates above the permitted limit are and whether Greece has implemented Community Directive 91/676 (1) and adopted codes of sound agricultural practice and an action programme, as required by the Directive, to prevent the nitrification of the ground water?
(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(24 March 2000)
The Commission is aware of the pollution problems caused by agricultural nitrogen (intensive crop growing, livestock farming) in groundwater and certain lakes, dams and closed bays (eutrophication) in Greece. An excess of nitrates in groundwater can adversely affect childrens’ health, when they are transformed into nitrites in well water or in the digestive system (infant cyanosis). Nitrites are also thought to be carcinogenic when they react with the digestive juices. Nitrates, when they pass from groundwater into surface waters and the sea, cause eutrophication (undesirable development of algae and plankton).
Greece very belatedly (1997) transposed Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources and has just (1999) designated seven vulnerable zones where the groundwater is contaminated, while acknowledging that other zones should be designated. As yet, no official action programmes have been established for any of the designated zones.
Since 1995 a very localised programme (30 000 hectares of cotton) to reduce nitrogenous fertilisation, approved by the Commission, has been operating in Thessaly under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environ- ment and the maintenance of the countryside (1). The results are promising, and this could inspire future action programmes in ‘nitrate’ vulnerable zones.
The Commission, noting that the national measures implementing Directive 91/676/EEC communicated by the Greek authorities did not conform to the Directive, decided to take the matter to the Court of Justice on 22 December 1999. The Commission emphasised Greece’s failure to establish good codes of agricultural practice, insufficient monitoring of the eutrophication of surface water and failure to establish action programmes for the designated vulnerable zones.
It should also be noted that codes of good agricultural practice must be applied in both ‘nitrate’ vulnerable zones and in zones covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2).
(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0194/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(4 February 2000)
Subject: Community funds
Vincenzo Apicella, Chief Prosecutor of the Italian Court of Auditors, announced on 17 January 2000 in his annual report that owing to delays, neglect and complex bureaucratic procedures, ITL 4,5 billion of European funds were not used in Italy in 1999. C 46 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Would the Commission state whether:
1. The above figures are accurate;
2. It intends to take any action on the matter;
3. It intends to make a move to solve the bureaucratic problems currently hampering access to the funds;
4. A comparative study of the situation in all the Member States has been carried out?
Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(15 May 2000)
The Commission has been unable to find, in the statements made by the Public Prosecutor of the Italian Court of Auditors, either the source or the explanation for the figures presented by the Honourable Member. With regard to the Community Structural Funds, and in particular the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Commission has recorded no budget losses in terms of commitments and it would point out that ‘outstanding commitments’, which appear to be the subject of the question, are inherent in both the programming and the management of the Structural Funds.
With regard to Italy, the Commission can provide the Honourable Member with the following information relating to budgetary commitments and payments. The outstanding commitments for the Structural Funds’ operations in Italy as per 31 December 1999 amounted to (provisional figures):
(Euro millions)
Community support frameworks: Objective 1 27,5 Community initiatives: Adapt/Employment 42,6 Interreg 74,1 Leader 28,1 Urban 12,8 Total 185,1
The Commission will proceed with the commitments as soon as the appropriations are available in the 2000 budget, mainly deriving from a carryover from 1999, due to late reprogramming by Member States.
The outstanding commitments (RAL) for the Structural Funds’ operations in Italy add up to € 9 604 million (provisional figures) as at 31 December 1999. These relate to various programming periods. The Commission will proceed with payments in line with Italy’s request for eligible amounts. At the end of 1999 the amounts requested but unpaid totalled € 356 million, partly as a result of late reprogramming. All eligible amounts have been paid or will be paid from appropriations carried over (from 1999 to 2000) as well as from the 2000 budget.
The Commission is awaiting information from the Italian authorities relating to the level of their commitments on the ground at 31 December 1999. It should be remembered that Italy has two years (up to 31 December 2001) to complete expenditure on the basis of commitments made before that deadline. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/7
(2001/C 46 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(14 February 2000)
Subject: Implementation of the second Community support framework
The second Community support framework for Greece is already drawing to an end and during the year 2000 work will be carried out only on projects agreed up to the end of 1999.
In view of this:
1. What is the take-up rate for national and regional programmes under the second Community support framework?
2. In which programmes has the take-up been slowest and what are the main reasons for the delay?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(7 April 2000)
1. On 15 January 2000, the average implementation rate (in terms of payments) of the different operational programmes under the Community support framework for Greece during the 1994-1999 programming period, taking all Structural Funds together, was 72,5 % in the case of the national OPs and 76,8 % in the case of the regional OPs.
As a result of reprogramming exercises undertaken up to the end of 1999, the commitment rate for all programmes should very soon reach 100 %. On the payments side, the rules allow for an additional two- year period for implementing payments on the sums allocated to the Greek CSF.
2. The programmes covering postal services and privately owned infrastructure in Northern Greece are showing a rather low payment rate but the amounts involved are not very substantial and can thus be easily taken up in the near future. The causes of these delays are mainly to be found in the difficulties at the start-up of the postal services programme and in the late adoption in 1997 of the aid for private infrastructure in Northern Greece.
(2001/C 46 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(14 February 2000)
Subject: Inability to provide data on tuna fillet imports
When the Thai authorities asked the European Union to open a new quota to allow 8 000 tonnes of products to be imported under tariff heading 1604.14.00 (tinned tuna and tuna fillets), at a time when the Community tuna fillet market may be considered to be adequately supplied, as a study commissioned by the Commission has just shown, I asked the Commission various questions in Written Question E-2310/ 99 (1), including the amounts of tuna fillets exported by Thailand to the EU under the last two quotas opened, and the names of the Community companies which have been buying them.
Astonishingly, the Commission replied that it was unable to provide the information requested, since because the trading activities of private companies were involved, the Commission had no data. C 46 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
I would therefore ask the Commission:
how can it possibly ask the Council to open tuna fillet quotas year after year when it possesses no data whatsoever on either the quantities of this product entering the Union under the quotas in question, or the Member State companies importing it?
what sort of checks does the Commission actually carry out on these imports, which are of direct relevance to a major Community industry in which large numbers of jobs and major investments are at stake?
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 95.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(28 March 2000)
In Written Question E-2310/99 (1), the Honourable Member only requested information about private companies in Thailand (a list of Thai companies which export tuna fillets to the Community and the amounts exported by each company) and within the Community (a list of Community companies which import these products, and an indication of their location).
As the Commission stated in its answer, it is unable to provide information about the trading activities of private companies since it does not possess such data.
When drafting proposals for quotas for fishery products, the Commission refers in particular to global data regarding the utilisation of these quotas and to requests made by the authorities in the Member States.
As regards checks on imports to which these quotas apply, the Commission and the Member States apply the provisions laid out in Articles 308a to 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establish- ing the Community Customs Code (2).
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 95. (2) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.
(2001/C 46 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0408/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(15 February 2000)
Subject: Different rates of import duty for Alaska pollack and hoki (longtail hake) (7,5 %)
For the period January March 2000 different customs duties are to be applied on items previously subject to the same rate of duty. Since the beginning of the year Alaska pollack has accordingly been subject to a duty of 3,5 %, while hoki (longtail hake) has been subject to a duty of 7,5 %. This cannot be justified by efforts to husband resources since Alaska pollack is being endangered by overfishing while stocks of hoki are still plentiful.
In view of this:
1. what were the reasons for this one-sided increase in duties in hoki?
2. what are the general objectives behind these customs duties?
3. Can the Commission give information regarding stocks of the above fish species and any corrective measures envisaged? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/9
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(31 March 2000)
The conventional customs duty on frozen fillets of hoki (Macruronus novaezealandiae) is 7,5 %. However, an autonomous tariff quota of 20 000 tonnes at 3,5 % duty was opened for the period 1 April to 31 December 1999 (1).
Compared to Alaska pollack, the Community processing industry’s use of hoki is recent and relatively limited. Consequently, like most other autonomous tariff quotas intended to supply the Community market, the quota period does not cover the first three months of the year, when the conventional customs duty applies.
However, in the context of reforming the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (2), the Council decided in favour of effectively suspending tariff duty on hoki by applying a reduced tariff without quantitative restrictions pending a future solution for supplying the market with this species. The Commission had proposed that customs duty for hoki should be 3,5 % (the same as for Alaska pollack) (3). In view of Germany’s request, the Council nevertheless decided to suspend customs duty on Alaska pollack.
Stocks of Alaska pollack have admittedly been heavily fished, while hoki has been identified as a less-used species. However, the Community processing industry’s supply needs appear to demonstrate that hoki is not yet able to offset the decreasing availability of Alaska pollack.
Community policy is to promote multilateral management of fish stocks, particularly through regional fishery organisations. Although not directly involved in managing stocks of the two species to which the Honourable Member refers, the Community encourages their responsible management within the frame- work of the international organisations dealing with fisheries (the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 745/1999 of 30 March 1999 opening and providing for the administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas for certain fishery products OJ L 96, 10.4.1999. (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products OJ L 17, 21.1.2000. (3) Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products OJ C 78, 20.3.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/00
by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(23 February 2000)
Subject: Indicative allocation of ERDF resources earmarked for investment in Galicia as an Objective I region during the 200-2006 period
Replying to one of my questions (E-1433/99) (1) on 21 December 1999, Commissioner Barnier said, on the subject of the geographical distribution of ERDF financial resources during the 2000-2006 period, that the Commission would indicate to Member States, as a guide, the amount that should be made available to each eligible region if the method used by the Commission to allocate Objective 1 resources to each of the Member States were applied at national level. C 46 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Will the Commission state how much would be allocated on that basis to Galicia, including the amounts to be administered by Central Government and the autonomous community itself?
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 2.
Reply given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(24 March 2000)
As the Honourable Member was informed in the reply to his Written Question E-1433/99 (1), the Commission has in fact forwarded to the Member States covered by Structural Funds Objective 1 a proposal for an indicative distribution of the appropriations allocated to that Objective for the 2000-2006 programming period.
The Commission will send the distribution proposal as forwarded to the Spanish authorities directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s General Secretariat.
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 2.
(2001/C 46 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0505/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(28 February 2000)
Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers
What is the Commission’s policy on the timing of payments to its own contractors and suppliers? What is the length of time between delivery or invoice and payment which is suggested in the Commission’s procedures, and what, if any, action is taken to monitor whether these targets are met?
Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(4 May 2000)
The Commission regularly checks the observance of payment periods by its departments.
In 1991 the Commission already set the target that payments should be executed within 60 days from the date of receipt by departments of a request for payment prepared in due form. Within the 60-day period, authorising departments have 40 days (for settlement and authorisation of the payment) and the horizontal departments have 20 days (endorsement by financial control, check on the validity of the discharge by the accountant, execution by the bank).
In 1995 the target set for Commission departments was that 95 % of operations should be completed within 60 days. In 1997, the Commission amended its contract policy so that in the event of late payment its creditors were entitled to claim late-interest payment.
Figures for 1999 show that across all departments the average period of payment (from the date of receipt of the invoice to the date on which the Commission bank account is debited) was 54,1 days. However, only 65,1 % of payments were completed with the 60-day period. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/11
An interdepartmental working party consisting of representatives of financial units from the Directorates- General is currently looking into the root causes of under-performance and will propose improvements.
In Part Two of the White Paper ‘Reforming the Commission: Action plan’ (1) the Commission confirms that one of the objectives of the reform is to achieve 95 % of payments within 60 days by 2002 (Action 10: Departments will be asked to set their own targets for meeting the Commission-wide target of payment in 60 days for 95 % of invoices by 2002 and to report on measures taken and results in their Annual Activity Report). The appraisal by the Commission of the outputs delivered by services will take into account this indicator.
In addition, the Commission will set up a central invoices register to allow better follow up (Action 11 of the White Paper).
(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
(2001/C 46 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0527/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(28 February 2000)
Subject: Abolition of duty-free and tax privileges for diplomats
With reference to Question E-1996/99 (1) and the Commission’s answer, which states that the tax privileges for which the 1961 Vienna Convention provides are no longer justified in the European internal market and should really be abolished, the Commission is asked to say whether, in accordance with the principle of fairness and political decency, it intends to extend the argument consistently advanced on the subject of the abolition of duty-free sales to all citizens of the EU and bring to an end the similar special privileges enjoyed by the EU’s diplomatic staff?
(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 63.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(14 April 2000)
On the issue of privileges granted to diplomats under the Vienna Convention, the Commission has nothing further to add to its reply to the previous Written Question E-1996/99 by the Honourable Member.
(2001/C 46 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0546/00 by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission
(28 February 2000)
Subject: Welfare of laying hens
If the EU fails to secure a welfare clause in the forthcoming WTO negotiations, what will the Commission do to ensure that producers are protected from a flood of cheap, third-country imports? C 46 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(12 May 2000)
As the Honourable Member will know, there was considerable resistance at the Seattle World Trade Organisation (WTO), Ministerial Conference to the Community call to include animal welfare in the agenda for the next round of trade talks. It is clear that much of this resistance was based on a misunderstanding of our objectives. The Commission will continue to work actively both to launch a comprehensive round of trade talks and to create a better understanding of our concerns on animal welfare in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
(2001/C 46 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(29 February 2000)
Subject: Consumption of the meat of endangered primates
According to a recent report by the World Conservation Union, one of the leading environmental associations in the United States, around 25 species of monkeys, lemurs and other primates risk disappearing from our planet in the next 10 to 20 years. This threat of extinction is caused not only by the destruction of tropical forests, but also by an increasingly alarming phenomenon the exponential growth in the consumption of monkey meat.
The blame is being laid first and foremost on the logging companies, trading in tropical timber, which allegedly fail to provide their workers with sufficient food. Furthermore, the problem of poaching has become more serious as a result of the wars which are devastating central Africa and have put an end to tourism, which was previously the cornerstone of the local economies. Now that gorillas are no longer useful as a tourist attraction, their meat has acquired enormous value as a delicacy.
Can the Commission say what measures it intends to take to guarantee the protection of the primate species under threat of extinction?
Can it issue a directive banning all forms of trade in monkey meat within the EU, especially considering the serious viral risk presented by the consumption of such meat?
Can the Commission also put the required pressure on the WHO to ban such practices in the countries in question?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(4 April 2000)
The information available to the Commission indicates that trade of illegal primate meat towards the Community is not a significant factor in the context of the extinction of endangered primates. Interna- tional commercial trade in parts or derivatives of great ape species is already prohibited under the provisions of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) as it is for all other species threatened with extinction included in its Appendix I and Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (1), which implements CITES in the Community. A great number of developing countries are party to CITES as well as 14 Member States. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/13
The Commission is aware of serious problems caused by unsustainable bushmeat consumption and bushmeat trade among developing countries, in particularly in parts of Africa. The Commission has therefore under the environment budget line supported a study in order to identify the magnitude of bushmeat trade in Africa, to determine the underlying causes and to define possible policy measures. The results of the study will be published soon.
The threat to wildlife is in the first place from habitat degradation and destruction. The Commission supports projects and programmes, which focus on the sustainable management of ecosystems as well as the preservation of protected areas. Tropical forests are among the most important habitats for wildlife, and for primates in particular. Therefore, activities supported under the tropical forest budget line have many links with wildlife. Attention to conservation and sustainable use of wildlife by the local population is also given through several rural development programmes funded under the European development fund or the export earnings stabilization system for least-developed countries in Asia and Latin America. In both cases this is mainly done in the context of a ‘livelihood’ approach, where local development opportunities are linked with the conservation of biodiversity. Local use of wildlife is not necessarily illegal or unsustainable.
Significant pressure on endangered wildlife is also exerted by illegal activities (e.g. hunting and trade) not at least in unstable situations of warfare or social unrest. In this context, Community support for ‘good governance’ and ‘capacity building’ projects and programmes is therefore also important to tackle the problem.
(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(29 February 2000)
Subject: Legislation and the manufacturing industry
How many regulations has the EU produced which affect the manufacturing industry in each of the last five years? How many equivalent regulations have been produced by each Member State?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(11 May 2000)
The wide spectrum of the Community’s fields of activities makes it difficult to identify all pieces of Community legislation which may have an indirect impact on manufacturing industry. However, for legislation directly applicable to industry, the Honourable Member will find below the required statistics on legal acts adopted during the course of the last five years. These cover, on the one hand, the number of legal acts adopted by the Community (387 in total) and, on the other hand, the number of the corresponding technical regulations notified to the Commission within the framework of Directives 83/ 189/EEC and 98/34/EC (3 057 in total).
Although one would expect to see a certain disparity between the two sets of figures, because of the nature of the legal instruments used by the Community (regulations or directives), and the timing of their transposition into national law, the Honourable Member will notice the relatively large divergence between these statistics.
This issue was examined by the Commission, with concern, in its 1995 report on ‘National Regulations applicable to Internal Market products’ (1). In substance, the report confirmed the widespread perception that Member States frequently add (gold-plate) to Community rules in their transposition measures, by failing to opt for the simplest of a range of options or by requiring complicated procedures to achieve requirements set out in directives. This not only increases the limited number of Community rules but also imposes unnecessary burdens on business while contributing, unfairly, to the perception of the Commun- ity as a source of red tape. C 46 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
The Commission is currently updating the above report and is, of course, ready to be of further assistance to the Honourable Member, should he be interested to obtain more precise information on the subject.
Statistics relating to legal acts adopted by the Community (CELEX Data Base) 1995-1999
Total 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995-1999 38 79 122 70 78 387
Statistics relating to technical regulations notified within the framework of Directive 83/189/EEC/Directive 98/34/EC 1995-1999
Notifications
Member States Total 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995-1999 Belgium 26 17 59 50 20 172 Denmark 36 28 40 55 43 202 Germany 92 88 99 76 85 440 Greece 12 16 12 11 17 68 Spain 25 19 35 24 31 134 France 61 41 51 47 54 254 Ireland 14314 13 Italy 31 27 31 32 25 146 Luxembourg 10021 4 The Netherlands 43 62 341 122 128 696 Austria 25 61 106 69 69 330 Portugal 5 19 7 11 6 48 Finland 17 34 22 23 24 120 Sweden 5 34 23 30 35 127 United Kingdom 59 73 71 51 49 303 Total (15) 439 523 900 604 591 3 057
(1) 28 February 1995-III/2185-EN/final-Experience acquired in the framework of Directive 83/189/EEC.
(2001/C 46 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0566/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(29 February 2000)
Subject: Implications of asymmetrical legal position of ownership
In what sectors of the EU economy is it still the case that an asymmetrical legal position concerning ownership still exists, in other words, where it is possible for a state-owned company in one Member State to buy a private company in another, but where it is impossible for a private company to enter the market of the state-owned company? Is this still the case of the French electricity market? What measures is the Commission taking to open up those markets it indicates?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(19 May 2000)
The Commission does not have at its disposal the necessary data to give the Honorable Member an exhaustive answer on all the asymmetrical legal positions of ownership in all sectors of the economy. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/15
As a general point, the Commission would note that the presence of state enterprises in certain sectors of economic activity is a matter solely for the Member States, within the limits of the rules imposed by the EC Treaty and of the policies liberalising certain economic sectors at Community level.
The electricity sector is regulated by Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1). The Directive does not regulate the ownership of electricity companies, but lays down the rules relating to the organisation and functioning of the electricity sector and access to the market. Nevertheless, the Commission follows the issue of mergers and acquisitions in the electricity sector very closely. Where these have a Community aspect, they will be dealt with under the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings) (2).
(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997. (2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989; as last amended by OJ L 40, 13.2.1998.
(2001/C 46 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0570/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council
(2 March 2000)
Subject: Extension of qualified majority voting
Will the Council please indicate which Member States proposed an extension of qualified majority voting and in which areas during the last two Intergovernmental Conferences, which were agreed and which Member States were opposed to such extension?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The Council would like to remind the Honourable Member that the Intergovernmental Conference is a temporary forum, composed of representatives of the Governments of the Member States and separate from the Council.
The Council is not, therefore, entitled to answer questions relating to the proceedings of the IGC or positions adopted by the Member States in the IGC.
As the Honourable Member will be aware, extension of qualified majority voting is a recurrent topic of discussion at Intergovernmental Conferences and is making headway as the Treaties evolve. With regard to the progress made in Maastricht, the Council would refer to a study carried out by the European Parliament Secretariat (Directorate-General for Research, Political and Institutional Affairs Division) in January 1996. As regards the progress made in Amsterdam, the Council would point out that it was agreed that meetings of the Preparatory Group of representatives of the Governments of the Member States should be attended by two Members of the European Parliament, as observers, who could voice the European Parliament’s views on all issues under discussion and who would receive the relevant documen- tation. This was also intended to keep Members of the European Parliament better informed about the course of proceedings and the actual results achieved.
For the current IGC, the same arrangements apply. The Honourable Member is therefore sure to be informed of progress at the Conference, and particularly of positions stated on extension of qualified majority voting, by the European Parliament observers. C 46 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission
(29 February 2000)
Subject: European sustainable transport policy
In terms of identifying the major cities along the T-TEN priority project routes, can the Commission say how such decisions were made and who was involved in this decision-making process? What criteria were used and who were the winners and losers in such decisions?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(13 April 2000)
The Trans-European Network-transport (TEN-T) guidelines identify the key routes of trans-European importance, which include those routes covered by the TEN-T priority projects. The guidelines contain a set of maps, outlining all these key routes. Where cities are named on these maps, they are included only as reference points, and many cities have access to the TEN-T network, without appearing on the maps.
Over 1990-1992, the Commission set up a number of working parties, with representatives from each Member State, which developed a set of outline plans. These plans identified the routes of trans-European importance, taking account of traffic flows and the need to link peripheral regions with the centre of the Community. The working parties did not specifically identify cities along the TEN-T routes. These outline plans were then incorporated into the TEN-T guidelines, adopted by the Council and Parliament under the co-decision procedure in 1996 (1).
The Commission is currently considering how best to take forward these issues in its report on the revision of the TEN-T guidelines that will be submitted to the Council and Parliament this summer.
(1) OJ C 17, 22.1.1996.
(2001/C 46 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/00 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission
(29 February 2000)
Subject: The Moluccas
The second emergency aid programme for the Moluccas (€ 900 000) will end in late February. The Commission is now working on a third programme. Up to now this aid has been channelled through French and Belgian NGOs. Is the Commission prepared to involve Dutch NGOs which consult with Moluccan organisations in the Netherlands with diverse links with the Moluccas in order to achieve a peaceful, stabilising effect?
Will the Commission also ensure that structural aid, which it has given to Novib and Oxfam UK, for example, and which cannot be spent because of the conflicts, can be spent on reconciliation and preventive action in the context of emergency aid and rehabilitation?
Can the Commission inform us of the additional support for developing Indonesia? From which category will any appropriations be taken? Is it prepared to include in the aid package the possibility of contacts and exchanges between the capital, Djakarta, and the conflict regions such as the Moluccas and Aceh? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/17
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(10 April 2000)
The Commision’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO) intervenes in the Moluccas in order to ease the welfare of the inhabitants. In 1999, € 1 million were committed for two projects, covering medical supplies, water and sanitation, and food. At present, an aid project covering the same areas is under way for an amount of € 900 000. The Commission is examining the continuation of these projects for another six months for food, medical and water and sanitation assistance to the displaced people. It is expected that further funds will be committed for this purpose.
The Commission has not received any project proposals for humanitarian assistance to Moluccas’ displaced people from Dutch non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
The Commission is also particularly attentive regarding the tens of thousands of displaced people in northern Molucca.
As to the question whether unused funds for previous or continuing projects can be re-directed to support reconciliation and preventive action, it is clear that such a re-attribution exceeding the objectives of the original project is not possible, according to the legal basis of the Commission’s action.
The recently published communication on developing closer relations with Indonesia (1), outlines the Commission’s pro-active development strategy, understood as a long-term and comprehensive approach. It includes contributions, through the available co-operation instruments, to the social and economic development of Indonesia. Particular attention is paid to poverty alleviation and to the sustainable management of natural resources (forestry-co-operation is already one of the key areas). It also includes the establishment of a comprehensive political dialogue to support the anchoring of democracy, the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, good governance, internal dialogue and reconciliation within the country, and the intensification of Community trade and investment relations with Indonesia. The document calls on all the Community’s partners to support the process of restructuring Indonesia’s economy.
For the 1995-1999 period, Community funding for Indonesia from the general Asia development budget line amounted to less than € 20 million a year, to which some funding for human rights projects should be added, available through the Asia human rights budget line.The Commission is committed to increase its financial input for Indonesia, in line with the above priorities.
(1) COM(2000) 50.
(2001/C 46 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 March 2000)
Subject: Possibility of granting the outermost regions permanent Objective 1 status
The outermost regions of the European Union face particularly severe difficulties because of their geographical remoteness and the distances separating them from the nerve centres of the respective Community countries to which they belong.
Because of this, and the fact that some of the outermost regions of the EU may exceed the ceiling of 75 % of average Community income, which would exclude them from the group of regions covered by Objective 1, with the risk that they would end up rejoining that group as a result of lack of assistance, it has been suggested that the outermost regions should be considered as belonging by definition to Objective 1. C 46 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Will the Commission examine the idea that the outermost regions should be included by definition under Objective 1, without taking into account their level of income, in order to alleviate the problems posed by their extreme geographical remoteness from their respective metropolitan centres?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2000)
When it adopted the regulations on the Structural Funds (1), the Council decided that the seven outermost regions of the Community were eligible under Objective 1 under the criterion of 75 % of average gross domestic product (GDP). At that time, the statistical data available showed that all these regions satisfied that criterion. They remain eligible throughout the 2000-2006 programming period.
As regards the period from 2007, the Commission stated in the report (2) that it has just forwarded to the Council on the implementation of Article 299 (former Article 227)(2) of the EC treaty that it intends to consider how best to reflect the individual situations of these regions recognised by Article 299(2) in eligibility for the Structural Funds.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) COM(2000) 147 final.
(2001/C 46 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 March 2000)
Subject: Lack of a left-luggage facility at Malaga airport
The airport at Malaga (Spain), which has received EU funding from the ERDF, has helped to boost the tourist (and, hence, the economic) development of Andalusia’s entire Costa del Sol and it provides convenient facilities for all its users, who currently number 8,5 million per year.
However, those facilities do not include storage for left luggage, an essential service which many transit passengers would like to be able to use at airports, railway stations and other transport termini.
Does the Commission think that such a service can be denied to passengers on safety or other grounds (which is the reason given by the Malaga airport authorities), thus inconveniencing passengers who may need such a facility?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(6 April 2000)
From a technical point of view, projects part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund are designed and developed by a Member State’s competent authority in the context of an approved economic development strategy as agreed with the Commission. As a result, the Commission is not in a position to impose conditions for the use of the part-financed infrastructure other than those that ensure compliance with the legal framework for their operation. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/19
(2001/C 46 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0614/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(3 March 2000)
Subject: Language use in the provision of information to consumers
The Communication from the Commission concerning language use in the provision of information to consumers in the Community of 10 November 1993 indicates that no requirement to use the official languages of a country has been laid down in European law, except in the case of wine, medicinal products and tobacco. Foodstuffs labelling and nutrition labelling are required to be provided in a language ‘easily understood’ by buyers. There are also instances of Community provisions which do not take account of language use, for example in the areas of misleading advertising and consumer credit, or which give Member States the option of laying down requirements for language use, for example in the areas of toy safety and cosmetic products.
The Commission states, furthermore, that ‘certain provisions concerning language requirements may be considered as a barrier to the free movement of products or services’. This position is not consistent with another statement in the Commission’s Communication, namely that information which is difficult to read or understand may affect consumers’ health or safety. Moreover, the right of every consumer to be provided with information and instructions for use in at least the official languages of the relevant Member State is being infringed.
1. Is the requirement under European law to use the official languages of a country confined to wine, medicinal products and tobacco, as indicated in the Communication from the Commission of 10 November 1993? If not, what other products are required to carry information leaflets and/or instructions for use in the official languages of the relevant country?
2. Is the Commission willing to draw up a general directive on languages requiring at least the official languages of a country to be used in the provision of information to consumers in the fifteen Member States, given that a) information which is difficult to read or understand may affect consumers’ health or safety, and b) the right of every consumer to be fully informed is being infringed? If not, what are the Commission’s grounds for opposing a general directive with the purpose of fully informing consumers?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2000)
In the communication on language use in the information of consumers mentioned to by the Honourable Member (1), the Commission noted that ‘… rules concerning languages naturally fall within the competence of the Member States, notably in application of the principle of subsidiarity’. The communication also stressed ‘… the need to assess, on a case by case basis, whether the balance between the various interests is respected, viz. the safeguarding of free movement as opposed to the protection of an imperative requirement such as health protection, consumer protection, and fair commercial practice’.
In the absence of specific legislation at the European level, the Member States are in principle entitled to enforce their own rules and regulations on language use, as long as they are consistent with the EC Treaty provisions particularly as regards consumer protection and the free circulation of goods and proportionate to the aim pursued by the national legislation.
The approach in question is in keeping with the case law of the Court of justice which has consistently held lately in case C-33/97 (2) that the Member States can adopt measures laying down that the labels of imported items be in the language of the region where the goods are to be sold or in any other language easily understandable by consumers of the area concerned. The measures in question have to be indistinctly applicable to domestic and imported goods, proportionate to the objective of protecting consumers and limited to indications that are compulsory under the national legislation. Ensuring C 46 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
appropriate consumer information is to prevail over the principle of free circulation of goods provided in Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty.
Applying the above principles to the circumstances of practical cases is a prerogative of the national authorities and the courts of law, and can only be done on a case by case basis.
Concerning the specific language requirements that are currently in force at the European level in addition to those concerning wine, medicines and tobacco the following are particularly relevant to consumer information: Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (3) whose Article 14 provides that the Member States ensure that the sale of foodstuffs within their territory be prohibited if the particulars of the goods do not appear in a language easily understood by purchasers (the particulars may be indicated in various languages) and Commission Decision 93/13/EEC of 22 December 1992 laying down the procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products from third countries (4) which requires all certificates for products of animal origin from third countries entering the Community to be written in at least the language or in one of the languages of the border inspection post and in the language or in one of the languages of the country of destination.
The Honourable Member asked which products, other than wine, medicinal products and tobacco are required under Community legislation to carry information leaflets or instructions for use in the official language of the relevant Member State. The Commission will send the necessary information direct to the Honourable Member as soon as it is available.
As regards the possibility of introducing a general directive on language use, in its 1993 communication (1) the Commission did not consider it appropriate to envisage new Community legislation, but indicated instead a balanced strategy, based on five themes: the non-regulatory development of multilingual information, preservation of the Member States’ freedom to mandate use of the language of the country of consumption, enhanced consistency of the Community legal instruments, improvement of information on the language rules applicable in the Member States, and assignment of responsibility for consumer information at the industry level.
A fresh assessment of the situation of language-related requirements in consumer information was conducted in 1998 within the scope of the Council Resolution on operating instructions (5), which took account of the views expressed by the Member States and the Commission. In this occasion, the Council invited the Member States and the economic operators ‘… to pursue the objective of making information available to consumers …’ taking into account several indications for good operating instructions for technical consumer goods, including, as far as the language of manuals is concerned, consumers’ ‘easy access to operating instructions at least in their own official Community language, in such a way that they are legible and easy for the consumer to understand’. The Resolution did not call for new European legislation nor did it suggest any alterations to the legal instruments in force.
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that the balanced approach suggested in the 1993 communication which has been constantly upheld by the case law of the Court of justice remains valid, notably as regards the allocation of responsibilities between the Community and the Member States, the opportunity that language requirements be introduced, where necessary, on a case-by-case basis, and the unsuitability of general European legislation to the objective of providing an appropriate response to the diverse interests involved in the issue of language use in consumer information.
(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament concerning language use in the information of consumers in the Community (COM(93) 456 final). Another Communication (OJ C 345/3, 23.12.1993) outlined the Commission approach in the area of foodstuffs, notably as regards the fundamental requirement for European policy to balance the needs of consumers and producers. (2) Ruling of the Court of Justice of 3 June 1999 in case C-33/97 ‘Colim NV’. (3) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. (4) OJ L 9, 15.1.1993. (5) Council Resolution of 17 December 1998 on operating instructions for technical consumer goods (OJ C 411, 31.12.1998). 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/21
(2001/C 46 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0630/00 by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 March 2000)
Subject: Companies in receipt of export refunds
Export refunds have played an important role in stimulating agricultural exports and have been applied for, and paid to, EU exporting companies, most of which are involved in processing and marketing.
Would the Commission state which companies have received export refunds exceeding 100 000 euros/ecus per year and provide the following information: (a) the total amount received for each of the years from 1986 to 1999; (b) the country to which the companies belong or to which the amount was assigned; (c) the crops or products exported; (d) whether the companies involved are engaged solely in marketing (processing and/or export) or also in production (agricultural or livestock)?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(13 April 2000)
The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that much of the work is delegated to the Member States’ paying agencies, under the statutory provisions governing the treatment of Community agricultural aid, including export refunds, in the Community budget, and in particular the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 (2) on data to be transmitted by the Member States and the monthly booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), and laying down certain detailed rules of application for Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (3)). Consequently, as applications for aid are managed by these paying agencies (approved by the Member States in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (4)), they have all the data concerning the recipients.
The Commission does not possess the information requested by the Honourable Member. For purposes of control, the Member States notify the Commission of the accounting data specified in the Regulation; it would be possible to process those data to reveal the identity of aid recipients, but Community provisions on personal data protection, which are binding on Community institutions by virtue of Article 286 (ex- article 213b) of the EC Treaty, would prevent the Commission from divulging this information.
(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ L 39, 17.2.1996. (3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (4) OJ L 158, 8.7.1995.
(2001/C 46 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0631/00 by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 March 2000)
Subject: Consequences of abolishing export refunds for certain sectors of agriculture
Does the Commission consider that abolishing export refunds (originally introduced to provide an outlet for excess production by farmers and stockbreeders) will directly affect producers (farmers and stock- C 46 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
breeders)? What will be the implications for some sectors of agriculture whose principal customers are in the export and processing sector, in view of the problem of continuity which may arise, particularly in undertakings which depend on certain products? Are there any studies or reports on this subject?
(2001/C 46 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0633/00 by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 March 2000)
Subject: The social and economic effects which the progressive withdrawal of export refunds would have on the processing and export sector
In view of the World Trade Organisation’s move towards having export refunds reduced or withdrawn, and in view of the many marketing and export companies which receive export refunds and which are involved in pre-export production or processing operations, has the Commission given any consideration to the social and economic effects which the gradual withdrawal of export refunds (which, in the case of many products, have become essential or crucial to the feasibility of export sales and even to the survival of companies) would have on the processing and export sector? Can it provide any studies or reports on the subject?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0631/00 and E-0633/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(13 April 2000)
The negotiation approach for agriculture outlined in the communication from the Commission to the Council and to the Parliament on the EU approach to the Millennium Round (1) is still relevant. In this communication it was stated that the decisions adopted regarding the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) within the framework of Agenda 2000 would constitute essential elements in defining the Commission’s negotiating mandate for the future multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organisa- tion.
This communication does not refer to elimination of export subsidies. It should, however, be recalled that the decisions taken regarding reform of the CAP would diminish the need for export subsidies, since market price support is reduced and support to the farmers is granted to a larger degree as direct payments. As a consequence of such reform measures, agricultural basic products will remain available for the processing industry at lower prices than at present, and the need for export subsidies for processed product will also be reduced. In addition, the Commission is considering modernisation of the inward processing regime with a view to improving transparency and predictability in the administration of the regime. The Commission is not aware of studies or reports as mentioned by the Honourable Member.
(1) COM(1999) 331 final.
(2001/C 46 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0638/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission
(28 February 2000)
Subject: Aid for farmers
Does the Commission intend to involve Parliament in the process of granting direct aids to producers and agricultural export subsidies for the period 2000 to 2006? The agricultural sector is continually penalised 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/23
by the fact that massive funds are being diverted from it to pay for the reconstruction of Kosovo. It appears that the Commission once again intends to fly in the face of Parliament’s wishes and give preference to industry over agriculture, which, against the depressing backdrop of rising unemployment, is a sector deserving of support.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(20 March 2000)
The amount of direct income payments for those sectors concerned by Agenda 2000 reforms has been fixed within the Agenda 2000 package. The Parliament participated in Agenda 2000 legislation according to the relevant rules. Detailed rules for determining export subsidies, have been established for each sector. The refund amounts are normally fixed after consultation of the relevant management committee. The Commission has currently no intention to propose any change of these rules.
Supporting democracy, peace and stability in the Kosovo region represents a major challenge for the Community. For 2001 and 2002 the Commission will propose a decrease of € 300 million in the existing annual financial perspective ceiling for sub-heading 1a of the Community budget concerning the common agricultural policy (CAP) excluding rural development, with a corresponding increase in heading four concerning external relations. It is important to distinguish between the level of the financial perspective ceiling and the real funding requirements of the CAP. The reduction of the level of the ceiling for sub- heading 1a does not imply decreased support to farmers nor questioning of the CAP reform decisions taken in Berlin. In the Commission’s view, the real budgetary needs of the CAP in 2001, based on the common market organisations as reformed in Berlin, are below the existing ceiling by an amount which is sufficient to accommodate the reduction of € 300 million.
(2001/C 46 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0640/00 by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission
(28 February 2000)
Subject: Access to the EU interpreting service
1. In addition to the conditions set out in the notice of competition, candidates for competition COM/ LA/1051 for interpreters at the Commission were required to meet the further requirement of having followed a higher-education course lasting at least four years, a requirement of which they were not informed until their applications were rejected. How does the Commission explain this poor treatment of candidates?
2. What educational requirements specific designation of diploma and type of higher-education establishment and minimum duration of higher-education studies were met by applicants from the various Member States who were admitted to competition COM/LA/1051 and to previous interpreting competitions?
3. According to paragraph II.B.2 of the notice of open competition COM/LA/1051, the jury was to take account of the different education systems when making its selection.
(a) Does the Commission base this decision on Directive 89/48/EEC and on the minimum duration for higher-education studies specified therein?
(b) How does it justify any deviation from full application of that Directive? C 46 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(c) If there is any deviation from the above Directive, how does the Commission justify placing graduates of German colleges of higher education (‘Fachhochschulen’) at a disadvantage by comparison with graduates of higher-education establishments in other Member States whose diplomas, recognised as equivalent under the Directive, do not set higher requirements than these German colleges?
(d) What steps are taken to ensure the greatest possible transparency and legal certainty for applicants where additional criteria and rules are applied?
4. How many graduates of German ‘Fachhochschulen’ are employed by the Commission in categories A and LA (apart from national experts) without having been required to provide education certificates in addition to their college diploma?
5. How many of the staff employed in categories A and LA graduated from British and Irish universities with a bachelor’s degree and were not required to provide any further certificates of education?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(7 April 2000)
The notice of competition for COM/LA/1051 (1) set out under point II.B.2 that candidates must have completed a course of university studies: ‘Die Bewerber müssen ein abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium nachweisen.’ The selection board, which operates autonomously within the limits set by the notice of competition, always decides about the admission of each individual candidate, taking into account differences in education systems and the principle of equal treatment of candidates.
In observing the requirement that candidates had followed a higher education course lasting at least four years, the selection board acted in accordance with the principles applied by the Commission. The Commission requires candidates for the category A/LA to possess a university diploma giving access to doctoral studies. In case of German ‘Fachhochschulen’, the Commission takes into account the German law ‘Hochschulrahmengesetz’ (HRG) of 1976 (which regulates ‘Universitäten, Pädagogische Hochschulen, Kunsthochschulen, Fachhochschulen’). This law defines ‘Hochschulabschluss’ without distinguishing between the different diplomas. The Commission consequently accords the right to participate in an A/ LA competition to candidates submitting a German diploma of at least four years (eight-semester) duration. The Commission recognises differences between educational systems in Member States. In some cases, the standard length of degree offering access to doctoral studies is shorter than four years, and the Commission therefore accepts these particular degrees.
As outlined above, the Commission is aware of the fact that under German law the requirement ‘Nachweis eines abgeschlossenen Hochschulstudiums’ principally opens the competition for ‘Hochschul-’ and ‘Fach- hochschulabsolventen’ so that the German applicants to the competition COM/LA/1051 were not aware of further restrictions. The Commission regrets this inadvertent lack of information and, in future competi- tions, will therefore clarify which further conditions have to be fulfilled in the notice of competition for the different Member States. Accordingly, German applicants will only be accepted for A/LA-competitions if they can provide a ‘Fachhochschulabschluß von 8 Semestern’.
1. The conditions set out in the notice of competition and as explained above have been applied equally to all candidates for COM/LA/1051. The selection boards of previous interpreters’ competitions, which took place in 11 languages, have taken comparable decisions on the admission of candidates, taking into account differences in education systems of Member States. However, the Commission would like to point out that each competition is dealt with independently.
2. Directive 89/48/EEC (on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (2)) is aimed at the recognition of higher-education diplomas of at least three years’ duration, in relation to undertaking regulated profession in one of the Member States. It is however not aimed at the recognition of academic 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/25
titles which remains in the competence of Member States. The Commission is of the opinion that Directive 89/48/EEC is not applicable in relation to competitions organised by the European institutions. Instead, in order to decide if a diploma is accepted for access to its public function, the Commission has to base itself on the existing legislation of each individual Member State.
4. In the case of German graduates of ‘Fachhochschulen’, to whom the Honourable Member refers in her question, it can be noted that in Germany their diploma does not give them access to a career in the ‘Höherer Dienst’, (which is comparable to category A/LA), but to ‘Gehobener Dienst’ which is comparable to category B at the Commission. In accepting candidates with a ‘Fachhochschule’ degree of at least four years duration to A/LA competitions, the Commission has been acting in favour of these candidates, with the aim of taking into account differences in education systems in the Member States.
3. and 5. At the moment, no central records exist that allow the requested information to be readily obtained. In future, as part of the Reform process, a database will be established containing profiles of the academic and career qualifications of Commission staff.
(1) OJ C 312, 14.10.1997. (2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
(2001/C 46 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission
(9 March 2000)
Subject: Genetically modified seeds
Would the Commission clarify what exactly is being communicated to Member States regarding the inclusion of (a) 98/294/CE Elgira Monsanto Bt Maize, (b) 97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize, (c) 97/98/CE Jordi CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and (d) 98/293/CE Chardonell Aventis Ht maize GM seeds in the EU Common Catalogue?
Would the Commission confirm whether marketing consent has been given for (a) 97/98/CE Chardonell Aventis herbicide tolerant maize, (b) 97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/ herbicide tolerant maize, (c) 97/98/ CE Jordi CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and (d) 98/293/CE Chardonell Aventis Ht maize, on which national seed lists these seeds are currently included and if any are subject to field trials in any Member State?
Would the Commission clarify whether it supports the inclusion of 98/294/CE Elgira Monsanto Bt Maize, 97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize, 97/98/CE Jordi CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and 98/293/CE Chardonell Aventis Ht maize GM seeds in the EU Common Catalogue and when a decision is expected on this matter?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(22 May 2000)
The current status of the specific genetically modified maize varieties the Honourable Member mentions is as follows.
The marketing of seeds of genetically modified varieties of agricultural plant species including maize is currently subject to authorization under two different pieces of Community legislation: the authorisation for placing on the market ‘transformation events/products’, pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (1), aiming to protect human health and the environment, and the provisions of Council Directive 70/457/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (2) aiming at compliance with a set of agricultural criteria. C 46 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
The following consents under Directive 90/220/EEC for placing on the market of the genetically modified parental material have been given: the varieties Compa CB and Jordi CB, by Commisison Decision 97/98/ EC (Novartis Bt-176 maize line), the variety Chardon LL, by Commission Decision 98/293/EC (AgrEvo T25 maize line), and the variety Elgina by Commission Decision 98/294/EC (Monsanto 810 maize line).
On that basis, three Member States (Spain and Portugal for Compa CB; Spain for Jordi CB; Netherlands for Chardon LL and Portugal for Elgina) have notified to the Commission the acceptance of these varieties in their national catalogues in accordance with the provisions of Directive 70/457/EEC for marketing of seeds within their respective territories. Under the acceptance procedures carried out by the three Member States concerned, material of these varieties has been subjected to field trials.
The free marketing of such seeds throughout the Community would require, under the same Directive, the inclusion of the four varieties in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.
However, the initial acceptance of the varieties Compa CB and Elgina in the Portuguese national catalogue was suspended by a decision of the ministry of Agriculture of Portugal dated 27 December 1999. As a consequence the variety Elgina is currently no longer eligible either for inclusion in the common catalogue or for marketing in the Community. This does not apply to the variety Compa CB, because of its acceptance by Spain.
At present, discussions with Member States are going on, in order to provide a coherent solution in respect of all aspects relating to the marketing of GMO products. Therefore, the Commission has at this stage not completed the examination of the qualification of the remaining three varieties for inclusion in the common catalogue. The standing committee on seeds and propagating material for agriculture, horticulture and forestry has been informed accordingly.
(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. (2) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970.
(2001/C 46 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(9 March 2000)
Subject: Regional policy
Addressing the Committee on Regional Policy, Mr Landaburu recently stated that if there is to be improvement and greater efficiency it is essential to modify or broaden the criteria, rather than simply continuing to use GDP per inhabitant as the sole indicator.
What other criteria does he believe should be included?
Has a decision already been taken on these new indicators?
When is any such decision expected to be adopted?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) refers to per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The Article states that the regions covered by Objective 1 (those whose development is lagging behind) are NUTS level II regions whose per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Community figures for the last three years available on 26 March 1999, is less than 75 % of the Community average. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/27
The GDP of a region is a global indicator of its production activity. It is therefore a suitable instrument for measuring regions’ levels of economic development. Moreover, since 1998 the per capita GDP expressed in purchasing power parity and calculated at NUTS level II has been used to determine whether regions may be covered by Objective 1.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the aforementioned Regulation, the list of regions covered by Objective 1 was drawn up by the Commission on 1 July 1999. This list will remain valid until 31 December 2006.
With this in mind, for the 2000-2006 period the Commission does not intend to propose eligibility criteria for Objective 1 different to those adopted by the Council and Parliament.
In addition, the distribution of total appropriations between regions eligible under Objective 1 is based on criteria other than the region’s per capita GDP, in particular the unemployment rate.
The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that, in the context of Objective 2 (regions under conversion), Article 4 of the same Regulation envisages a number of criteria in addition to the per capita GDP which may be used to justify the eligibility of the proposed areas.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/00 by Michel Rocard (PSE) to the Council
(13 March 2000)
Subject: International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention on the ‘worst forms of child labour’ (No 182)
In June 1999 the ILO adopted a new convention on ‘the worst forms of child labour (No 182)’.
Which Member States have ratified this convention?
Does the current Council Presidency envisage measures to encourage all the Member States to ratify this convention as soon as possible?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
At the end of March 2000, the United Kingdom, Finland and Ireland had ratified the Convention in question. In addition, two other European States and seven non-European States had ratified it. In Spain, the instrument of ratification is before the Parliament.
The Presidency underlines the importance of this Convention being ratified by as many States as possible, recalling its exceptional unanimous adoption by the International Labour Conference in 1999, and its significant role in the efforts to improve the situation of the children of the world.
Consequently the Presidency, although it is aware of the differences between the Member States as regards their ratification procedures, will use the means at its disposal to underline for them the necessity and importance of the ratification as soon as possible of this important Convention. C 46 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/00 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission
(9 March 2000)
Subject: IGC
How does the Commission distinguish between an ‘open market’ and a ‘social market economy’?
Does the Commission support a revision to the wording of Articles 4 and 98?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(11 May 2000)
The distinction between an ‘open market’ and a ‘social market economy’ is, in the view of the Commission, that the former refers to the regulatory and institutional framework for the markets in which firms compete, while the latter denotes a guiding principle for economic policy in which governments may wish to adhere. Specifically, ‘open markets’ mean that competition is free and without barriers to entry. By comparison, a ‘social market economy’ embodies policy objectives as reflected in Article 2 of the EC Treaty, namely that a ‘harmonious, balanced, and sustainable development of economic activities’ and a ‘high level of employment and of social protection’ should be promoted. Evidently, as in any other area of policymaking, a balance has to be struck between various objectives, but it is important to stress that there is no intrinsic contradiction between seeking to have an open market economy and the aspiration for an economy with a clear social dimension.
The Presidency conclusions from the European Council in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000 bear witness to the policy objective of making sure that economic and social policy goals are pursued in a coherent fashion. The Council has decided to monitor developments in the area of social protection and coherence as part of a broader monitoring effort which, in addition, covers employment, innovation and economic reform. The monitoring efforts underpin the objective of attaining economic progress and coherence by setting and pursuing policy targets, comparing best practice, and benchmarking structural indicators. It follows from this, that the objectives laid down in Articles 4 and 98 (ex Articles 3a and 102a) of the EC Treaty must be seen in the context of the EC Treaty as a whole and, consequently, the Commission sees no reason for modifying the wording of these articles.
(2001/C 46 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/00 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission
(9 March 2000)
Subject: State aid from the Spanish Government to the electricity sector
Does the Commission intend to approve the Costs of Transition to a competitive system for the Spanish electricity companies, which amount to ESP 1,3 billion?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(18 April 2000)
As part of the liberalisation of the electricity market pursuant to European Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), the Spanish authorities earmarked approx ESP 1 300 000 as compensation for the ‘costs of transition to competition’. On 29 January 1999 the Spanish authorities notified these measures under 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/29
Article 24 of the above Directive, the first paragraph of which lays down that ‘those Member States in which commitments or guarantees of operation given before the entry into force of this Directive may not be honoured on account of the provisions of this Directive may apply for a transitional regime which may be granted to them by the Commission, taking into account, amongst other things, the size of the system concerned, the level of interconnection of the system and the structure of its electricity industry. The Commission shall inform the Member States of those applications before it takes a decision, taking into account respect for confidentiality. This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities’. At the same time the Spanish authorities notified these measures, as required, under Article 88(3) (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty (state aid).
On 8 July 1999, the Commission took a decision stating that these measures were not covered by Article 24 of the Directive but should be examined in the light of the rules relating to state aid and, in particular, Article 87(3)(c) (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty (2). The Spanish authorities lodged an action for annulment of this decision, currently pending before the Court (3).
The Commission is also examining the case as a non-notified aid, because the measure came into force before it was notified under Article 88(3). The Commission will take a decision as soon as possible.
(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997. (2) OJ L 319, 11.12.1999. (3) Case C-369/99 Kingdom of Spain v. Commission.
(2001/C 46 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0701/00 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission
(17 March 2000)
Subject: Rules on information
Directive 98/34/EC (1), amended by Directive 98/48/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, requires each Member State, with effect from 5 August 1999, to notify the Commission at the drafting stage of any new rules on information society services, so as to prevent the emergence of barriers to the free movement of on-line services,
Given that any adoption of draft national rules without first notifying the Commission would be an infringement of Community law by the Member State concerned, regardless of the substance of the national legislation, will the Commission say whether or not Italy complied with this procedure when adopting Law 4197 B of the Senate (known as ‘par conditio’) and, if not, whether it intends to initiate infringement proceedings against that Member State?
(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37. (2) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(27 April 2000)
In its answers to Written Questions P-1608/99 of Mr Tajani (1) and E-1734/99 of Mr Ferri (2), the Commission noted that the draft Italian law on information and political and campaign advertising (referred to as the ‘par condicio’ law) contained, at that time, provisions on information society services. C 46 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
However, it appears that those provisions are no longer included in the definitive text of Law No 28 of 22 February 2000, adopted by the Italian Parliament, which governs only communication and political messages on radio broadcasting channels (see Articles 2 and 4).
In view of the fact that on-line information and political and campaign advertising (for example via the Internet) are therefore not covered by the Italian law referred to and that radio broadcasting and audio- visual services are specifically excluded from the scope of Directive 98/34/EC (as amended by the ‘Transparency Directive’ 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations) (3), the adoption of the Italian law on ‘par condicio’ does not constitute infringement of the prior notification procedure provided for under that Directive.
(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000. (2) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000. (3) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.
(2001/C 46 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0710/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(17 March 2000)
Subject: Implementation of the electricity directive
1. Has sufficient unbundling taken place in the electricity industry particularly with regard to the separation of transmission and distribution networks for the production and sale of electricity to ensure fair competition, on a footing of equality, in the industry?
2. Has attention been paid to making it possible to keep transaction costs as low as possible, in the interests of small suppliers?
3. How are levels of transit charges monitored on the basis of unbundling?
4. (a) Have any comparisons yet been made between EU Member States, for example of the cost of transit of 1 Kilowatt-hour over 150 km?
(b) If not, why not? How else can the fairness of competition be monitored if there are no comparative data?
5. Is there an explanation for the differences in transit charges?
6. If there is no monitoring in this field, how is the electricity directive implemented?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2000)
1. Unbundling in the electricity industry is key to ensuring fair competition, as the Honourable Member rightly points out. According to Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), the Member States are obliged to unbundle the operation of the transmission system operator (TSO) in the accounts and in management terms. There is no obligation on the Member States to legally unbundle transmission system operation or to require separate ownership of the natural monopoly activities from generation and supply. The distribution activities are subject to obligations relating to non dissemination of commercially sensitive 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/31
information to other parts of the electricity company. Most Member States have decided to go further than the obligations of the Directive, in the sense that they have either legally unbundled the TSO, or even unbundled ownership of the TSO. The Commission has asked Member States that have unbundled only the management of the TSO to provide information as to the practical implementation of this requirement. The Commission is assessing the answers and will take the appropriate action if it feels that the management unbundling has not been sufficiently ensured.
2. It is the task of the regulatory authorities to regulate transmission prices, and it is the objective of all independent regulators to keep transmission prices as low as possible.
3. The transmission tariffs have recently been set in the Member States due to the implementation of the Electricity Directive. The transmission tariffs are monitored by regulatory authorities in Member States. The Commission is of the opinion that a comparison of transmission tariffs in the Member States is important for transparency of the electricity market. Non-discriminatory and fair access to the network is fundamental for arriving at a competitive electricity market. For this reason it will launch a comparative study on the transmission tariffs in the Member Sates this year.
4. As the transmission tariffs have only recently been developed and are still under development in the Member States that had an additional period to implement the Directive, these data have not yet been collected for the Community.
5. The Commission through its contacts with the market players is however aware of the fact that quite substantial differences exist in transmission tariffs throughout the Community. The reasons for these differences will be one of the elements of the study that the Commission intends to launch this year. However, it can already be stated that these levels will differ due to differences in size of networks, in consumer base over which to allocate the costs due to productivity and efficiency levels, and due to different levels of investments, also for investment in interconnection capacity to facilitate trade in the internal market.
6. Monitoring of the different levels of transmission tariffs is an important element in ensuring that the internal electricity market functions on a non-discriminatory basis. The Commission regards it very much as its task to ensure that transmission tariffs guarantee equal access to the transmission grid.
(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0717/00 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission
(17 March 2000)
Subject: Preparations for the Eighth summit on progress and development in Equatorial Guinea
The press agency Agence France Presse reported on 11 February that a meeting had been held in Malabo on 10 February between Teodoro Obiang, President of Equatorial Guinea, and Friedrich Nagel, Head of the Commission Delegation in Yaoundé, Cameroon.
According to this report, Mr Nagel stated on the radio that the object of his visit was to deliver to Mr Obiang an ‘official letter of notification’ concerning the ‘Eighth summit on progress and development in Equatorial Guinea’. There was no public announcement of the date and place of this summit.
As many NGOs have pointed out, including the Spanish NGO Asodegue and the international organisation Médecins sans Frontières, the situation in Equatorial Guinea is deteriorating constantly, to the point where Médecins sans Frontières has had to abandon the humanitarian work it was engaged in on the ground. C 46 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
The deterioration results from an ongoing lack of democracy and respect for human rights, with widespread poverty among the population, despite the country’s natural resources being exploited with increasing rapidity.
The responsibility for this lamentable situation clearly rests with the regime of Mr Obiang, who has systematically failed to fulfil all his promises of progress towards a constitutional State.
Under these circumstances, Mr Nagel’s visit raises justifiable concern, as it gives the impression that the Commission intends to resume cooperation with Guinea despite the inertia of the country’s ruling dictatorship.
In view of the above:
can the Commission provide detailed information about Mr Nagel’s visit to Malabo?
what is its view of the lack of progress towards democracy in Guinea?
does it intend to make resumption of cooperation with this country conditional on a democracy clause?
what is the content of the ‘Eighth summit for progress and development in Equatorial Guinea’?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(18 April 2000)
The information published on the Commission’s relations with Equatorial Guinea is incorrect.
The Commission has no knowledge of the ‘Eighth summit on progress and development in Equatorial Guinea’. However, on 11 February the Head of the Commission delegation in Equatorial Guinea did indeed meet President Obiang. The meeting had two aims: to give Mr Obiang the letter of notification stating the amount allocated to Equatorial Guinea under the Eighth European Development Fund (EDF), and to inform him of the imminent arrival of a Community human rights mission.
In recent years, relations between the Community and Equatorial Guinea have been significantly affected by the latter’s difficulties with its process of democratisation and respect for human rights. Together with the Member States represented there, the Commission is conducting an intensive political dialogue with the government in order to take the democratisation process forward.
Equatorial Guinea is a country in which Community cooperation can nevertheless play a significant role in terms of impact on the poorest sections of the population.
The Commission is, for instance, financing a project to rehabilitate the drinking water supply and sanitation networks of the town of Malabo and plans to fund a similar project for Bata. Both projects will go a long way towards improving the living conditions of the most vulnerable population groups in Equatorial Guinea.
The Commission is also due to send a mission of three independent experts to Equatorial Guinea in the near future to establish a plan of action for democratisation, human rights, the fight against poverty and the development of civil society.
The Commission is closely following the situation in the country via its office in Malabo and by means of frequent contacts with the Member States and other international donors.
The Commission has acted and will continue to act with the greatest caution in relations with Equatorial Guinea to promote the establishment of the rule of law and facilitate the democratisation process, two areas which will continue to be given priority in discussions with the country’s authorities. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/33
(2001/C 46 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0735/00 by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission
(6 March 2000)
Subject: Fishing agreement with the Baltic States
The dispute between Swedish and Baltic fishermen in the Baltic Sea has escalated. Swedish west-coast fishermen have difficulties fishing in Swedish waters because Baltic fishermen are blockading the fishing grounds. Under an agreement with the EU, the Latvian and Lithuanian fishing fleets are entitled to fish part of their national quota in the Member States’ fishing zones. Foreign fishing boats are required to report their entry into and departure from Swedish fishing zones. Previously, the reports were made directly to the Swedish coast guard. Now, they are sent via Brussels which causes delays of several days and, as a result, the boats manage to leave Swedish waters before the coast guard has received notification.
How does the Commission intend to resolve the apparent problems of supervision and coordination?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(13 April 2000)
As the result of a declaration adopted at the Council of fisheries ministers in December 1995, the Commission subsequently submitted a report on monitoring Community conservation and management measures applicable to third-country fishing vessels (1). On the basis of this report, it was concluded that it was necessary to reinforce controls on such vessels and that this was possible under existing legislation.
Under Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (2), it is the duty of each Member State, within its territory and within maritime waters subject to its sovereignty or jurisdiction, to check on, inspect and monitor all fishing activities, including fishing by third-country vessels.
In 1997 and 1998, respectively, Swedish coastguard vessels carried out 46 and 23 inspections at sea on vessels flying the flag of Baltic states. This number of inspections represents an inspection rate of between 1 % and 3 % on fishing trips by the vessels concerned. The Commission considers that these efforts could be increased appreciably.
As for the hailing system for notifying entry into and exit from the area monitored, Baltic vessels are required to use the radio stations listed in the Community legislation.
These radio stations notify the Commission of such transmissions, and the Commission passes them on to all the Member States concerned. Thus the Swedish authorities will also receive all transmissions, including those from Baltic ships operating in the Danish and German sections of Community waters. Although this does not normally take more than a few hours, it can be as long as 48 hours over a weekend. In practice, this time lapse is not a problem for the Swedish authorities because almost all transmissions by Baltic vessels (more than 98 % of messages) are sent via the Gryd coastguard station in Sweden. The Swedish coastguard will therefore actually have them before they are notified to the Commission.
The real problem for the inspection authorities is in fact the inaccuracy of the geographical positions transmitted by Baltic vessels. When the Commission’s own inspectors visited the area, their checks showed that no vessels were to be found near the locations declared. The Commission also discovered that some messages are not even transmitted by the vessel master but by an agent on land.
In any event, the hailing system is now no longer relevant as a result of the reinforcement of the Community rules on monitoring of fishing by vessels of third countries decided on in December 1998. From the beginning of this year, all vessels of more than 24 metres overall, including third-country vessels, are subject to monitoring by satellite. Under this system, the inspecting authorities receive the geographical positions of vessels, without involvement of the vessel master, at least every two hours in real time. This powerful tool means that all geographical positions of Baltic vessels can be monitored continuously. C 46 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Full application of the present rules will make it possible to achieve effective controls if adequate resources are assigned to monitoring fishing activities. The number of Baltic vessels operating at any one time in Community waters is on average not more than about twenty.
In order to improve the quality and intensity of inspection and monitoring of fishing in the Baltic in a general way, the Commission convened a meeting in Brussels at the beginning of 1999 in which all the coastal states of the Baltic participated. A second meeting of this kind will be held on the island of Bornholm (Denmark) in April 2000.
(1) COM(96) 493 final. (2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
(2001/C 46 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/00 by Karin Scheele (PSE) to the Commission
(17 March 2000)
Subject: Sinking of the oil tanker ‘Erika’ in December 1999
The sinking of the oil tanker ‘Erika’ in December 1999 had serious consequences for the environment. According to a report in the Austrian daily newspaper Der Standard of 19/20 February 2000, such environmental disasters involving oil tankers are mainly due to neglect of safety precautions in the interests of profit-seeking in the world marine transport sector. The average age of the world merchant fleet, for example, has been rising steadily in recent decades. It is currently 14,5 years, more than half of vessels being over 15 years old. For several years now there has also been an increase in the number of vessels sailing under flags of convenience, which pose an additional threat to marine safety.
1. What measures has the Commission taken, or is the Commission taking, to improve safety in marine transport?
2. What measures is the Commission taking in particular against vessels sailing under flags of convenience?
3. As long ago as 1993 the European Parliament called on the Commission to impose a ban on any oil tanker older than 15 years calling at any EU port. Has the Commission heeded this call? if not, why not?
4. Has the Commission established a timetable for prohibiting the mooring of oil tankers without double hulls and for eliminating vessels sailing under flags of convenience, or is it planning to do so?
5. Is the Commission taking any measures to introduce the principle of joint and several liability of shipowners, charterers, insurers and classification societies?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2000)
On 21 March 2000, to reduce the possibility of shipping accidents as far as possible and provide Europe’s coasts with even better protection from the devastating consequences of oil pollution, the Commission adopted a communication on the safety of the seaborne oil trade (1). The communication provides answers to all the Honourable Member’s questions.
The Commission is proposing a series of immediate and longer-term measures.
To start with, Community law on the inspection of vessels calling at European ports and on the monitoring of classification societies is to be tightened up. The issue of classification society liability is also dealt with. These measures will allow more targeted action to be taken against flags which fail to comply with international safety standards, including certain flags of convenience. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/35
In practice, the Commission is proposing a ban on vessels more than 15 years old which are past offenders in terms of failing to comply with safety standards and which appear on a ‘black list’ of flags. This measure is aimed not only at oil tankers, but will apply to other types of vessel, too, including bulk carriers.
The Commission is also proposing to ban single-hull oil tankers from Community waters, following a timetable similar to that adopted in the United States. In view of the enhanced inspections it is proposing, the Commission does not intend automatically to ban vessels flying a flag of convenience.
Subsequently, the Commission envisages making supplementary proposals regarding systematic exchange of information between all the actors in the shipping community, improved surveillance of navigation, and the creation of a European body for maritime safety. It is in this context that the Commission is planning to put forward proposals for measures regarding the liability of the various players in the seaborne oil trade.
(1) COM(2000) 142 final.
(2001/C 46 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0741/00 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission
(13 March 2000)
Subject: Municipal enterprises and fair competition
Experience from America and Britain shows that free markets are possible only if there are powerful supervisory authorities.
1. What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that social conditions and environmental standards, consumer protection, transparency of annual reports and fair conditions of competition are guaranteed for all suppliers of local government services?
2. Does the Commission ensure that supervisory bodies are set up to monitor compliance with these social and environmental standards?
3. The electricity directive provides for preferential treatment for renewable energies and combined heat and power. What instruments are to be used to guarantee this?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(10 May 2000)
1. The Honourable Member’s first question concerns the measures that have been taken at Community level to ensure that service providers participating in a public contract award procedure respect certain obligations or standards applying to them.
With regard to social conditions and environmental standards, the Community Directives on public contracts (particularly Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1)) currently contain provisions enabling the contracting authority in certain conditions to exclude from an award procedure any potential service provider who has not fulfilled obligations, particularly those of a social nature.
In general, the Directives on public contracts aim to guarantee the transparency of the award procedures and to ensure fair competition between service providers in order to prevent any kind of discrimination between potential providers. C 46 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
2. As Community law stands, it is the responsibility of the authorities of the Member States to ensure that providers of local government services comply with the environmental provisions of Community law. The Commission itself is competent to check whether the national authorities have performed this control function correctly. However, as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission has no power to act when the environmental standards in question are not covered by Community directives.
3. Article 8(3) of Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (2) provides one explicit mechanism for the favourable treatment of electricity from renewable energy sources and combined heat and power (CHP):
A Member State may require the system operator, when dispatching generating installations, to give priority to generating installations using renewable energy sources or waste or producing combined heat and power.
It should be noted, however, that the Directive limits itself to favourable dispatching. It does not cover schemes providing direct or indirect support for renewable energy sources.
In principle it is up to the Member State to decide on a particular support system for renewables or CHP, provided that it is compatible with the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular the rules on state aid as set out in Articles 87-88 (ex Articles 92-93).
A large number of different national support schemes exist, including guaranteed purchase obligation at a guaranteed price (often on an avoided cost basis, or on the basis of a regulatory-based calculation of the level of support required to generate the desired level of renewable electricity production); tax exemptions, in particular from energy and CO2 taxes, but equally from non-energy taxes; support scheme per kWh produced; and other support schemes including support for research and development or for capital investment.
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. (2) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0744/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(13 March 2000)
Subject: Support for South Tyrolese citizens sentenced by Italian courts in breach of the provisions of the European Human Rights Convention
In the 1960s South Tyrolese citizens were sentenced in Italy to terms of life imprisonment, some of which are still being served. This is particularly true today of those who were sentenced in absentia by Italian courts to life imprisonment for alleged crimes of violence. Detailed investigations and legal proceedings in Austria with the Italian side also in attendance established beyond doubt, however, that in each individual case the accusation of crimes of violence was unfounded. In the light of numerous findings by Germany’s highest federal courts (Federal Constitutional Court, Federal Supreme Court) and by the Administrative Court of the Republic of Austria, these trials of South Tyrolese citizens in Italian courts infringed the European Human Rights Convention.
I would therefore ask the Commission the following questions:
1. What measures does it plan to take to ensure that Italy quashes the sentences handed down in breach of human rights on South Tyrolese activists in the 1960s?
2. Is it prepared, where necessary, to refer this issue to the European Court of Justice for a ruling? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/37
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(12 May 2000)
1. Article 6(1) (formerly Article F) of the Treaty on European Union states that ‘the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States’.
Article 6(2) stipulates that ‘the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law’.
It should be emphasised that these provisions relate to the Union but not to the Member States taken individually. According to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, it is only in the event of a ‘serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1)’ that action may be taken.
In the absence of a breach of Community law, the Commission cannot take other legal measures on the basis of Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. No breach of Community law has occurred, however.
2. Neither the Treaty on European Union nor the Treaty establishing the European Community confer on the Commission the power to refer to the Court of Justice cases of violations of human rights perpetrated by the Member States where such violations are not in any way connected to the application of Union law.
If the persons concerned feel that Italy violated the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, a recommendation should be made to those persons to bring an action before the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on the basis of Article 34 of the Convention. However, it should be noted here that Article 35(1) of the Convention sets a time limit of six months.
(2001/C 46 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0745/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission
(13 March 2000)
Subject: EU health, Aids and population policies
Would the Commission clarify what the status of the EC document ‘Health, Aids and Population (HAP) policies’ is? Is it the case that it was well received by Member States? Is it the case that it has not had due consideration at management level in the Commission? Would the Commission make the document available for consideration by the Parliament?
(2001/C 46 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0746/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission
(13 March 2000)
Subject: EU health, Aids and population policies
Does the Commission have any intention to increase staff managing the (now merged) Aids and population budget lines? C 46 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0745/00 and E-0746/00 given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(17 April 2000)
The Commission is presently reviewing the Community’s past experiences in the field of health, human immunedeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and population and presenting orientations for the Community’s future efforts.
This exercise is part of the general discussion and reformulation of the Community development policy and the related discussion on a poverty action plan, a gender action plan and a review of priorities in social policy areas.
Informal discussions have taken place with the experts from Member States and some other major partners. In general, the orientations have been well received, and will now be discussed in management, before wider consultations.
The policy orientations will of course also become available for discussions in Parliament, but should be considered within the larger framework referred above.
As regards management of the specific budget line mentioned by the Honourable Member, considerations will be given to human resources and technical assistance within the context of the overall exercise of policy and resource priority setting that is ongoing. Part of this exercise will be addressed in the follow up on the white paper (1) on reform of the Commission.
In this framework the distribution of human and financial resources will be part of an overall exercise on priority setting and distribution of resources which will be completed by September 2000.
(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
(2001/C 46 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 March 2000)
Subject: Regional funding for southeast Ireland
Being in mind that the southeast region of Ireland has been classified as an Objective 1 in transition area, would the Commission pay special attention to the region while negotiating the dispersal of the various funding programmes in the light of recent figures published (1) by the Central Statistics Office of Ireland and which show that the region is not benefiting from the growth in the Irish economy as much as many other areas in Ireland hitherto classified as more needy?
(1) Published on 21 February 2000.
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(11 May 2000)
The classification of the Southern and Eastern region of Ireland as an Objective 1 region in transition provides scope for more balanced economic growth across the region. A dedicated operational programme (the Southern and Eastern operational programme) with planned expenditure of almost € 4 000 million will complement expenditure through the inter-regional operational programmes in the region of € 31 000 million. Sub-regions found to be lagging behind in terms of infrastructure and industry or services will be targeted with differentiated assistance according to need with a view to eliminating imbalances within the region as a whole. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/39
(2001/C 46 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(13 March 2000)
Subject: Tax reforms in Southern Africa
In his answer to question E-2382/99 (1), Commissioner Poul Nielsen said that: ‘The Community is ready to assist the BLNS countries in implementing fiscal reform, necessary to diversify their sources of income’. This would enable the countries in question to absorb the financial consequences of the free-trade agreement between the Community and South Africa.
1. What specific measures does the Commission have in mind to help (a) Botswana, (b) Lesotho, (c) Namibia and (d) Swaziland in reforming their tax systems?
2. In what way will the Commission implement these measures in (a) Botswana, (b) Lesotho, (c) Namibia and (d) Swaziland?
3. When will the Commission start implementing these measures in (a) Botswana, (b) Lesotho, (c) Namibia and (d) Swaziland? When will the proposed fiscal reform be completed?
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 36.
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(13 April 2000)
The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that the Community is ready to assist Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland (BLNS) in implementing fiscal reform according to their own established timetables and their own fixed priorities.
It must be recalled that no fiscal or financial effects on the economies of the BLNS countries, as a consequence of the implementation of the trade and development cooperation agreement (TDCA), are foreseen before the year 2006. Most South African tariff reductions will only start six years after the entry into force of the agreement, and most cuts in duties will only come towards the end of the transitional period of twelve years.
Fiscal reform in the BLNS countries should not only be seen in the context of possible financial consequences of the TDCA, but should take into account as well the possible consequences of the ongoing negotiations on the reform of the Southern African customs union (SACU) and the trade negotiations for a free trade area between the Southern African development community (SADC) member states.
The Commission is preparing a support programme in close cooperation with the BLNS countries. The first phase will undertake analysis on adjustment issues arising from trade liberalisation and prepare activities to take advantage of the new opportunities in addition to coping with the necessary adjustment process. This phase is valued at € 6 million and is foreseen to be implemented over a three year period from January 2001-December 2003. A second phase will involve a package for assisting the private sector to enhance their competitiveness through the introduction of new techniques, improved management and work practices and retraining of labour, and the design, where appropriate, of transitional budgetary support programmes within the context of coherent macro economic programmes. A third phase could focus on the implementation of such programmes. C 46 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0769/00 by Maria Carrilho (PSE) to the Commission
(9 March 2000)
Subject: Mozambique
At present it is impossible to assess the scale of the tragedy which has hit Mozambique, its land and its people. In the immediate future the question of survival is the absolute priority, but later on, during the reconstruction phase, it is essential to give the Mozambican people the hope and resources to enable them to resume the commitment which was producing such positive results in the country’s development.
1. How does the Commission, which responded swiftly with emergency aid, intend to ensure its own transition from this phase to the reconstruction phase?
2. What material and organisational resources does it expect to have available during the reconstruction phase and what would the timetable be?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(17 April 2000)
The intervention of the Commission through the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) in the emergency situation caused by floods in Mozambique is expected to continue for at least six months. Its activities are articulated through a two-phase strategy: the first phase is aimed in particular at providing shelter, water and sanitation and health care to the most vulnerable of the populations displaced by the flooding; the second phase (which in some cases will run concurrently with the first) aims at promoting the resettlement of these populations, notably through the provision of seeds and tools and small-scale rehabilitation of essential health infrastructure.
Commission partners were operational on the ground from the beginning of the crisis, and a senior specialist was deployed in Maputo in February 2000 to assess humanitarian needs and co-ordinate the Commission’s relief and resettlement intervention strategy with the Institut national de gestion des catastrophes (INGC), the delegation and the Member States’ missions on the spot. A second technical assistant has since been deployed in Mozambique to monitor the implementation of Commission-funded assistance and ensure co-ordination and a smooth handover to rehabilitation and development activities. Furthermore, an additional official will be recruited to the delegation to reinforce the operational implementation of the Commission’s intervention in the reconstruction phase.
The Commission is very aware of the importance of a smooth transition from relief and resettlement to rehabilitation and development. A Mozambique task force set up to ensure close coordination between ECHO, Directorate general Development and the Exterior Relations common service is actively supporting the delegation in Maputo in the development of a coherent and comprehensive strategy for intervention. The identification of that strategy to be presented to a donors’ conference to be convened at the end of April 2000 will be made on the basis of a global overview of the situation in the affected areas, and in accordance with the results of sectoral needs assessments currently taking place in Mozambique.
With regard to financial resources, € 4,15 million of emergency funding has already been made available to Mozambique, with a decision for a further € 5,58 million imminent. Moreover, the member responsible for development and humanitarian aid has promised an initial amount of € 21 million additional funds for the rehabilitation phase, with the possibility of extra funding as the results of the needs assessments become clearer. The Commission will provide its funding to the rehabilitation requirements in strict coordination with the Member States and the other donors. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/41
The Commission is also currently appraising, together with the government of Mozambique and the World Bank, the need for additional budget support for 2000 and 2001. Proposals intended to help the country to maintain macro-economic stability will be shortly presented to the Commission. Additional resources of up to € 15 million could be made available in this regard.
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission is pressing forward with its normal development programme in Mozambique, from which no funds have been diverted. On the contrary, disbursements will be stepped up, reaching an estimated € 150 million in 2000 as compared to € 100 million in 1999.
The Commission’s intervention in the relief and resettlement phase is expected to continue for at least six months. The Commission is now in the process of identifying its intervention strategy for the reconstruc- tion phase, will be designed to link in with and take over from the relief operations in order to ensure uninterrupted assistance.
(2001/C 46 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council
(15 March 2000)
Subject: Funding of the meeting of Ministers of Defence
Was any of the cost of the unofficial meeting of Ministers of Defence in Portugal on 28 February 2000 met from the EU budget? If so, please give details.
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The informal meeting of Defence Ministers in Portugal on 28 February 2000 did not place any burden on the EU budget. Apart from the mission expenses of a small number of officials, ordinary administrative costs were borne by the Presidency.
(2001/C 46 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0783/00 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 March 2000)
Subject: Checks on the use of vegetable fats
How will the Commission monitor the use of vegetable fats in the manufacture of chocolate if the European Parliament and Council Directive relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption (COM(97) 682) (1) is adopted?
(1) OJ C 118, 17.4.1998, p. 10.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(27 April 2000)
First of all, the Commission would like to point out that monitoring the content of foodstuffs is a responsibility of the Member States. Where the specific technical requirements of Community legislation C 46 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
are concerned (notably for verification of maximum constituent levels and presence of other elements) Member States use analytical methods as part of their controls. Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1) confirms such analytical work as incumbent on the national authorities.
Their work of checking that products meet the specified requirements is of wide scope (technical installations, stock records, analyses etc.). A particular analysis method cannot be considered as in itself the sole means of irrefutably concluding that a product does or does not meet the legally binding requirements.
Nonetheless, given the political sensitivities over chocolate and the desirability of a single European analysis method, the Commission asked the Joint Research Centre (Ispra) to find one. Having assessed all the possible methods with the Member States’ laboratories, the JRC has formulated a method applicable to ordinary chocolate that it considers very satisfactory. This is based on determination of the triglyceride profile, which turned out to be the most suitable (EUR Report 18992 EN (2)). There are of course for all analysis methods criteria of reproducibility and repeatability but these do not call the method into question in any fundamental way. To facilitate analysis, the JRC is preparing reference material that can be used as an internal standard for the analysis and will permit calibration of the analytical technique (high- temperature gas chromatography).
Moreover, as stated in the communication to Parliament on 18 November 1999 (3) on the Council common position on chocolate products, the Commission will include, in the next coordinated Commun- ity foodstuff control programme, arrangements for checking conformity for these fats with the require- ments of the new Directive due to be adopted shortly by the Council following Parliament’s recent second- reading opinion. Such arrangements may cover both analysis methods and the other types of check provided for in Directive 89/397/EEC.
(1) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989. (2) Report (including description of method) available from JRC (E. Anklam, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, I-21020 Ispra). (3) SEC(1999) 1912 final.
(2001/C 46 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0784/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission
(16 March 2000)
Subject: Compliance with environmental priorities and Sogama plan
The treatment of waste in densely populated regions such as Galicia must comply with strict safety rules, since otherwise dangers could arise for the population through the pollution of the air, water and soil.
The Galician government’s Sogama plan for the treatment of solid urban waste has attracted criticism on the grounds that it is not geared to the five key objectives of Community environmental policy as regards urban waste: preventing the production of waste, reusing it as raw material, improving its disposal, strengthening rules governing the transport of waste and cleaning up polluted ground.
On the basis of what technical conditions was the subsidy granted for the Sogama plan?
Should that plan be revised to bring it more closely into line with environmental requirements, would the Commission be in a position to re-examine the funding of the improved plan? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/43
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 2000)
Through its Decision of 7 May 1998, the Commission decided to grant financial support to the ‘Plan de Gestión de Residuos Sólidos Urbanos de Galicia’ (1) (plan for the management of municipal waste for the Galicia Region). This decision was taken after a thorough evaluation of the proposal and the assessment that it complied with the requirements of all the relevant Community policies, including environmental policy. The environmental impact assessment of the project shows that it represents an environmental improvement for the region of Galicia.
Regarding the hierarchy established for the management of wastes, the assessment states that all those wastes that cannot be reused or recycled after separate collection at the point of origin would be further selected for recycling in the central facility. Moreover, the non-reusable and non-recyclable portion will be subject to energy recovery through its transformation into a refuse derived fuel to be used for the production of electricity in the generation plant built in the ‘Complexo Medioambiental de Cerceda’. Furthermore, most of the wastes produced in the region will be transported by railroad from the transfer stations to the central facility.
The development of the project has been carried out in full respect of the terms of the decision of the Commission.
(1) Cohesion Fund Project No 97.11.61.047.
(2001/C 46 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/00 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission
(16 March 2000)
Subject: Failure by DG XIII to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival
In 1995 the Commission (DG XIII) decided to grant the Netherlands Film Festival a subsidy of ECU 12 000 to organise the Scientific Technical Festival. After a series of letters, phone calls and requests for payment, the sum in question was eventually received in early 1997. In 1996 another subsidy, this time of twice ECU 12 000, was promised by an official of DG XIII. The requisite papers were completed and returned by the recipient. However, despite a number of letters, petitions and a complaint to the European Ombuds- man, no money has yet been forthcoming.
In reply to a previous question by a Member of the European Parliament (E-2730/98 (1)) on this subject, the Commission wrote that it would await the close examination by the European Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s reply has been known for a long time now: he delivered a moral victory to the Netherlands Film Festival, while addressing a ‘critical remark’ to DG XIII and referring to ‘bad governance’. A further question to the Commission by the same Member, of 20 April 1999, has never received a reply.
1. Is the Commission aware of the facts concerning the granting of subsidies by an official of DG XIII and excuses about mail not being received and the service moving premises?
2. Has the official in question promised more than he can deliver?
3. Does the Commission feel morally obliged to pay the Netherlands Film Festival the sum promised, since the Ombudsman has upheld the complaint by the Netherlands Film Festival? If not, why not?
(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 106. C 46 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (2 May 2000)
1. The Commission is aware of the situation which resulted in the non-granting of a second subsidy to the Netherlands Film Festival. The facts are set out in detail in the decision delivered on 20 October 1998 by the European Ombudsman, which closed a detailed enquiry undertaken in response to a complaint lodged on 23 January 1997.
2. The Commission has accepted the decision, including the critical remarks contained in the Ombuds- man’s conclusion, which describes the procedure applied in this instance as ‘bad governance’.
3. The Commission grants subsidies in accordance with precise legal rules relating inter alia to substance, form and deadlines. It cannot but comply with those rules.
(2001/C 46 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0792/00 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 March 2000)
Subject: Data protection
A hearing was recently held in the European Parliament on data protection, at which (among other topics) the communications interception project Echelon was discussed. It seems that this system is used world- wide by the USA to intercept telephone, fax, mobile phone and e-mail communications; software may also apparently have inbuilt keys which may be used as a secret back door through which a citizen may be followed into his computer and his activities monitored.
The Directive on data protection in the telecommunications sector (European Parliament and Council Directive 97/66/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (1)) imposes obligations on service and network providers but appears not to cover software.
1. Has the Commission received any complaints about this matter?
2. Is the Commission prepared to amend Directive 97/66/EC to plug the software loophole in the interest of providing actual protection of citizens against the unwanted monitoring and interception of computer contents and communications flows?
3. Does the Commission consider that with increasingly comprehensive interception by the authorities and with wide-ranging obligations for service providers to store their customers’ data the Member States have struck a proper balance between the citizen’s right to privacy and the interests of national security and crime prevention?
4. Is the Commission, in the context of its duty to ensure the proper transposition of European directives into national law, examining the proportionality of measures taken by the Member States pursuant to the exemptions permitted by the European data protection directives? What are its findings in this connection?
(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (3 May 2000)
1. No.
2. Directive 95/46/EC (1) on the processing of personal data covers all processing of personal data irrespective of the hardware or software used. The working party of data protection commissioners established under Article 29 of this Directive has addressed the problem of invisible and automatic processing of personal data on the Internet performed by software and hardware. In its recommendation 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/45
1/99 of 23 February 1999, the working party described the problem of privacy-invading features embedded in software and hardware used for communications over the Internet. The working party called on the software and hardware industry to develop privacy-compliant products in line with the data protection rules of the general data protection Directive 95/46/EC and the telecommunications data protection Directive 97/66/EC (2). One of the objectives of the 1999 review of the telecommunications regulatory framework is to ensure a consistent, technology neutral application of existing rules and to propose amendments where technological neutrality is not guaranteed. At present providers of public telecommunications services and networks are under specific legal obligations to guarantee the security of their networks, to ensure the confidentiality of communications and to delete traffic data.
Since the adoption of the telecommunications data protection Directive, the services delivered over telecommunications networks have evolved with the rise of the Internet. Regarding the software which is necessary for these new telecommunications services, such as some software used for sending e-mails and browsers used for surfing the Internet, compliance with data protection rules is not entirely satisfactory as the working party of data protection commissioners has noted. Clearly, there is no technological neutrality in a situation where the protection of the privacy of the user depends on whether certain functionalities necessary for a telecommunications service are in the network or in the software. The Commission is considering various possibilities to tackle this problem. Concrete proposals will be made when the Commission adopts its legislative proposals for the new regulatory framework for electronic communica- tions.
3. and 4. The Commission will pursue its obligation under the EC Treaty to monitor the transposition and effective implementation of directives by the Member States, bearing in mind the case law of the Court of justice concerning the strict interpretation of the scope of exceptions to fundamental principles of law and civil liberties. As part of this monitoring the Commission will examine the proportionality of the legislative measures taken by Member States on the basis of Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 14.1 of Directive 97/66/EC. These provisions allow Member States to adopt legislative measures that restrict the application of some of the data protection principles established by the Directives in order to safeguard the interests which are mentioned in Articles 13 and 14. However, such restrictions may only be permitted under national law if they are necessary to safeguard the interests mentioned in Articles 13 and 14.
Until now, the process of transposition and implementation in the Member States of the data protection directives has been slow. While the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings, it is currently difficult to have a complete picture of the situation concerning the proportionality of the national legislative measures that provide the basis for lawful interception of telecommunications. The Commission will report further on the progress achieved in the next report on the implementation of the telecommu- nications regulatory package.
(1) Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995). (2) Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ L 24, 30.1.1998).
(2001/C 46 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/00
by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(16 March 2000)
Subject: Transport of farm animals
Following the commitments given by Commissioner David Byrne at the meeting of 16 February of the Eurogroup on Animal Welfare regarding enforcement of legislation concerning the transport of live farm C 46 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
animals and the Commissioner’s implication during this meeting that there is only one inspector in the Food and Veterinary Office dealing specifically with transport matters, will the Commission indicate: what additional steps it intends to take to ensure that Member States enforce the relevant legislation, and exactly how many staff will be employed to undertake this task as a specific objective?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2000)
The Commission has constantly been concerned with the welfare of animals during transport
The first directive on the protection of animals during transport was adopted in 1977 (Council Directive 77/489/EC of 18 July 1977 (1)). It was replaced by Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 (2) and later amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (3).
The day by day implementation of Community rules falls under the competence of the authorities of the Member States.
Article 13 of Council Directive 95/29/EC provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council on the experience acquired by the Member States since the implementation of the Directive, possibly accompanied by proposals. The report will be presented to the Council before June 2000 taking into account all available information. The Commission will put forward proposals to amend the current legislation to ensure better enforcement in the light of the conclusions of the above-mentioned report.
Three Commission veterinary experts are currently working in the Commission’s food and veterinary office (FVO), Dublin, specifically in the field of animal welfare. The missions to the Member States that they carry out include aspects of animal welfare during transport. The implementation of Council Directive 91/628/ EEC on the protection of animals during transport will continue to be given a high priority in the work of the FVO animal welfare group.
In addition, welfare issues are included in missions carried out by other FVO inspectors, notably in relation to the welfare of laying hens in battery cages and at the time of slaughter.
(1) OJ L 200, 8.8.1977. (2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. (3) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
(2001/C 46 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0798/00 by Sami Naïr (PSE) to the Commission
(16 March 2000)
Subject: Commission communication on its strategic objectives 2000-20005 and work programme for the year 2000 (COM(2000) 154 final)
1. In its introduction the Commission speaks about modernising our social model.
(a) Why does it consider that is essential to reform the Welfare State?
(b) How is the Welfare State to be modernised in a way that it will remain ‘based on solidarity and fair, caring and inclusive in a climate of more cautious public spending’? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/47
2. In relation to the Stability Pact, the Commission says that it is ready to present proposals to deepen and broaden the scope of monitoring in the area of public finances.
(a) What does it mean by deepening and widening its monitoring?
(b) What measures does it envisage taking?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(13 June 2000)
1. (a) The Commission presented the reasons why it considers it necessary to modernise social protection systems in a communication dated 14 July 1999 and entitled ‘A concerted strategy for modernising social protection’ (1).
(b) Although the need for reform and the detailed arrangements vary from one Member State to another, the Commission considers that the fundamental challenges facing social protection systems are very similar in all the Member States. It would therefore be helpful to establish closer cooperation in the area of social protection, based on exchanges of experience, concertation and assessment of recent political developments with a view to identifying best practice. The Commission does not propose to advocate a single pattern of modernisation applicable to all Member States. It considers, however, that reforms should promote ‘a high level of employment and of social protection’ (EC Treaty, Article 2), which is one of the Community’s fundamental objectives.
2. (a) The Commission and Council are close to completing assessment of the updated stability and convergence programmes. These confirm that nearly all Member States are on course to meet the core objective of the stability and growth pact by 2002, namely to have budget balances of ‘close to balance or in surplus’. This progress underlines the effectiveness of the framework, and as such the Commission has no intention to make a proposal calling for a modification of the stability and growth pact. None the less the Commission considers that there is a need for close monitoring of Member States’ budgets. With favourable growth prospects, close attention must be paid to underlying budgetary developments to ensure that there is no pro-cyclical loosening of the budgetary stance. In addition, as budgets approach positions of balance, there will be more scope for cutting taxes. The Commission recognises the importance of reducing the tax burden in the Community, especially on labour at the lower end of the wage scale. However, the Commission and Council, when assessing proposals to cut taxes submitted in future stability and convergence programmes, must ensure that stability and growth pact commitments are always respected. Further, as called for by the recent special European Council in Lisbon, more account needs to be taken of the quality and sustainability of public finances. A start has been made on the issue of sustainability. The Commission is actively working with the Economic Policy Committee on developing comparable pension projections up to 2050.
(b) The Commission has published a report on public finances in EMU (2). This provides a thorough analysis of the budget performance in 1999 and the short-term outlook for 2000. It also provides an overview assessment of medium-term targets and budget strategies contained in the updated stability and convergence programmes. Moreover, the report provides a detailed examination of the functioning of the stability and growth pact during its first year. Finally, it contains an in- depth assessment of tax systems and effective tax rates in the Community, a key element of the ‘quality’ of public finances.
(1) COM(1999) 347 final. (2) SEC(2000) 849. C 46 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0807/00 by Elizabeth Montfort (UEN) to the Commission
(9 March 2000)
Subject: Financial assistance to disaster areas in the Auvergne region of France
Further to the statement by Mr Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission, in plenary in January 2000 concerning the damage caused by the storms and the note from Mr Romano Prodi, President of the Commission, to Mr Lionel Jospin, Prime Minister, what practical measures can Auvergne expect from the Commission:
1. as a matter of urgency, on account of the risks of phytosanitary and water pollution?
2. financial measures: under the EAGGF-Guarantee Section (Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) which provides for measures in the event of a natural disaster) and the use of aid to forestry, areas eligible under Objective 2 (flexible application of criteria), outside areas, LIFE programme, to complement national or local aid, will the Commission adopt a more flexible approach to State aid to enterprises?
3. fiscal measures: for how long will the Commission grant an exemption from the principle of free competition by authorising France to reduce the VAT rate from 20,6 % to 5,5 % for numerous forestry activities?
4. logistic measures: what coordination is to be anticipated under the Community action programme for civil protection adopted by the Council on 9 December 1999?
(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(7 April 2000)
1. The Community budget contains no heading for emergencies caused by natural disasters. This means that the Commission will try to provide the regions affected with the reconstruction aid they need under the existing instruments.
2. The Structural Funds do not constitute emergency aid. However, the scope of their work means that they can provide significant aid for the economic and social development of the disaster regions.
Under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 concerning support for rural development by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1), the French authorities presented a national rural development programme which includes substantial support for forestry and will apply throughout the country, including therefore Auvergne. In this context, in January 2000 the French authorities requested additional measures to reconstitute the forests destroyed by the storms. Other complementary measures on forestry and timber storage and protection were also introduced then. The whole application is currently being considered and is the subject of negotiations between the Commission and the French Ministry of Agriculture. The Commission is already favourably disposed towards these proposals and a final decision on the programme should be taken early in the second half of this year. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/49
The Auvergne region, like the other regions of metropolitan France, will continue to be partially eligible under the new Objective 2 of the Structural Funds during the period 2000-2006. The French authorities announced that they would submit the draft single programming documents no later than the end of April. If that date is respected, expenditure before 1 January 2000 will be eligible retrospectively.
For example, the Objective 2 programmes will be able to finance the reconstitution of production infrastructure and equipment and the restoration of historic sites, if these measures are selected by the regional partnership. The same arrangements may also apply in areas receiving transitional support because they are no longer eligible for Community funds in the new period although they received them previously.
The Life Regulation, which is being revised, contains no provision for granting emergency aid other than its usual procedure of calls for projects. However, it is possible that certain projects under Life-Nature could be redesigned to take account of the damage caused to sites or species of Community interest, insofar as this complies with the objectives of the projects.
National tax aid for the forestry sector, which the French Government intends to notify to the Commission, will be examined under Article 87 (formerly Article 92) (2)(b) of the EC Treaty, which permits the Member States to provide aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters. To qualify, the link between damage and the aid has to be established clearly and the aid may cover only the damage caused. The Commission has undertaken to examine the French requests as soon as possible in order to take account of the emergency to which they relate.
3. The application by France of a reduced rate of VAT to certain forestry operations does not result from an exemption from the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) (2). It is the result of an exchange of letters between the French authorities and the Commission, following which the Commission stated that this Directive, and in particular the combined application of Article 12(3)(a) and Category 10 of Annex H, does not prevent application of a reduced rate to certain forestry operations, provided that the conditions laid down in the Directive are observed. Accordingly, no time limit was placed on the operation of this arrangement.
4. In addition to these specific answers, the Commission has sought to launch a broad debate on the ability of the Community to provide itself with a genuine capacity for civil protection.
(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, last amended by Directive 1999/85/EC (OJ L 277, 28.10.1999).
(2001/C 46 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0814/00 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) and Xaver Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(21 March 2000)
Subject: Transhumance of cattle
The identification and registration of cattle is an essential precondition for ensuring full traceability in connection with compulsory beef labelling. The practice of transhumance creates a special situation in Member States with mountainous and alpine regions. Each year in the spring in Austria alone approxi- mately 300 000 cattle and in Bavaria approximately 54 000 cattle are moved to upland pastures and remain there for around three months. As a rule, these upland pastures are common grazing land on which livestock from different holdings is assembled and tended jointly. The keeping of transhumance lists means that each animal can be allocated to its holding of origin.
Regulation 820/97 (1) establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals makes no provision for taking into account these specific requirements and simplified arrangements in relation to the registration of cattle moved to upland pastures for summer grazing.
1. How does the Commission view the special case of transhumance and the presence of cattle on upland pastures in relation to registration and/or the transhumance lists that are already kept? C 46 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
2. The current registration requirements relating to transhumance impose a costly and time-consuming administrative burden far in excess of what is necessary. Is the Commission prepared to give thought here to a simplified arrangement inspired by practical considerations?
3. Can it propose a more practicable and practice-oriented approach?
4. Is it prepared to leave to the Member States the responsibility for assessing the requirements of a practice-oriented system of registration?
(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(25 April 2000)
1. The Austrian authorities have been in contact with the Commission about the problems arising over entry in the computerised database (required under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (1)) of the movements of cattle sent for summer grazing in various upland areas. To guarantee full operability of the database the Council Regulation clearly requires all cattle movements to be entered and, in the Commission’s opinion rightly, specifies no exemption to this essential rule. Transhu- mance lists on their own are not therefore a sufficient answer to the problems.
2. The Commission would not be unfavourable to specific procedural rules for entry of transhumance movements into national databases. An addition to the second indent of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 would be required. The matter is under discussion within Parliament and the Council in connection with their examination of the proposal (2) for a Parliament and Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97.
3. If Parliament and the Council agree on the desirability of the Commission’s proposing specific rules (see above) the Commission will carefully consider what is most suitable.
4. No. The Commission considers that the matter must be regulated at Community level. Otherwise divergent arrangements would probably be adopted jeopardising the reliability of information and compromising the compulsory beef labelling scheme.
(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997. (2) COM(1999) 487 final.
(2001/C 46 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0820/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(21 March 2000)
Subject: Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act
With regard to the dispute between the EU and the USA over Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act of 1998, can the Commission say:
whether the TRIPS agreements, with which the Commission claims Article 211 is incompatible, should be interpreted as authorising the Member States concerned to recognise the extraterritorial validity of intellectual property rights confiscated without payment of adequate compensation to the rightful holders; 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/51
whether, before deciding to refer the case to the WTO Panel, it carried out the appropriate investigations to ascertain whether Article 211, in the context of other US laws regulating the expropriation of goods without compensation, in effect discriminates against Cuban citizens rather than those of the rest of the world;
whether it does not consider that in order not to give the impression that referral to the panel was rather a tactical move for the benefit of a private individual and a third country, it should reopen consultations with the United States with a view to formulating Article 211 in such a way as to comply with the Commission’s interpretation of the agreements on TRIPS, whilst safeguarding the legal principle underlying it?
(2001/C 46 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0821/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission
(21 March 2000)
Subject: Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act
With regard to the dispute between the EU and the USA concerning Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act of 1998, can the Commission answer the following questions:
1. What general European interests are being defended in the dispute?
2. In a press release issued on 7 February by a French company Pernod Ricard concerning an adverse decision of 4 February by the US Court of Appeal that company appears to be anticipating the Commission’s decisions. This gives the impression that an attempt is being made to manipulate the Commission. In view of Mr Prodi’s commitment to upholding the principle of transparency in the actions of the Commission and its officials, can it guarantee that it is defending truly general interests and not those of a single economic group?
3. It is in the general interest that acts of confiscation without compensation for the rightful owners should not acquire international validity. This is a principle widely recognised in European constitu- tions which has been enforced by the courts on many occasions. Article 211 of the Omnibus Act only reinforces this principle.
Does the Commission not consider that to make Europe take the United States to the WTO in an attempt to revoke Article 211 may be seen as a battle to uphold the rights of the confiscator over the oppressed, and of force over justice?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0820/00 and E-0821/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission
(14 April 2000)
The Honourable Member refers to several aspects relating to the dispute with the United States concerning the compatibility of Section 211 of the United States Omnibus Appropriations Act 1998 with the provisions of the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs Agreement) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
As regards the recognition by countries of foreign uncompensated expropriations, the current WTO dispute does not concern the question whether or not foreign uncompensated expropriations have to be recognised by other third countries. In fact, American trademarks were not and could not be expropriated by the Cuban government. Individuals and companies expropriated by the Cuban government remained the owners of property outside Cuba. In particular, their rights in trademarks registered in the United States were unaffected by the Cuban revolution. C 46 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
The WTO dispute rather relates to the treatment of American trademarks which were abandoned by their previous Cuban owners and which can be registered, renewed and enforced in the United States by the new owner only under certain conditions. These conditions are contained in Section 211 which was adopted by the United States almost 40 years after the Cuban revolution. Section 211 does not contain or reinforce the principle, cited by the Honourable Member, of non-recognition of foreign expropriations.
After a detailed analysis of Section 211, the Commission came to the conclusion that Section 211 violates certain provisions of the WTO TRIPs Agreement, notably its national treatment provisions, the trademark provisions and the enforcement provisions. This analysis was shared by all Member States.
Concerning the discriminatory effects of Section 211, the Commission would reiterate that the WTO dispute does not concern the question of uncompensated expropriations of trademarks. The conditions for trademark registration and enforcement contained in Section 211, in the view of the Community and its Member States, violate the TRIPs Agreement, notably in so far as Section 211 affects only so-called ‘designated nationals’, including Cubans and Cuban companies. The United States did not demonstrate during the WTO consultations held in September 1999 and December 1999 that similar conditions are placed upon nationals from the United States or third countries other than Cuba.
In the WTO dispute, the main aim of the Commission remains the proper implementation and application by the United States of the WTO TRIPs Agreement bearing in mind that Section 211 can potentially affect all European companies dealing with Cuba. It should be in the interest of the Community and its Member States to ensure that the provisions of the WTO TRIPs Agreement are respected by all WTO Members.
The Community and its Member States raised the incompatibility of Section 211 with the WTO TRIPs Agreement with the United States on various occasions, including at the past three EU-US summits and in the WTO TRIPs Council in order to find an amicable solution to the matter. However, the American administration constantly refused to engage into any substantive discussion. The Community and its Member States requested consultations under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding in July 1999. Two rounds of consultations were held in September 1999 and December 1999, but the United States maintain the view that Section 211 is compatible with the American international obligations.
Having evaluated the outcome of the WTO consultations and the economic and political interests involved, the Commission came to the conclusion that the only course available to the Community and its Member States to ensure the proper application of the WTO TRIPs Agreement by the United States in this instance is the request for a WTO Panel.
Finally, with reference to the alleged impact on the Commission decision making procedure of the expression by a European company of its interests in the dispute, the Commission would like to reiterate that it remained concerned about the proper implementation and application by the United States of the WTO TRIPs Agreement. Although Section 211 has, so far, only been applied once, it has the potential to affect all European companies dealing with Cuba. The Commission assures the Honourable Member that it continues to resist all attempts by any interested party to manipulate its position.
(2001/C 46 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0829/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 March 2000)
Subject: Field margin regulations leading to environmental damage
More than 50 % of the field margins in my constituency (the South West of England) are over two metres. The Commission and the Court of Auditors have recently instructed MAFF to reduce the amount of 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/53
subsidies given to farmers whose field margins are over two metres. If farmers in the south-west do not wish to lose an average of £ 969 per year, they will have to plough right up to, and possibly cut back, their hedges. This will damage wildlife and remove land vital for preventing soil erosion on steep fields. It will run counter to the environmental goals adopted by the EU.
The UK has asked the Commission to increase the ‘set-aside’ margin to three metres for the UK. In the interests of promoting environmental conservation, will the Commission agree to rethink its approach, at least in the case of farmers who have traditionally maintained wide field margins?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2000)
The situation to which the Honourable Member refers is not new. The recommendations concerning the maximum width of field borders have existed since 1994 and have since been applied throughout the Community.
The Commission is of the opinion that the question of whether and to what extent areas planted with hedgerows can be considered as part of agricultural parcels eligible for arable areas support, needs to be clarified by means of a regulation. Obviously, such an amendment to Community legislation will not enter into force sufficiently early to apply to support for the 2000 harvest. Therefore, for this year, the Commission has suggested to the authorities of United Kingdom, that the practice concerning the rules on area measurement employed in previous years be maintained, as laid down in paragraph 2 of the Commission Working Document VI/8388/94 a copy of which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
(2001/C 46 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0830/00 by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission
(10 March 2000)
Subject: Interception of international telecommunications
At the hearing on ‘Data protection in the European Union’ held at the European Parliament on 22/23 February 2000, Duncan Campbell, the STOA representative, reported on the status quo of the Echelon international electronic eavesdropping system, revealing that information of economic importance was being intercepted by Echelon in Europe and that this harmed the European economy.
John Mogg, Director-General at the European Commission, and Martin Bangemann, Member of the European Commission, denied this, maintaining that Echelon was only ‘press rumours’, but their claims were clearly refuted by the statements of high officials such as Martin Brady, Director of the Australian Secret Service’s Defence Signal Directorate.
There is a great deal of evidence that the Council and the Commission were very well aware of this eavesdropping system but took no action and deliberately did not inform the European Parliament.
Regardless of all this, the Council and Commission went so far as to change the European legislation to make it more favourable to the USA by following the main lines of an American statute passed in 1994 (CALEA) and taking into account that country’s wishes in the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 (1)on the lawful interception of telecommunications. C 46 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
1. Which Commission departments were aware of the interception of telecommunications in Europe and at what point in time, and what action was taken to counter it?
2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect electronic communications in Europe in future from eavesdropping and to guarantee the protection of personal and economic data?
3. Was the Commission aware that the Enfopol documents originated at meetings of the International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar chaired by the USA and why was Enfopol 90 never discussed but only dealt with by a written procedure?
(1) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2000)
Neither the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market nor the Director-General representing the Commission at the Parliamentary hearing of 12 and 13 February 2000 adopted a position on the existence of Echelon at that hearing. The Commission was informed about Echelon in the same way and at the same time as the Parliament through the study drawn up for the Parliament’s STOA panel in January 1998.
Article 5 of Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (1) obliges the Member States to prohibit all forms of interception or surveillance of communications carried out by means of a public telecommunications network and publicly available telecommunications services. Article 14.1 of this same Directive allows the Member States to adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of some of the principles for data protection set out in this text, when such restriction constitutes a necessary measure to safeguard national security, defence, public security, and the prosecution of criminal offences. In accordance with Court of Justice case law concerning the strict interpretation of the field of application of exceptions to fundamental legal principles and civil liberties, the Commission will fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty to monitor the transposition and effective implementation of Directives in the Member States. As one of its monitoring duties, the Commission will examine in particular the proportionality of the legislation adopted on the basis of Article 14.1 of Directive 97/66/EC.
In addition, ‘privacy enhancing technologies’ can give individuals greater control over the personal data concerning them and enhance the integrity of such networked data. The Commission has taken action to raise awareness of these technological developments (e.g. a workshop on privacy enhancing technologies). Finally, the information society technologies programme (IST, which is part of the 5th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development) contains an action line referring to ‘technology building blocks for trust and security’ which focuses on technologies empowering users to consciously and effectively manage and negotiate their personal rights (IST II.4.1).
The Commission would like to point out that the abbreviation Enfopol is simply the administrative reference for the working documents produced by the working party on police cooperation. This working party carries out preparatory work for the Article 36 Committee, the Coreper and the Council in fields concerning cooperation between police forces in the Member States. The Enfopol references are simply an aid to circulating the meeting documents. These documents in no way ‘originate at meetings of the International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar’, given that this forum for telecommunica- tions experts is not a Community institution.
With regard to Enfopol 90, this is a 1995 Council Resolution on the lawful interception of telecommu- nications (2), which drew up a list of requirements in this field expressed by law enforcement agencies, in order to reach a definition of common technical standards for intercepting communications. This resolution, which is not binding, was indeed adopted by a written procedure on 17 January 1995 and published in the Official Journal (2). The Commission, which does not take part in such votes, has no information as to why the written procedure was chosen.
(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998. (2) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/55
(2001/C 46 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0831/00 by Claude Desama (PSE) to the Commission
(10 March 2000)
Subject: Regulation 2790/1999 providing for a block exemption for vertical agreements
Regulation 2790/1999 providing for a block exemption for vertical agreements (1) is having an adverse effect on tens of thousands of small and medium-sized undertakings forming part of structured distribution networks, in particular in the automobile sector.
The new block exemption does not contain any provision enabling suppliers to be penalised for any infringements of the rights of their distributors and retailers.
In order to avoid jeopardising the existence of many SMEs, which are the driving force behind our European economy, is it not essential to add to the regulation a ‘hard core’ restriction prohibiting licensors from taking advantage of the economic over-dependence of SMEs involved in distribution and the service sector?
(1) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999, p. 21.
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(12 April 2000)
In accordance with Article 2(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 on the application of Article 81(3) (formerly Article 85(3)) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements, the Regulation does not apply to agreements under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (1). Consequently, small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) operating as dealers in the motor vehicle sector are not currently affected by the new regulations on vertical restrictions.
Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 will remain in force until 30 September 2002. Looking ahead to that date, the Commission is currently drawing up the evaluation report provided for by Article 11 of that regulation. On the basis of this report, the Commission will draft its proposals for the motor vehicle distribution sector, on which the parties concerned and the Member States will be consulted.
Regarding the more general question raised by the Honourable Member on the lack of ‘hard core’ restrictions in Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 to prohibit suppliers from taking advantage of the economic dependence of their distributors, the following points are of relevance:
the purpose of the reform instigated by the Commission with the introduction of Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 is to establish a competition policy on vertical restrictions which has a real economic basis and which has, at its core, an analysis of the effects of vertical agreements on the market. Community competition rules do not cover contractual relations between the parties with a view to readjusting the balance of power. The objective of these rules is solely to protect competition and to discourage the introduction of anti-competitive practices, particularly by suppliers with greater market strength.
however, the Commission’s new approach still offers SMEs in the distribution sector substantial guarantees. Firstly, in contrast to the old rules on block exemptions applicable to certain forms of distribution, Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 does not cover firms whose market share is greater than 30 %, which in itself is a disincentive to suppliers with considerable market strength to abuse the economically-dependent situation of their distributors.
secondly, the Regulation contains a list of ‘hard core’ restrictions which involve the loss of the block exemption and whose content broadly reflects Community case law on restrictions on the sales activities of distributors. C 46 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
thirdly, the Regulation covers for the first time vertical agreements concluded by retailers’ associations whose members are SMEs, which should allow such firms to strengthen their market position both as regards their suppliers and integrated distribution chains.
fourthly, the new legal framework provides for specific mechanisms to allow competition authorities to act against anti-competitive practices even where the firm’s market share is less than 30 %. These involve either the withdrawal of the benefit of the Regulation, which can be done by the Commission (Article 6) or, in certain cases, by the competent authority in the Member State concerned (Article 7), or the procedure whereby the Commission declares by regulation that, where parallel networks or similar vertical restraints cover more than 50 % of a relevant market, the field of application of the Regulation should be limited.
finally, under Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999, block exemptions do apply to non-compete obligations imposed on distributors only if their duration is less than five years, while, under the previous arrangements, such obligations could apply to dealers for up to ten years, and even for an indefinite period in some cases. The new rules offer distributors a real opportunity to opt for alternative suppliers and, consequently, to exert direct pressure on their suppliers, which is more effective than trying to legislate in detail on the rights and obligations of the contracting parties.
(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(2001/C 46 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0833/00 by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission
(21 March 2000)
Subject: Right to apply for compensation for expropriated property in Poland
New rules in Poland have meant that only Polish nationals who have resided in Poland for more than five years may apply for compensation for private property expropriated after the second world war. This means that people who were forced to flee from Poland during and after the second world war cannot apply for compensation from the Polish state.
Can the Commission state whether it is aware of this issue and, if so, whether it has been discussed in connection with Poland’s negotiations for EU membership?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(27 April 2000)
As indicated in the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0642/99 by Mr Titley during question time at Parliament’s November 1999 part-session (1), the Commission follows with great interest the debate in Poland on the new draft law of the Polish government regarding the restitution of confiscated property.
The Commission is fully aware that this issue is complex and primarily for Poland’s internal policy. As for existing Member States, the creation of schemes for restitution falls within the competence of Poland.
Amendments proposed to the restitution law which relate to nationality and residence clauses are currently contested in the Sejm and subject to a review by the Constitutional Tribunal for their conformity with the Polish constitution. It remains to be seen what the final scope of the new legislation will be.
The Commission would welcome any progress in passing the law, will continue to monitor the issue closely, and will report on this in the next regular report.
(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999). 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/57
(2001/C 46 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0835/00 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council
(20 March 2000)
Subject: Environmental damage inflicted on the Danube and neighbouring regions by NATO bombing
The Romanian Minister for the Environment has alleged that the Danube has suffered greater environ- mental damage from NATO bombing which destroyed bridges, oil refineries and chemicals plants than from the recent cyanide spill. The environmental, economic and cultural damage to the Danube and the local population extends beyond Serbia and affects all the regions through which the Danube flows and will have distressing consequences for many years to come.
Will the Council say whether it is aware of the extent of the damage and, if so, what measures it proposes to assist the countries concerned, so that the environment, the economy and the culture of this sensitive region rapidly recover?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
1. The report submitted at the end of 1999 by the United Nations Balkan Task Force clearly stated that some of the bombardments during the Kosovo conflict contributed to pollution of the Danube but also noted that the Danube had for a long time (and certainly since before the conflict) been one of the most polluted waterways in Europe, affected by a considerable number of sources of pollution directly attributable to the countries bordering it.
2. The report also noted that owing to the high level of pollution of the region before the conflict it was difficult to carry out a comparative assessment of damage.
The Council also notes that, following the Baïa Mare accident, Hungary and Romania have set up a committee of experts to assess the damage to the Danube. The Council will certainly study their conclusions with interest, together with the conclusions of the Task Force organised by the Commission following that same accident.
3. In any case, as stated by the CFSP High Representative when opening the Regional Financing Conference on 29 March 2000, the EU commitment towards South Eastern Europe cannot be disputed.
That commitment, in the framework of the Stability Pact, already includes a financial aspect which is important both to the Community and to its Member States, and may take the form, inter alia, of support for the Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for South Eastern Europe, which is currently being drawn up.
That programme is also an illustration of the cooperation effort between those countries, which is encouraged by the EU and which is necessary if we wish effectively to restore the environment in the region.
(2001/C 46 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0838/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(21 March 2000)
Subject: Use of chemical substances against demonstrators
In repressing demonstrations the Greek police use chemical substances which affect the respiratory system, the skin and the mucous membrane, causing breathing difficulties, muscular contractions and impaired C 46 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
vision for all those who happen to be in the vicinity when they go into action. Journalistic sources report that the grenades and spray used by the police contain CS and CN-type chemicals and the particles remain in the environment for a long time, penetrate deep into human lungs and seriously contaminate the skin.
Will the Commission say:
1. What are the substances involved, where are they produced and what is their composition?
2. How long do they remain in the human organism and the environment generally and what damage do they cause to health? Is there any truth to the allegations that they cause cancer?
3. Does the Commission intend to look into this matter, particularly from the point of view of public health?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 May 2000)
The Commission has no information on the substances mentioned by the Honourable Member. Conse- quently, it cannot assess the possible effects on human health which may arise therefrom.
(2001/C 46 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0843/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(21 March 2000)
Subject: Human resources in the Commission’s Transport Directorate-General
In view of the expanding role being played by the Commission in seeking to bring about the improvement of passenger rail services and reverse the decline in rail freight, is the Commission satisfied that it has the staff resources in its transport division to do the job required effectively?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(15 May 2000)
The new organisational structure resulting from the merger of the former Transport and Energy DGs, as approved by the Commission on 22 December 1999, broadly reflects the emphasis of European policy. The merger entailed a redeployment of staff, notably towards rail transport. Should this prove insufficient, further redeployment may be undertaken in the new Directorate-General, without prejudice to requests for additional staff.
(2001/C 46 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0844/00 by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission
(21 March 2000)
Subject: Exports of tomatoes from the Kingdom of Morocco
Because tomato exports from Morocco to the Community exceeded the total quantities allowed by 190 % in October 1999 and 37 % in November 1999 (something which the leading Spanish agricultural organisations had already been pointing out for months) a system of import certificates had to be introduced, as set out in the Regulation of 23 December 1999. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/59
When Commissioner Fischler met Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 25 January this year and answered questions from various Spanish Members on the withdrawal of the Regulation, he said that this was due to the fact that the Kingdom of Morocco had offered precise guarantees ensuring that total exports of tomatoes would not exceed the agreed quantities.
Could the Commission say exactly what new and tangible guarantees the Kingdom of Morocco has offered to prevent what it has so far not managed to prevent, i.e. exports exceeding the agreed quantities?
What steps will the Commission adopt to prevent larger quantities than those agreed from entering Community?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2000)
The introduction of a licence system for imports of tomatoes originating in Morocco (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2767/1999 of 23 December 1999 (1)) led not only to representations from the Moroccan authorities but to complaints from importers and other commercial operators in the Commun- ity.
The Moroccan authorities asked the Commission for consultations to clarify the situation regarding the overruns of the agreed Community import volumes. Morocco agreed to respect for the marketing year in course the quantities agreed between herself and the Community, i.e. 145 676 tonnes for the period November 1999 to March 2000.
The Commission also called for regular and rapid notification of import volumes. Member States are notifying it each week of the quantities of Moroccan tomatoes imported onto their markets in the previous week.
Under these circumstances the Commission was able to discontinue the licence requirement and so revert to the normal administrative arrangement indicated in the agreement.
(1) OJ L 333, 24.12.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0845/00 by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(21 March 2000)
Subject: Harmonisation of the conditions of production of family fruit growers and family producers of natural spirit
In the European Union Member States there are differing legal provisions for the production of natural spirit.
For some Member States, financial assistance is granted to family producers of natural spirit, because they maintain the old orchards, pass on know-how to the young, and motivate them to continue arboricultural activities and hence the cultivation of fruit tree parkland in the rural regions. In other countries such as France, the right to distil 10 litres pure alcohol per annum tax free can no longer be transmitted by succession, which means that young people are put off continuing the activity, with disastrous effects on the upkeep of orchards and in particular the conservation of old fruit varieties and hence the landscape. C 46 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
With a view to safeguarding the cultural and economic wealth of the countryside and the production of natural spirit in the Community, which makes up only 0,1 % of the alcohol consumed, and to avoid any discrimination between producers and any distortion of competition in the single market, does the Commission not think that there are grounds for promoting a certain harmonisation of legislation concerning producers?
What are the options that the Commission can envisage under the rural development policy to support actions to conserve orchard and old fruit varieties harvested to produce fruit juice and jam and to distil fruit fermented in the cask?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(19 April 2000)
The Commission is aware that there are no common rules governing the production of alcohol, including the production of spirits by small producers. Over the past thirty years the Commission has put forward a number of proposals for the common organisation of the market in alcohol of agricultural origin. The Council, however, has failed to reach agreement because the Member States wanted to retain their own arrangements. As these arrangements now no longer apply or are under serious review, the sector itself and several Member States have expressed an interest in establishing a framework of common rules covering alcohol. The Commission is at present discussing with national experts the need for such a framework within which competition aspects could be addressed. On the question of tax, Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1) harmonises the rules on excise duties and provides in Article 22 that Member States may apply reduced rates of excise duty to ethyl alcohol produced by small distilleries. The practical arrangements for applying this measure are the responsibility of the Member States.
Under the rural development policy, whose legal basis is Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2), Member States may put forward programmes granting support for a number of agricultural activities and their redevelopment. Among the various measures that can be used to conserve the types of farming and production referred to by the Honourable Member, a special role could be played by the agro-environmental measures. These provide support for agricultural production methods aimed at protecting the environment and safeguarding the countryside. As stated in Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of the above Council Regulation (3), support may include commitments for preserving plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion. These could include in particular measures to conserve old fruit-bearing tree and plant varieties and long-established orchards.
(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (3) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0848/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Council
(20 March 2000)
Subject: Action of the European Union against landmines
The European Union has spearheaded the campaign against anti-personnel landmines by adopting two joint actions (1995 and 1997). Parliament, too, has resolutely taken up this fight by devoting thereto several resolutions and a public hearing back in 1995. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/61
Now that all of the Member States (excepting Finland) have signed the Ottawa Convention, and that Council and Parliament are due to take a position on the proposed regulation adopted by the Commission, the European Union must reaffirm its commitment to an actual implementation of this Convention and its universalisation.
1. How might the 1997 joint action be assessed? What is the Council’s position as to this joint action being reappraised as a political signal of the Union’s commitment?
2. Regarding the adaptation of national legislation, what is the state of play on the actual implementa- tion of the Convention’s provisions in the Member States? Have the reports required of the Member States been drawn up? Have they been made public?
3. How large has been the place given to anti-personnel mines in the political dialogue with the Union’s partners and in particular with the countries applying for accession (of which five are not signatories to the Convention?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
1. On the eve of the Ottawa Conference in 1997, the European Union adopted a new Joint Action on Anti-Personnel Landmines (APLs), in which the Union reiterated its commitment to the goal of total elimination of APLs world-wide. The Union therefore welcomed the opening for signature in Ottawa of the Convention and the efforts made by its signatories to promote universal accession to the Convention.
On the occasion of the First Conference of the States Parties to the Ottawa Conference (3-7 May 1999), the Union called upon all States to work together to achieve the total elimination of APLs world-wide. The Associated Countries, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Cyprus (not Poland) concurred with this statement. In order to encourage full and speedy implementation of the Convention, the Union made a number of démarches that demonstrated its wide support for the aims of the Convention. In that spirit the EU Member States also undertook in the Joint Action to participate actively in any conferences organised after the signature of the Convention and to seek to encourage, in all appropriate fora, any efforts likely to help to achieve the objectives of the Joint Action.
2. The Joint Action sets out the framework for specific action by the EU and its financial contribution to demining activities. In 1993-1997, the Union contributed USD 140 million to demining activities and assistance to victims. That amount does not include individual contributions by the EU Member States. In 1998, total funding by the European Community and Member States amounted to approximately USD 95 million. This makes the EU the world’s premier donor in the field.
On 28 November 1997 the Council of the European Union adopted a Decision on the implementation of Joint Action 96/588/CFSP of 1 October 1996 on APL with a view to contributing to the funding of certain programmes of the SADC (ECU 2,07 million), the ICRC Mine Awareness Programme in the former Yugoslavia and the programme for the rehabilitation of victims disabled by mines in Iraq (ECU 1,43 million). On the same day the Council adopted a decision on the implementation of Joint Action 96/588/ CFSP on APL with a view to co-financing the special appeals from the ICRC (maximum contribution of ECU 8 million).
3. In its statement to the First Conference of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, the Union noted that all States Parties have undertaken never to use APLs under any circumstances. The EU also expects all signatory States fully to abide by the objectives, aims and spirit of the Ottawa Convention. While guided first and foremost by humanitarian concerns, the EU will focus its efforts on States Parties and on signatories that fully observe in practice the principles and objectives laid down in the Convention. Recent civilian victims of mine-laying highlight the importance of abolishing this deadly weapon and the pertinence of the objectives set out in the EU Joint Action: the total elimination of APLs and assistance in solving the problems already caused by these weapons. As the objectives of the Joint Action remain valid, the Union is not considering updating it. C 46 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
4. At the First meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts (SCE) on the General Status and Operation of the Ottawa Convention, which was held on 10 and 11 January 2000, a positive assessment was made of the growing universalisation of the Convention with 137 countries that have signed or acceded to the Convention and 90 ratifications. It was reported that 31 states had already submitted reports on their implementation of the Convention to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Article 7 of the Convention) and that 34 states were late in submitting their reports. South Africa and Canada, as co-chairs of the SCE, reported to the meeting that they had approached the States in question with a view to encouraging them to take all necessary steps to demonstrate their continued strong support for the ban on APLs. Although the Convention does not require the publication of reports, the Ottawa Convention stipulates in Article 7 that the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit all the reports received to the States Parties, who will then consider matters arising from the reports at the Meeting of the States Parties. The reports are also available on the website of the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs: http://domino.un.org/ottawa.nsf.
5. The European Union welcomes the efforts made by the signatory States to encourage universal accession to the Ottawa Convention and has raised the issue of its implementation during meetings in the context of the political dialogue on global disarmament and arms control with all the associated countries, the EFTA countries which are members of the European Economic Area, Canada and the United States, and with other countries (Australia) or regional groups (SADC).
With regard to the negotiations for the accession to the European Union, the applicant countries are expected to comply fully with the acquis, including Common Positions and Joint Actions adopted in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
(2001/C 46 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0852/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(21 March 2000)
Subject: Mozambique
It is now many days since disaster struck Mozambique. A million people are suffering the effects of the extremely serious flooding caused by heavy rains: some have died, others are missing and damage to property is widespread. However, neither the European Union nor its Member States have taken the action which is so urgently required in order to lessen the damage caused, to care for the sick, to feed the hungry and to prevent further loss of human life.
What is the reason for the EU’s negligence and what action is the Commission to take in order to correct without delay the unacceptable behaviour which it has displayed in Mozambique and in other countries?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(28 April 2000)
From the very outset of the crisis in Mozambique, the Commission and Member States have given the government their support, both in cash and in kind. Each and every Member State has given generously to the government of Mozambique’s initial appeal, providing food aid, helicopters and transport planes, personnel, medicines, drinking water, tents and blankets, as well as funding via the United Nations (UN) such as the World food programme. The donor tracking system of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) confirms that the Community has provided the lion’s share of the international community’s response to the Mozambique crisis, estimated at some € 120 million in the initial rescue and relief phases alone. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/63
The Commission, whilst not geared to participate directly in the search and rescue efforts, responded immediately through its Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), whose partners were operational on the ground from the first wave of localised flooding in early February. The member of the Commission in charge of development cooperation and the Portuguese Presidency visited Mozambique within days of the second wave of flooding caused by cyclone Eline to assess the damage at first hand, and a senior ECHO specialist was deployed in Maputo to co-ordinate the Commission’s relief and resettlement intervention strategy with the government, the UN, the delegation and Member States’ missions on the spot.
In financial terms, the Commission made € 1 million available to provide emergency assistance to the victims of the first wave of flooding in Mozambique and Botswana. It also responded swiftly to the subsequent flooding wrought by Cyclone Eline by announcing another € 2 million for emergency relief, to provide support to those who had been driven from their homes, while € 1,4 million, locally available to the Commission’s delegate and the government of Mozambique, was offered with a view to improving food security for the victims.
A further sum of € 5,58 million has since been earmarked for relief and resettlement operations, with the prime objectives of providing shelter, water, sanitation and health care to 100 000 people displaced by the flooding in the worst-affected provinces, while facilitating their rapid resettlement through the provision of seeds and tools to ensure a second harvest, and small-scale rehabilitation of essential health infrastructure. The intervention of the Commission and its partners in Mozambique is expected to continue for at least six months, while a flood relief intervention is also planned in Madagascar as a result of the needs assessment missions conducted concurrently throughout the region.
To address the medium-term needs for rehabilitation of the afflicted areas, the member of the Commission, during his mission to Mozambique on 2-3 March 2000, announced an initial amount of € 21 million in additional funds. This sum could well be increased as the needs for reconstruction and rehabilitation become clear.
Finally, in order to maintain the rapid growth achieved by Mozambique in recent years, the increasing level of co-operation envisaged before the disaster will be maintained. This will result in disbursements estimated at € 150 million this year, as compared to an estimated € 100 million in 1999.
This raft of interventions shows that the actions of the Member States and of the Commission in support of the Government of Mozambique have been generous, rapid and responsible. Indeed, mid-March figures from the UN (OCHA) in Maputo put the international contributions at € 115 million, of which the Member States and the Community had pledged € 85 million, almost 74 % of the total figure.
The Commission, via its delegation in Maputo, and the Member States continue to be actively involved in the Government-led donor co-ordination mechanisms on the spot. These donor co-ordination groups are closely following the needs assessments exercises currently being carried out and, in the light of the results, the Commission will decide on future action to be taken.
(2001/C 46 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0859/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission
(22 March 2000)
Subject: Construction of a bottling plant on the island of La Gomera (Canaries, Spain)
On the island of La Gomera, a water bottling plant is currently being constructed. This project is receiving EU funding under the Investment Plan for La Gomera, which qualifies for Community aid. C 46 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
However, the building works, which have already reached the second phase, are facing a broad current of opposition, from neighbourhood associations, farmers’ organisations and ecological groups, who have filed complaints with the local, national and Community institutions on the following grounds:
the plant will have an adverse environmental effect on two areas which are protected on the grounds of their ecological importance, namely Palmeral de Tagaluche and Lomo del Carretón (LIFE identifying Nos.: ES 7020108 and ES 7020037 respectively);
the project has not been submitted to the mandatory environmental impact assessment. This has been admitted by the environment ministry of the regional government of the Canaries. All that exists is an unreliable impact assessment carried out by the municipal council of Valle Gran Rey, which is the body promoting and defending the project;
it will eliminate the water supply for the farmers who, under the common land system, get their irrigation water from the Mena, Choquete and Tederas springs. The complainants believe that the rhythm of extraction proposed for the plant will lead to the exhaustion of the upper watercourse which feeds the springs, within five years;
the project has been declared to be ‘of social interest’, when in reality it is only expected to create seven jobs while 116 farmers would be affected. Should the work continue, the private interests of the bottling industry would be seen to prevail over the public interests of the local residents affected.
In view of the above:
does the Commission not consider that the EU-funded construction work on this bottling plant could be in breach of such major environmental directives as Directive 97/11/EC on environmental impact assessment (1) and Directive 92/43/EC on the protection of habitats (2)?
can the Commission state what action has so far been taken concerning complaint No 99/4875, SG(99) A/10714/2, filed by Mrs M.A. Rodríguez on behalf of the ‘Plataforma por la Defensa del Agua’ (‘Platform to Protect our Water’) (Tagaluche)?
would the Commission consider sending a delegation to La Gomera to ascertain the real impact of the construction work on this bottling plant on the environment of the above-mentioned protected areas and on agricultural activity?
(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 2000)
The ‘Taguluche’ and ‘Lomo del Carretón’ sites, covering 140 and 263 hectares respectively, have been identified by the Spanish authorities as sites of Community importance for possible inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
It should be noted that the Commission has already received a complaint concerning the construction of the water bottling plant at Taguluche, in the Valle Gran Rey district, Gomera.
The Commission is examining the dossier to see whether the project to which the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC must be applied is likely to have a significant effect on the sites in question, in view of their conservation objectives. As part of its investigation, the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for their comments. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/65
The project has not received any financial support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
At all events, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with in the case in question.
(2001/C 46 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0861/00
by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 March 2000)
Subject: Problems arising in multinational research programmes funded by the European Union
One of the institutions participating in a fisheries research project (FAIR CT-97-3508) claimed sole credit for a joint research idea, research plan and preliminary results obtained jointly, and published them under its own name. It had previously been agreed with each institute that the findings were not yet to be published because they were still preliminary and moreover because, from the point of view of the further use to be made of them, it was important to consider carefully when would be the best time to publish them. The EU coordinator informed the management of the institute concerned of this by letter.
The institute concerned acted so secretively that it was not until about a year later that the other EU partners discovered what had happened to the joint plan and findings. The institute’s actions caused both economic and scientific damage to the EU, other institutes and the world scientific community, as well as to many businesses cooperating on the project. The extent of the damage cannot yet be assessed. It did prove possible to continue the project, as its basis was very strong, it was well planned, and the institutes participating in it were leaders in their field.
The EU does not have an assessment system, for example a supranational ethics committee, which would act swiftly in such circumstances to ensure that research projects did not suffer on account of delays. Such a committee, which would be well versed in scientific research, would not be a court but could give advice, make recommendations and, as the funding body, could if necessary institute special monitoring of a participant which was evidently selfish and out of control. The mere existence of a supranational body would be likely to discourage scientific dishonesty.
If, in spite of everything, a case did come before the courts, an international opinion would be helpful to the local court in considering the non-material issues at stake, and the committee could help to protect the rights of all.
A system based on complex agreements and a judicial institution would be quite alien to the world of science and would, moreover, be slow. The basis for effective scientific cooperation should remain mutual trust and awareness of one’s own know-how, i.e. certain ethical standards, which fortunately are second nature to the vast majority of scientists.
In order nonetheless to be able to deal with such problems more swiftly in future, I would ask the Commission:
1. What attitude will it adopt towards such breaches of contract?
2. What will it do to ensure that breaches do not recur? How will the EU investigate such cases? C 46 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
3. Will the Commission take steps to found a scientific ethics committee or alternatively will the Commission propose a model of its own for solving such problems by means of some other appropriate procedure?
4. How can the non-material rights of researchers be guaranteed throughout the lifetime of a project?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(19 May 2000)
The Honourable Member refers to the project ‘Fish cysteine proteinase inhibitors and infectious diseases’ (contract FAIR 5-CT97-3508) supported under the 4th Research and technological development (RTD) framework programme. It will end on 30 November 2000 and promises to produce significant scientific results.
1. Under the standard contract applicable for the 4th RTD framework programme, the Commission can terminate the contract or the participation of any contractor (i) when the project is substantially affected by major technical or economic reasons or if the exploitation potential of the results of the contract significantly diminishes or (ii) when no remedial action has been taken to rectify non-performance or breach of the contractual obligations by the consortium or a contractor. Such possibilities might be used by the Commission in the case of premature publication of project research results by a contractor without the consent of the other participants.
In the case to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission has been informed that a PhD student published prematurely some background information generated before the commencement of the project. This did not affect the progress of the project. As soon as the Commission was informed of the problems, it reminded the partners of their contractual rights and obligations as well as of potential remedy measures. None of the contractors asked for such measures to be taken yet. Since the project as such was not affected, it was not for the Commission to take further action.
2. According to the standard contracts for the 4th and 5th RTD framework programmes, the results of the project (foreground results) are owned by the contractors generating them. The actions to be taken for the protection of such results are normally laid down in a consortium agreement concluded between the participants to which the Commission is not a party. Such consortium agreement, concluded for the implementation of the project, complements the contract and also determines the applicable national law.
In the 5th RTD framework programme standard contract, the protection of the partners against premature publication of results arising from the project has been reinforced through provisions on the protection of knowledge, technology implementation plan, publicity and communications concerning the project and knowledge and confidentiality.
3. The Commission believes that the contractual provisions, together with appropriate consortium agreements, are sufficient to deal with such cases. In the case of any dispute among the members of the consortium, it is up to them to take the necessary measures in order to protect their intellectual property rights, normally on the basis of a consortium agreement. The Commission has always drawn the attention of the partners to the importance of concluding consortium agreements on intellectual property rights and strongly recommended this in projects even if the contract does not foresee such an obligation. This legal framework appears more appropriate to settle disputes about intellectual property rights than the establishment of a committee, which could only give non-binding recommendations and could not rectify possible infringements.
4. The rules relating to intellectual property rights (including ownership and access rights) are valid for the entire duration of the contract. Furthermore, according to the standard contract applicable for the 5th RTD framework programme, all contractual provisions relating to intellectual property rights continue to apply after the end or termination of the contract. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/67
(2001/C 46 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 March 2000)
Subject: Protection of consumers against the deficiencies of audio equipment incorporating the new DAB technology
1. Is the Commission familiar with recent articles in the New Scientist of 12 February 2000 and Hi-Fi Choice of February 2000 concerning the new Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) technology, which report that:
(a) buyers of DAB radios are promised ‘near CD-quality’ sound, whereas the quality of some types of music is worse than on FM radio;
(b) DAB technology removes some of the sound and sometimes adds noise, as a result of which sound which has not been directly captured in the original recording on a CD or DAB tape may be seriously distorted;
(c) DAB radios currently cost at least € 800, rising to over € 1 600;
(d) the problem is largely due to dependence on the international standard of 48 kilohertz and the chips complying with this standard which are used in the radios, whereas, contrary to original expectations, 32 kilohertz produces better results?
2. Does the Commission agree that in the foreseeable future a steadily growing number of consumers are likely to be able to afford the now still expensive DAB technology and that, as this increase in sales may result in more and more buyers being confronted with the disadvantages of this technology, there is no good reason for delaying measures to protect the consumer against the further spread of an inadequate product?
3. Is the Commission prepared to take steps which ensure that:
(a) consumers who have already invested in the new DAB technology on the assumption that they have thus acquired a better-quality product are compensated by the producer for their purchase;
(b) measures are taken to adapt or improve this technology;
(c) radio transmitters adjust their signals in order to improve the quality of reception?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2000)
1. The Commission is aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Member.
The articles focus on the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) system developed by the Eureka 147 research partners and standardised by the European telecommunications standards institute (ETSI) (1). However, the problem they raise is one of a more general nature. Any transmission system using digital compression will experience these difficulties if the programme source material has already been compressed during the programme production phase.
This so called concatenation of digital compression systems reduces the programme quality delivered to the end user. Imperfections are picked up each time and transmitted further down the chain. As a result, the final quality broadcast to the user may be worse than the original input. C 46 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
The problem has already been identified and addressed in the digital television area. It is now possible to use compression for production and post-production and to recompress for digital transmission without significant loss of quality. It is possible that similar techniques could be applied in the case of digital radio, but no ‘off the shelf’ technical solution exists for radio, as far as the Commission is aware.
2. Regarding the consumer protection aspects, the Commission feels there is no need to compensate consumers. DAB is still the standard which radio broadcasters want to use. In dynamic and converging communications markets, the Commission approach to technology and standards is to limit its interven- tions in the market to the strict minimum. Markets and consumers should make the appropriate choices. Although DAB is a European standard, its use is anyway not mandated by regulation at Community level.
3. The Commission believes that radio broadcasters should identify technical solutions for the problem of concatenated compression as quickly as possible. The problem could for instance be addressed by submitting a suitable project within the fifth framework programme. However, there are no doubt other measures that the industry could take in order to raise awareness and develop good practice.
(1) ETS 300 401 etc.: DAB specifications.
(2001/C 46 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0874/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(23 March 2000)
Subject: Embargo against Iraq and the price of oil
In the last 12 months the price of refined petroleum products in Europe has risen sharply (by 21 % in Italy) and in the last few days the price of crude oil on the New York stock exchange rose to more than 32 dollars a barrel. This worrying rise in the price of fuel and petroleum by-products is solely due to reductions in the amount put onto the market by the OPEC countries.
At the same time we are witnessing the suffering caused in Iraq by an embargo which continues to penalise the weakest sections of the population (the World Health Organisation announced back in 1996 that the sanctions had directly caused the deaths of more than one million people, including half a million children).
Does the Council not consider that an embargo which penalises only the weakest sections of the population is a violation of the most basic human rights?
Does the Council not consider that it must take steps to persuade the United Nations to review the embargo against Iraq as a matter of urgency?
Does it not consider that if Iraq resumes marketing crude oil the OPEC countries may revise their intransigent position?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The European Union will continue to implement the embargo imposed by UN Security Council resolu- tions. The prime considerations for the European Union are lasting security and stability in the region as well as the living conditions of the Iraqi people. The European Union is concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and is trying to alleviate this situation within the framework of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Notwithstanding the positive effects on Iraq of the sharp rise in oil prices over the last twelve months, the European Union also notes the importance of full compliance and cooperation by the Iraqi government in order to improve the humanitarian situation. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/69
(2001/C 46 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0880/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 March 2000)
Subject: Sea transport: European accident
Two European vessels the Zafir and Espresso Catania, recently collided in Italian waters, for reasons as yet unelucidated; the Zafir sank and 10 of its crew lost their lives, their corpses remaining on board the wreck which is lying at a depth of some 400 metres.
Has the Commission taken any steps to elucidate a tragedy which yet again involves maritime safety in European waters, European vessels and the lives of European citizens?
What action has been taken? Is whatever action which may be taken by the Member States concerned being coordinated at Member State level?
As far as recovery of the bodies of the men lost is concerned which their families are demanding, with every reason, the passive attitude displayed both by the European institutions and the Member States concerned is deplorable. What urgent measures has the Commission considered taking to resolve this tragic situation?
What measures does the Commission think should be taken to ensure that such occurrences do not happen again?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2000)
Like the Honourable Member, the Commission learned through the press that the cargo vessel Zafir had been lost off the coast of Calabria, Italy. It regrets the terrible consequences of the sinking and the irreparable loss of human life, and extends its sympathy to the families of the victims.
As regards the causes of the accident, it is necessary to wait for the results of the enquiry being conducted by the Italian authorities. The Commission must emphasise that rescues at sea do not fall within its jurisdiction, which is why the authorities involved in following up the accident have not sought its assistance.
To prevent similar accidents occurring in future, the Commission adopted a communication on 21 March 2000 on the safety of the seaborne oil trade (1), which proposes a series of immediate and longer-term measures.
To start with, the inspection of ships calling at Community ports is to be stepped up, and vessels failing to meet standards are to be dealt with strictly. Classification societies are to be monitored more fully.
The Commission is also proposing to ban single-hull oil tankers from Community waters, following a timetable similar to that adopted in the United States.
Subsequently, the Commission plans to make further proposals regarding systematic exchange of informa- tion between all the actors in the shipping community, improved surveillance of navigation, the creation of a European body for maritime safety and measures concerning the liability of the various players in the seaborne oil trade.
(1) COM(2000) 142 final. C 46 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(22 March 2000)
Subject: Fraud investigation at the Stockholm office
What is happening in the investigation into the allegations of fraud at the European Parliament information office in Stockholm? How is the investigation progressing? Will the case or the evidence be handed over to the Swedish police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office for further proceedings within the Swedish judicial system?
Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2000)
The Honourable Member is referred to the answer which the Commission gave to Oral Question H-712/99 by Mr Schori during question time at Parliament’s part session in December 1999 (1).
With regard to the Commission Office in Stockholm (Sweden), the Commission does not yet have a report, drawn up in accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2), on the action to be taken within the meaning of Article 9(4) of the Regulation.
(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999). (2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(22 March 2000)
Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium
The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it, are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important role to play in this.
The 14-page final conclusion of the Dioxin Committee contains a number of references to the conduct of the European Union during the dioxin crisis in the Belgian Federation: ‘As regards the composition of feedingstuffs and of contaminants, the European Union does not have a sufficiently effective regulatory framework. The rules on compulsory notification of the EU authorities are inadequate. The EU added to the chaos which marked the development of the crisis.’
Does the Commission accept that ‘as regards the composition of feedingstuffs and of contaminants, the European Union does not have a sufficiently effective regulatory framework’, as claimed in the report of the Dioxin Committee?
(a) If not, what arguments are there to show that, contrary to the statement by the Dioxin Committee, the EU’s regulatory framework for the composition of feedingstuffs and contaminants is effective?
(b) If so, will the Commission amend the regulatory framework for the composition of feedingstuffs and contaminants in order to make it more effective? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/71
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 May 2000)
The current Community regulatory framework for feedingstuffs contains in general sufficient requirements to guarantee the safety of feed materials. The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that strict rules are established regarding the marketing and labelling of feed materials and feedingstuffs, the presence in feed of undesirable substances and products, the conditions to be met by feed manufacturers and the controls to be carried out to ensure that the feedingstuffs are safe.
It goes without saying that these requirements have to be properly implemented to be effective, and also that legislation, unless properly implemented, will never prevent all incidents or fraudulent activities affecting the safety of the feed and food chain. Lack of internal controls (good manufacturing practice, own-checks, contingency plans) and lack of mechanisms for traceability allow contamination to develop and expand throughout the whole food chain. It is therefore necessary to set up appropriate requirements and controls allowing for early detection of problems and speedy corrective action. It has become clear that the feed manufacturing and supplying industry should be subjected to more rigorous requirements and controls, including official approval of all feed producing plants. Also the provisions concerning the official controls at national and Community level, the requirements concerning feed materials which can be used in animal nutrition and the limits and controls for undesirable substances need to be reinforced.
This non-exhaustive list of possibilities for improvement of the current legislative framework is now being addressed in the context of the follow-up to the white paper on food safety (1).
(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
(2001/C 46 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0889/00
by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(22 March 2000)
Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium
The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it, are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important role to play in this.
In the nine pages concerning the shortcomings, the most striking sentence is this: ‘the compulsory notification system for Member States of the European Union in the event of contamination of feedingstuffs is not clear’.
Does the Commission agree with the Dioxin Committee that the rules on compulsory notification of the EU authorities are inadequate?
(a) If not, what arguments are there to suggest that, contrary to the statement by the Dioxin Committee, the rules on compulsory notification are adequate?
(b) If so, will the Commission amend the rules on compulsory notification in order to improve crisis prevention and/or management? C 46 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Council Directive 95/53/EC of 25 October 1995 fixing the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition (1) provides the legal basis concerning immediate notifications on infringements related to animal nutrition to the Commission either when irregularities are detected during checks at import and the irregularities lead to the rejection of a consignment, or when the procedure to settle problems between Member States is not sufficient to solve a problem and repeated irregularities are detected during checks at destination.
Provisions for compulsory notification to the Commission in the event of a contamination of feeding stuffs are also laid down in Council Directive 1999/29/EC of 22 April 1999, on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition (2). However, the obligation to notify only applies to situations involving more than one Member State.
In addition Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (3) requires Member States to notify immediately to the other Member Sates and to the Commission any disease or other cause likely to cause a serious hazard to animals or to human health in its territory.
The circumstances for the notifications are therefore clear, albeit limited, in the existing Community legislation.
Moreover, to complete and improve the current provisions, as scheduled in the white paper on food safety (4), the Commission adopted on 21 March 2000 a proposal (5) to amend Council Directive 95/53/EC and Council Directive 1999/29/EC. According to the proposal, information in case of an emergency related to products to be used in animal nutrition will be exchanged through the rapid alert system for food established under Council Directive 92/59/EC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (6).
In particular, Member States will be required to inform the Commission as soon as serious contamination or risk is detected and has spread to feed and the food chain or is likely to spread to other countries, and to provide this information in a harmonised form. In addition, Member States will also be required to inform the Commission when the frequency of a certain contamination or hazard increases.
In the white paper on food safety, the Commission has also indicated its intention to present a proposal for an integrated rapid alert system covering both the feed and food sector, as a further improvement in line with the farm to table approach.
(1) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995. (2) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999. (3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990. (4) COM(1999) 719 final. (5) COM(2000) 162 final. (6) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
(2001/C 46 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0899/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 March 2000)
Subject: Taxation Policy Group
1. Could the Commission please indicate the remit and composition of the Taxation Policy Group?
2. What was discussed at the tenth meeting of the Taxation Policy Group held on 2 March 2000, what conclusions were drawn, and who attended this meeting? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/73
3. When were previous meetings of the Taxation Policy Group held, what was discussed at those meetings, and what conclusions were drawn?
4. What future meetings of the Taxation Policy Group have been scheduled, and what matters are due to be discussed at forthcoming meetings?
5. In the interests of transparency, will the Commission provide Parliament with summary reports of these meetings as well as any documents on which the discussions have been based?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(11 April 2000)
1. The Taxation Policy Group is a group of personal representatives of the Ministers of Finance (two respectively), who look at European taxation issues beyond the concrete proposals under discussion in the Council. The group enables the Commission and the Member States to take a strategic overview of taxation policies and to ensure the necessary links between taxation and other policies. The group is chaired by the Commissioner responsible for taxation.
The group was set up following the Commission report of 22 October 1996 on the development of taxation systems in the European Union (1). In its report the Commission proposed that a more permanent and strategic high level group could provide a much needed overview of tax policy concerns, together with the necessary impulse to tackle major challenges. The endorsement by the European Council in Dublin on 13-14 December 1996 underlined Member States’ commitment to this process of increased co-operation. The Taxation Policy Group is the successor of the High Level Group on Taxation which had been created following the Informal Ecofin Council in Verona in 1996.
2. The tenth meeting of the Taxation Policy Group was essentially devoted to a comprehensive discussion on a new strategy to improve the operation of the VAT system within the context of the internal market. This discussion was very constructive and helpful. However, the group did not agree on formal conclusions, as it never does.
3. The previous meetings of the Taxation Policy Group were held on 11 March 1997, 6 May 1997, 20 June 1997, 18 September 1997, 20 October 1997, 24 February 1998, 3 July 1998, 12 November 1998, 8 March 1999, and 2 March 2000.
In the beginning, the work of the group very much focused on question of (harmful) tax competition and culminated in the adoption of the ‘tax package’ by the Ecofin Council on 1 December 1997. Later meetings touched on a variety of issues, for example: monitoring economic and structural reform; the taxation of supplementary pension and life insurance; electronic commerce follow-up to the inter- ministerial conference in Ottawa on 7 October 1998; taxation of energy products; VAT and SLIM.
4. The next meeting of the Taxation Policy Group will probably take place in early May 2000. It will be devoted to an exchange of views on the review of the code of conduct on business taxation.
5. The basic idea of the Taxation Policy Group is to allow for an informal exchange of views between top officials from the Commission and Member States on important Community tax policy questions without the need to formulate an officially binding position. Therefore, there are neither official summary reports nor conclusions of the meetings. By the same token, it has been agreed by the group not to disclose the short working papers which are occasionally prepared for steering the discussion on specific points. The Commission would however be very pleased to keep the Parliament and more precisely its economic and monetary affairs committee regularly informed about the outcome of the meetings held by the Taxation Policy Group.
(1) COM(96) 546 final. C 46 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (25 March 2000)
Subject: Medicines for children
Is the Commission aware that in Europe 67 % of children in hospitals have medicines administered to them which are not intended specifically for children (unlicensed and off-label medicines)? In the case of newborn babies, the figure is as high as 90 % (see annex).
In the United States, the Government has amended legislation so as to encourage pharmaceutical companies to carry out research into medicines specifically for children. Subsidies have also been paid to provide further encouragement.
Will the Commission likewise arrange for such research to be carried out in Europe and make the necessary funding available for it?
Will the Commission propose a directive on the administration of medicines specifically to children, along the lines of the US legislation?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 May 2000)
It is quite true that in the vast majority of cases and in most therapeutic areas the medicines administered to children are not in a suitable pharmaceutical form and have not been subjected to clinical studies that have been targeted on that category of patient. Thus, in those instances, the marketing licences do not provide for administration to children. Doctors needing to treat their patients use medicines intended for adults, basing themselves on the limited amount of data available, although these have not been evaluated, adjust the doses, and have pharmaceutical forms that can be administered to children prepared in hospital dispensaries.
Following the example of orphan drugs, this can be explained by their lack of profitability and also by the difficulty in producing a range of dose rates that are suitable for the various age categories. Indeed, only the liquid pharmaceutical forms enable a practical adjustment to be made. However, most of the active ingredients are in solid form, which as a general rule is more stable.
It is certain that access to treatment of that category of patient should move towards incentives such as those provided in the United States. This being the case the set of regulations for orphan drugs just drawn up by the Commission could serve as a basis for a set of regulations by adopting the criteria set.
(2001/C 46 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0903/00 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) and Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Council (24 March 2000)
Subject: Steep rise in drug abuse among European schoolchildren
According to the annual report of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the use of cannabis among European schoolchildren has risen very sharply: about one third of pupils in secondary education in France, 25 % of thirteen year-olds in the United Kingdom and 69 % of young people who go to techno music parties in Germany have experimented with the drug; there has also been an increase in the use of the synthetic drugs Ecstasy and LSD, since young people associate these drugs with having fun. The report also states that Albania has become a major producer of cannabis which is channelled mainly through Greece, Italy and Slovenia; furthermore, the provision of information about the cultivation of the plant and its derivatives through the Internet has led to a sharp increase in domestic production of drugs. Will the Council say whether it knows which factors are responsible for the dramatic increase in the use of cannabis and what steps have been taken to harmonise legislation and the position of the European Union on the use of various narcotic substances? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/75
Reply
(10 July 2000)
In the EU Drugs Strategy for 2000-2004 that has been endorsed by the meeting of the European Council of Helsinki it is affirmed that cannabis is still the most commonly used illicit drug.
In this strategy, that is now being transposed into an action plan, specific importance is given to demand reduction. EU action as regards demand reduction is conform to Guiding Principles and the Plan on demand reduction adopted in 1999 in the framework of the United Nations. EU Actions cover all areas of prevention. Addiction prevention strategies should be an integral part of community health policies. These strategies should particularly focus on children and young people. Preventive measures should also be developed for drug use in prisons and alternative measures to imprisonment.
All these principles are being transposed into concrete actions on which the Parliament will be informed.
(2001/C 46 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0904/00 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) and Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission
(25 March 2000)
Subject: Steep rise in drug abuse among European schoolchildren
According to the annual report of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the use of cannabis among European schoolchildren has risen very sharply: about one third of pupils in secondary education in France, 25 % of thirteen year-olds in the United Kingdom and 69 % of young people who go to techno music parties in Germany have experimented with the drug; there has also been an increase in the use of the synthetic drugs Ecstasy and LSD, since young people associate these drugs with having fun. The report also states that Albania has become a major producer of cannabis which is channelled mainly through Greece, Italy and Slovenia; furthermore, the provision of information about the cultivation of the plant and its derivatives through the Internet has led to a sharp increase in domestic production of drugs. Will the Commission say whether it knows which factors are responsible for the dramatic increase in the use of cannabis and what steps have been taken to harmonise legislation and the position of the European Union on the use of narcotic substances?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(18 May 2000)
The Commission is aware of the information presented in the annual report of the International narcotics control board (INCB). The upward trend in the use of cannabis and synthetic drugs among schoolchildren is also confirmed by the latest annual report of the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (EMCDDA) in Lisbon. The proportion of 15- to 16 year-olds inside the Community who report cannabis use ranges from 5 % to 40 % whereas the proportion of those who have used synthetic drugs (amphetamines, ecstasy, LSD) varies from 1 % to 13 %.
On the supply side, the latest report from Europol confirms large-scale cultivation of cannabis in Albania but states also that 85 % of the cannabis resin seized in the Community originates from Morocco. Increasing production of cannabis and the manufacture of synthetic drugs in the Community are also challenges identified in the Commission communication on a Community action plan to combat drugs (2000-2004) that formed the basis for the Community drug strategy (2000-2004) endorsed in the European Council in December 1999. Furthermore, the Commission is working together with the Portuguese Presidency to prepare a Community action plan on drugs (2000-2004) that will contain C 46 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
concrete measures for achieving the targets set in the Community drug strategy. The strategy and the action plan set up a common framework for drug related actions inside the Community.
The strategy also emphasises the importance of facing the challenges posed by modern technology like the Internet. On the other hand, Internet may also be used for drug demand reduction.
As the Honourable Members know, defining the underlying reasons of drug use is beyond the scope of this answer. Reasons leading to drug use are a complicated mixture of social, economic and cultural factors. In general, ecstasy-type synthetic drugs are most often used at clubs and dance parties during weekends. The increased use of cannabis among young people has connections with different youth cultures and drugs are often used instead of alcohol. Innovative demand reduction approaches are needed to take into account the specific characteristics of these groups of drug users.
Drug legislation falls mostly within the competence of the Member States. Despite differences in legislation on drug addiction and drug-related crimes, the practice in Member States is increasingly convergent. Harmonisation of legislation is only needed when there is a legal vacuum, like with the control of new synthetic drugs. The joint action on new synthetic drugs (1) may be used to place substances under control in all Member States. It has been used to control a substance called 4-MTA. The Commission also intends to launch a study on common definitions, incrimination and sanctions regarding drug trafficking.
(1) OJ L 167, 25.6.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0907/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(25 March 2000)
Subject: Polluting activities of olive kernel oil plant in Crete
In reply to my question E-2328/99 (1) on health problems arising from the operation of an olive kernel oil plant in Iraklion, Crete, the Commission states that it ‘does not have any information on the pollution caused by this plant’ and asks me to send it ‘a dossier describing the plant’s polluting activities’.
As I am informed that the problems persist and are making living conditions in the area unbearable, I am handing over to you a dossier containing documents from the ministries concerned, the local authorities and local organisations in the town, together with press reports. Will the Commission then answer my questions and provide further information if possible?
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 103.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(18 May 2000)
The Commission has just received the dossier concerning the pollution caused by the olive oil plant in Iraklion, Crete. This type of activity is listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (1). 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/77
The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will investigate the case to check that Community law was not infringed when the environmental impact assessment presented by the company concerned was prepared. If the Commission finds that Community law has been infringed, it will decide whether infringement proceedings should be initiated against Greece under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
(1) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council
(24 March 2000)
Subject: Referendum in Western Sahara
On 29 February 2000 the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on Western Sahara in connection with the Peace Plan drawn up for this territory, which had been accepted and signed by the parties concerned the Kingdom of Morocco and the Saharoui Democratic Republic with a view to holding a referendum to determine the future of the area.
Does the Council intend, via the High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, to include in its work programme participation in the control and monitoring of issues affecting the future of the Sahara, in particular as regards the referendum, since all this may directly affect certain areas of the European Union?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The Council closely follows issues affecting the future of Western Sahara. It fully supports the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General, his Special Representative for Western Sahara and his Personal Envoy, James Baker, concerning the future of Western Sahara. The Council is willing to contribute to this process and help build a climate of confidence and trust among the interested parties in order to find a solution acceptable to all interested parties of the region and based on respect for human rights and democratic principles.
The Council takes note of the observation in the latest report of the United Nations Secretary-General that the timetable envisaged is no longer valid and that the date for the referendum can still not be set with certainty at this juncture. It welcomes the intention of the Secretary-General to ask his Personal Envoy to explore ways and means to achieve an early, durable and agreed solution of the dispute. The Council also supports Mr Baker’s initiative with respect to direct talks and welcomes the holding of a first meeting on 14 May in London.
(2001/C 46 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0912/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Viagra
1. Why has viagra been authorised as a drug by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products although, in trials, out of 4000 people taking part, 22 cases of death occurred in the group to which the active substance was administered (compared with two deaths in the group to which a placebo was administered)? C 46 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
2. In view of the dramatic increase in deaths linked to viagra, does the Commission consider that authorisation should be withdrawn, and, if not, what are its reasons?
3. What does the Commission intend to do in the face of the increasing number of deaths linked to viagra?
4. Could the Commission explain why, at the forthcoming meeting between the Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and representatives of the Member States, viagra will again not be on the agenda despite the large number of deaths?
5. Is the Commission aware that the product information given in the package leaflet is incomplete? What action does it intend to take about this?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(12 May 2000)
1. The Commission authorised Viagra on the basis of a favourable opinion from the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). The clinical trial reports indicating 22 deaths with Viagra as opposed to 2 deaths with the placebo fail to take account of the different number of patients in each group and the duration of the treatment. In fact, the rates are comparable, at around 0,5 deaths per 100 patients treated over the course of one year. Moreover, analysis suggests that none of these 22 deaths is attributable to treatment with Viagra.
2. To date there have been no data to suggest a dramatic increase in the number of deaths, even though the number of patients treated has risen from a few thousand to several million. It must be borne in mind that this is a medicinal product intended for patients suffering from erectile dysfunction, which affects more than 50 % of men over the age of 70. This means that, in many cases, death may be due to vascular problems.
3. The Commission ensures that holders of authorisation to place products on the market send the EMEA regular data on safety. For Viagra, the holder has been asked to supply such data on a monthly basis, i.e. more regularly than is normally required.
4. Viagra is being monitored closely, and there is no need to alter the current position. Should new information indicate otherwise, measures would be taken without delay to protect patients.
5. The information given in the package leaflet has also been evaluated by the EMEA and authorised by the Commission. Using language accessible to patients, it includes all the information given in the summary of product characteristics intended for health care professionals. Any changes to the summary are automatically made to the leaflet.
(2001/C 46 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(25 March 2000)
Subject: Repeal of legislation
How many pieces of legislation (directives, regulations, decisions) have been repealed in each year for the last ten years? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/79
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(18 May 2000)
Number of Council/European Parliament instruments and European Parliament instruments that were repealed or expired in the year concerned
Year Regulations Directives Decisions 1999 193 57 127 1998 146 44 187 1997 271 38 82 1996 227 23 20 1995 457 50 27 1994 356 27 49 1993 416 29 28 1992 317 28 46 1991 278 13 25 1990 315 17 35
Source: General Report (1997-1999); Celex base (1990-1996).
Number of autonomous Commission instruments that were repealed or expired in the year concerned (1)
Year Regulations Directives Decisions 1999 612 17 381 1998 551 13 260 1997 503 27 199 1996 698 8 227 1995 957 7 241 1994 922 10 390 1993 949 6 483 1992 848 12 237 1991 884 22 242 1990 881 6 228
Source: General Report (1997-1999); Celex base (1990-1996). (1) Except for instruments not published in the Official Journal or published in light type (routine management instruments valid for a limited period).
(2001/C 46 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0926/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission
(22 March 2000)
Subject: New relations between the EU and Indonesia
The Commission has announced that it wishes to adopt a new policy vis-à-vis Indonesia and that it is preparing a cooperation agreement. President Abdurrahman Wahid recently visited Brussels where he had meetings with the Commission President, Romano Prodi, during which the topic was apparently raised. As a follow-up, Chris Patten, Commissioner, is due to make a working visit to Indonesia. C 46 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Moves to encourage the consolidation of democracy in Indonesia may be looked upon with approval. However, it should not be forgotten that the situation is still critical and uncertain and that a solution has yet to be found to certain essential issues which have justifiably attracted the attention of the international community and, in particular, of the European Union. This is the case with East Timor, whose ‘file’ cannot yet be regarded as closed, and also (amongst other violent cases of human rights abuse in Indonesia) with the situation in the Moluccas. The five recent resolutions adopted by the European Parliament (1) between September 1999 and January 2000 may in particular be referred to.
Any new European Union initiative relating to Indonesia must therefore meet the following conditions if it is to be successfully implemented: [I] a guarantee that the Indonesian Government will not raise any objection to a full investigation and the subsequent trial, under UN auspices, of those responsible for the serious incidents which occurred in East Timor in 1999 and for the brutal human rights abuses committed there, and that it will make an active contribution in those areas, both internally and internationally; [II] a guarantee that the Indonesian Government will assume its responsibilities by contributing financially to the reconstruction of East Timor, which was completely destroyed whilst under the authority of the Indonesian military; [III] full, unrestricted repatriation of the tens of thousands of East Timorese who are currently living in concentration camps in West Timor or in other parts of Indonesia; [IV] guarantee that there will be no backsliding in Indonesia’s democratisation process and that the military will be kept well away from the centres of political decision-making; [V] guarantee that the Indonesian Government will fully respect East Timor’s independence and that it will be a good neighbour to the newly independent country; [VI] guarantee that the Indonesian Government will fully respect human rights throughout its territory both uphold them and ensure that they are upheld.
Does the new Commission initiative on relations with Indonesia meet these six requirements and have they featured in the Commission’s dealings with the Indonesian authorities?
(1) Resolution on the situation in East Timor (B5-0067/1999) of 16 September 1999; resolution on the serious human rights violations in the Moluccas (B5-0145/1999) of 7 October 1999; resolution on East Timor (B5-0271/1999) of 18 November 1999; resolution on Indonesia (B5-0339/1999) of 16 December 1999; resolution on the situation in the Moluccan Islands (B5-0034/1999) of 20 January 2000.
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(12 April 2000)
The Commission’s communication to the Council and Parliament (1) on ‘Developing closer relations between Indonesia and the European Union’ is a response to the Union’s need to re-define, in the light of recent developments, its relations with this important country. It acknowledges the difficulties of an Indonesia in transition, and offers an active strategy to develop a constructive and comprehensive dialogue, to promote political stability and good governance, to anchor democracy, and to assist reform and the restoration of economic confidence. It does not propose the conclusion of a cooperation agreement. On 20 March 2000, the Council adopted conclusions endorsing the direction of the Commission’s commu- nication, which is also consistent with the spirit of past Parliament resolutions.
In the Commission’s view, the Indonesian government is making praiseworthy efforts to address the challenges it faces. These include violent regional unrest, structural economic and social problems, the need to define the future position of the armed forces, and the need to implement effective administrative and fiscal decentralisation. In its contacts with the Indonesian government, most recently at the first Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) on 30 and 31 March 2000, the Commission welcomed the Indonesian govern- ment’s reforms, and its commitment to promote and uphold the respect of human rights and the rule of law.
The proposed new dialogue with Indonesia will not affect the Commission’s commitment to East Timor, where it is contributing actively to the massive joint reconstruction effort being undertaken by the international community. The Commission has explicitly stressed to the Indonesian authorities, on a number of occasions, the need for close and neighbourly relations between Indonesia and East Timor. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/81
These have improved notably following the visit of Indonesian President Wahid to Dili. The Commission shares the serious concerns expressed regarding the continued presence of displaced people in West Timor, and remains ready to support the efforts of the Indonesian authorities and the international community to resolve the issue of their future.
The Commission is also following closely Indonesia’s investigative efforts to establish the truth regarding past human rights abuses in East Timor. It welcomes the declared commitment of the Indonesian authorities to bring to trial those responsible for such abuses.
(1) COM(2000) 50 final.
(2001/C 46 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0930/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(22 March 2000)
Subject: Earthquake victims in Lazio
On 11 March 2000, several municipalities in Lazio, Italy, were struck by a large earthquake. The municipalities affected are situated in an upland area with particular social and economic problems, together with a lack of transport links.
Because of the historic nature of the towns and villages in question, many buildings had not been brought into line with recent legislation on protection against earthquakes, and were therefore highly vulnerable.
The initial estimate of the visible damage subject to investigations being made by the authorities is tens of billions of lire (tens of millions of euro).
The people affected have had to find temporary accommodation in tents, containers or with relatives living far away. Generally speaking, these people are in difficult financial circumstances or are elderly, and are therefore particularly upset by the situation.
Given the above:
1. what urgent measures does the Commission intend to take in order to begin, without delay, the process of restoring the areas in question?
2. what action does it intend to take to encourage the regional and national authorities to take appropriate measures?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(10 May 2000)
The Commission is fully aware of the social and economic consequences for the Lazio municipalities struck by the earthquake on 11 March.
Although there is no longer a budget heading specifically for emergency aid in the event of natural disaster, the Commission will do all in its power to assist rebuilding in the areas concerned and to provide the necessary help to the people affected.
It is important to stress that, while the main aim of the Community’s structural and cohesion policies is to help reduce economic and social disparities, the Structural Funds do not constitute emergency aid. However, their scope is such that they are able to provide significant assistance towards economic and social reconstruction in disaster regions. C 46 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), which covers the 2000-2006 programming period, provides for several instruments which can be used in future to provide assistance with rebuilding the infrastructures, capacities and means of production which are essential to the economic development of the Community’s regions.
Areas which are chosen for the new Objective 2 in Italy will be able to receive Structural Fund support; disaster areas which are not selected to come under that new Objective but which were previously eligible under the old Objectives 2 and 5b will also be able to obtain appropriations by way of transitional support. Disaster areas which are not eligible will not be able to receive support under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds.
Within the framework of these rules, the Commission will examine any applications from the national and regional authorities with the utmost care.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0934/00 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Commission’s responsibility for monitoring the cross-border shipment of large quantities of hazardous waste from Hungary into EU Member States
In its answer of 11 January 2000 to my question about the shipment of 14 000 tonnes of waste containing PCBs (E-2824/99) (1) the Commission said that Article 4 of Regulation 259/93 (2) implements the Basle Convention in so far as it weighs up the objective of proximity in waste disposal against the need to dispose of waste in an environmentally acceptable manner.
It has now been revealed that some of this waste has been brought to Saxony-Anhalt (Germany), and has thus been transported through Austria and/or the Czech Republic.
In the light of the above:
1. How can the Commission judge in this case the rightness of the decision that, on balance, the principle of proximity should not prevail and that such long transport routes were thus acceptable, if it has no information about opportunities of environmentally friendly disposal of the waste at a nearer destination?
2. What responsibility does the Commission consider is imposed upon it by its role of monitoring the proper implementation of Regulation 259/93 in the Member States?
3. Does the Commission consider that, in a case where doubts might exist as to whether the regulation has been complied with, it should obtain all the necessary information from the authorities responsible in the Member States for authorising the cross-border shipment of hazardous waste, so as to check that the regulation is correctly implemented? (a) If so, will it carry out such checks in the case of PCB waste from Gare (Hungary), and has it already taken steps in that direction? (b) If not, why does it not consider such checks necessary?
4. Has the Commission yet received further information about the Gare case? (a) If so, what? (b) If not, why has it not yet received the information which it said in its reply to Question E-2824/ 99 that it was still awaiting?
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 139. (2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/83
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(15 May 2000)
As outlined in the answer to the the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2824/99 (1), the Commission as such does not exercise any direct control functions with regard to specific waste shipments under Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community. The supervision and control procedures established by the Regulation and directly applicable in the Member States, are applied by the authorities designated by the Member States according to Article 36 of the Regulation. It is up to them to request Hungary to provide the information required by Article 19 (3) of the Regulation and, more generally, to determine on the basis of the facts of a specific case in question, whether to authorise a given waste shipment or not.
The Commission notes the information provided by the Honourable Member, that the waste shipment in question was apparently shipped to Germany for final disposal. It has so far not had any indications, that in authorising the shipment the German authorities would have acted in violation of Community legislation, and, more specifically, in breach of Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93.
The Commission will request the German authorities for further information, following which it will determine whether further action on its part is necessary.
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 139.
(2001/C 46 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Community aid for the processing of grape juices (DG Agriculture)
In the context of the reform of the COM in wine (Regulation EC 1493/1999) (1), due to come into force on 1 August 2000, and in accordance with Article 35 of the Regulation, Community aid for the processing of grape juices from table grapes (the use of which is illegal in winemaking) will no longer be granted. This lack of Community aid will involve an increase in production costs of ITL 11 986 per hectolitre for Italian grape juice producers. This will lead to social tensions, especially in the more economically disadvantaged regions. Can the Commission therefore say whether the implementing regulations for the COM in wine, which are currently being revised, might provide for the maintenance of aid for table-grape juices, so as to guarantee equal opportunities for all EU producers?
(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2000)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the new market organisation (COM) for wine will come into force on 1 August 2000. Article 35(3) restricts aid on grapes, grape must and concentrated grape must used to make grape juice or other fruit products to wine grape varieties, i.e. those from which wine may be produced for the market.
No aid will therefore be paid for production of grape juice and other food products from table grapes of varieties not classified as wine grapes. C 46 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
It was the Council’s wish to restrict the aid to wine grapes, its purpose as part of the COM being to reduce the volume of wine on the market. Table grapes fall exclusively within the COM for fruit and vegetables.
Given this clear exclusion by the Council of aid for grape juice production from table grapes the Commission cannot propose any implementing provisions to the contrary.
(2001/C 46 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Turin and the Italian proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas
On 1 October 1999, Italy submitted its proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas for the period 2000-2006; the proposal was, however rejected. The statistics used by Italy based on local employment systems conflicted with the Eurostat statistics on the administrative provinces referred to by the Commission (benchmarks for all Member States). Italy thus has to ‘adjust’ its proposal.
This matter is of particular concern to Turin and its 936 000 inhabitants: according to the 1995-1997 unemployment statistics for the province, Turin should not be eligible for funds under Objective 2 (unless workers that have been laid off and are recipients of income support from the ‘Cassa Integrazione’ earnings supplement fund are included in the statistics a fair argument which the EU for some reason rejects); more recent statistics (1996-1998), meanwhile, appear to qualify the province and most of the city of Turin for inclusion in Objective 2.
For 2000-2006, Italy is entitled to approximately ITL 4 000 billion (for Objective 2) of EU funds. Piedmont could receive some ITL 1 400 billion (taking into account national co-financing) over seven years and Turin should receive over 100 billion per year (even on the basis of the old statistics).
Turin is still awaiting authorisation from Brussels, however. Does the Commission foresee any fresh obstacles? What outstanding issues need to be resolved? How long will it take for the procedures to be finalised, albeit tardily? Can Italy be assured that it will receive co-financing?
Is the Commission aware of the fact that each day’s delay is a step backwards for the population of Piedmont and for Turin in terms of economic recovery?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(12 May 2000)
Italy sent the Commission its Objective 2 zoning proposal on 1 October 1999. The Commission replied on 11 October that the proposal was unacceptable owing to non-compliance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). This requires areas meeting the criteria of paragraphs 5 and 6 of that Article to account for at least 50 % in population terms of each country’s Objective 2 areas.
To ensure identical treatment of the Member States the same statistical series must be used for verification of these criteria in each of them. Thus in line with Article 4(2) the Commission on 23 June 1999 sent all Member States concerned by Objective 2 the statistics pertaining to the criteria. As decided by the Council these were the figures available at the time of the Berlin European Council. For the unemployment rate this means that the figures considered are those for 1995, 1996 and 1997. These figures have been used to zone for Objective 2 in the eleven Member States for which the Commission has already drawn up the list of eligible areas for the 2000-2006 programming period. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/85
On the basis of the figures the Province of Turin does not meet the criteria of Article 4(5) and (6). The Commission pointed out however that the zones of the province could perfectly well be submitted as national priority areas for Objective 2 under the criteria of paragraphs 7 to 9 of Article 4.
On 11 October 1999 the Commission invited Italy to draw up with all speed a revised Objective 2 zoning proposal in line with the regulatory provisions unanimously adopted by the Council after full considera- tion of the situation. The Commission regrets that no proposal has yet been received. It has several times drawn to Italy’s attention the need for urgent action so as not to penalise the areas in question. Italy is the only Member State for which it has not yet been possible to adopt Objective 2 zoning.
The Commission Decision of 1 July 1999 sets at € 2 522 million (1999 prices) Italy’s Structural Fund allocation for Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 programming period. This is unaffected by the delay in designating the qualifying areas.
As soon as the list of these has been adopted by the Commission on the basis of a revised proposal, it will fall to Italy to decide how the allocation is to be split between the areas concerned. Assistance must be concentrated on those worst affected.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Ban on the use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood
The use of impregnating salts to treat wood (impregnated wood) has serious consequences for humans and the environment. Such salts contain highly toxic arsenic, chromium IV and copper. Impregnated wood is used among other things in summer houses, fencing, toys, pergolas, garden furniture and rail sleepers.
Since February 2000 in the Netherlands there has been a ban on sales of all products made from impregnated wood. The State Council issued a ruling against the cutting up of impregnated wood. Nor may such wood be considered as a fuel for power stations, as a constituent of chipboard and cattlefeed, as compost in gardens and around trees, or as a substitute for straw in cowsheds.
1. Is the Commission prepared in line with the Dutch example to draw up a directive banning products made from impregnated wood, in view of the negative consequences for humans and the environment?
(a) If so, has the Commission already taken steps in this direction?
(b) If not, why is the Commission opposed to a European ban on products made from impregnated wood?
2. Is the Commission prepared to draw up a directive banning the cutting-up of impregnated wood, in view of the negative consequences for humans and the environment?
(a) If so, has the Commission already taken steps in this direction?
(b) If not, why is the Commission opposed to a European ban on products made from impregnated wood? C 46 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
3. Is the Commission prepared to draw up a directive banning the use of impregnated wood as fuel for power stations, as a constituent of chipboard and cattlefeed, as compost in gardens and around trees, or as a substitute for straw in cowsheds, in view of the negative consequences for humans and the environment?
(a) If so, has the Commission already taken steps in this direction?
(b) If not, why is the Commission opposed to such a directive?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2000)
The Commission understands that the Netherlands has recently introduced a ban on Dutch producers using wood preservatives containing copper, chrome or arsenic, and on the wood so treated in outdoor applications. The Commission has not yet received notification of this ban and has requested details from the Netherlands authorities.
Following a review of certain provisions of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (1), the Commission has had examined the risk of using arsenic for the preservation of wood. This examination has raised concerns over certain aspects of the use of wood preservatives containing arsenic, mainly in relation to the long-term effects of the disposal of wood so treated. However, no acute risk for the general population was identified.
The industry has proposed a voluntary commitment to manage the risks identified. The Commission is examining this proposal. Besides, the Commission is considering whether further restrictions on the marketing and use of arsenic used for wood treatment under Directive 76/769/EEC are necessary. Furthermore, Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) includes wood preservatives within its scope. The Commission intends to adopt in the near future measures to implement this Directive, and wood preservatives will be identified as a first priority for evaluation. The question of proposing a further directive restricting the marketing of these biocides will be considered in the light of the results of the evaluation.
The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to the reply given to Written Question E-0942/00.
(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (2) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.
(2001/C 46 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Ban on the Use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood
The use of impregnating salts to treat wood (impregnated wood) has serious consequences for humans and the environment. Such salts contain highly toxic arsenic, chromium IV and copper. Impregnated wood is used among other things in summer houses, fencing, toys, pergolas, garden furniture and rail sleepers.
Since February 2000 in the Netherlands there has been a ban on sales of all products made from impregnated wood. The State Council issued a ruling against the cutting up of impregnated wood. Nor may such wood be considered as a fuel for power stations, as a constituent of chipboard and cattlefeed, as compost in gardens and around trees, or as a substitute for straw in cowsheds. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/87
However, it would now appear from press reports that the Dutch Government will turn a blind eye to the exportation to other EU Member States of carcinogenic woodshavings for the production of chipboard, toys and the like, thus contravening both the letter and the spirit of various EU directives.
1. Is the Commission aware of the exportation of carcinogenic woodshavings from the Netherlands to other EU Member States?
(a) If so, which are those countries?
(b) If not, will the Commission set up an inquiry, in view of the negative consequences for humans and the environment and the infringement of various EU directives?
2. Has the Commission received from manufacturers and importers of impregnating salts and impreg- nated wood a survey of all relevant and available information on the exposure of humans and the environment to arsenic acid (or salts therefrom), as stipulated in Regulation No 142/97? If not, what steps has the Commission taken to ensure full and proper compliance therewith?
3. Is the Commission of the opinion that impregnated wood from construction and demolition waste should be collected and processed as dangerous waste pursuant to Directive 91/689/EEC?
(a) If not, what are the Commission’s arguments for not treating impregnated wood as hazardous waste?
(b) Is so, is impregnated wood in the 15 EU Member States actually treated as hazardous waste?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(9 June 2000)
1. The Commission is not aware of the export of woodshavings from wood treated with arsenic, chromium and copper from the Netherlands to other Member States. These substances may be used under certain conditions within the Community for the treatment of wood under Council Directive 89/677/EEC of 21 December 1989 amending for the eighth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (1).
The export of woodshavings is not an infringement of Community legislation if the prescribed procedure is followed. Exports of such wastes are covered by Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipment of waste within, into, and out of the Community (2). For exports of the woodshavings for recycling, the materials are listed in Annex III of this Regulation under heading AC 170: treated cork and wood wastes. This means that the waste may be shipped if the shipment is notified to the Member States involved in the shipment (country of export, country of import and possible countries of transit) and no objections are raised to the shipment. Authorities may only object on a limited number of grounds, e.g. if the waste cannot be treated in an environmentally sound manner in the country of destination.
At this stage there are no indications that would justify an inquiry as requested by the Honourable Member.
2. The Commission has received information on arsenic acid under Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/97 of 27 January 1997 concerning the delivery of information about certain existing substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (3). This information was used by the Commission in an examination of the risk of using arsenic for the preservation of wood. This examination raised concerns over certain aspects of the use of wood preservatives containing arsenic, mainly in relation to the long- term effects of the disposal of wood so treated. However, no acute risk for the general population was identified. The industry has proposed to deal with these risks by way of a voluntary agreement. The Commission is examining this proposal. In addition, the Commission is at present considering whether further restrictions on the marketing and use of arsenic used in wood preservatives under Directive 76/ 769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of C 46 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (4) are necessary. Furthermore, Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market includes wood preservatives within its scope. The Commission intends to adopt in the near future measures to implement this Directive, and wood preservatives will be identified as a first priority for evaluation. The question of proposing a further directive restricting the marketing of these biocides will be considered in the light of the results of the evaluation.
3. Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 defines hazardous waste (5) in Article 1(4) first indent, as wastes placed on a list of hazardous waste. This list was established by Council Decision 94/904/EC of 22 December 1994 (6). This list does not include impregnated wood from construction and demolition activities as a hazardous waste. Therefore, the provisions of Directive 91/689/EEC do not apply.
The same Directive indicates, in Article 1(4) second indent, that any waste a Member State considers to display one or more of the properties of Annex III to the Directive is also a hazardous waste. Member States have to notify such cases to the Commission. These cases must be reviewed by the Commission in view of possible adaptation of the Community list of hazardous waste. Up to now the Commission has received notifications from the United Kingdom and Austria which consider impregnated wood to be (at least partly) hazardous waste. The Commission is reviewing these notifications in the context of a larger review of the hazardous waste list on a total of approximately 300 notifications. The Commission has the intention to present a proposal for a review of the list, before the end of the year, to the Committee established under Article 18 of Council Directive 91/156/EEC (7) of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC (8) of 15 July 1975 on waste for an opinion. This proposal will take into account the assessment made on the notifications from the United Kingdom and Austria on impregnated wood.
Regardless of its classification as hazardous or non-hazardous waste, impregnated wood may only be recovered or disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC, that is, without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a nuisance through noise or odours, and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest
The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to the reply given to Written Question E-0941/00.
(1) OJ L 398, 30.12.1989. (2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993. (3) OJ L 25, 28.1.1997. (4) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (5) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991. (6) OJ L 356, 31.12.1994. (7) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. (8) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2001/C 46 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0944/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Renewable energy
Will the Commission say what progress it has made in assessing the Danish Government’s plans to introduce renewable energy coupons? Consumers will apparently be compelled to buy renewable energy coupons in proportion to their consumption of electricity, which is a new form of taxation in all but name. Does the Commission consider that these coupons are a tax on Danish consumers?
Will the Commission also say whether the CO2 levy on windmills, which are normally CO2 free, is consistent with current EU rules? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/89
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(10 May 2000)
The Commission is about to complete its assessment of the Danish Government’s plans to introduce so- called renewable energy (RE) certificates for electricity based on renewable energy sources. A decision should be ready in the near future.
The system with regard to RE certificates is as follows. Producers of electricity from renewable energy sources will receive a number of RE certificates representing their total production. Consumers will be obliged to buy RE certificates representing a certain share of their total electricity consumption. Producers of the more expensive RE-based electricity are thereby sure to receive compensation over and above the market price for electricity. The price of the certificates ranges between DKK 0,10 and DKK 0,27 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) electricity they represent. The obligation to buy certificates will raise the total amount on electricity bills for consumers, which the Honourable Member compares to a new form of taxation in all but name. The Commission notes that the money paid for the certificates will not go to the state budget, and therefore does not constitute a tax. It is more like a parafiscal levy, money raised in order to finance a particular project or objective and thus benefitting certain companies, in this case electricity producers using renewable energy sources. The Commission would like to point out that currently producers of RE-based electricity in Denmark receive direct state subsidies, financed from tax revenue.
Moreover, the fact that a measure has an effect similar to a consumption tax does not itself have an impact on the Commission’s assessment of the effects of a measure on competition and the functioning of the internal market. It is only when such a measure is not applied in a uniform manner, so that it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, that the Commission can intervene with reference to Article 87(1) (ex-Article 92) of the EC Treaty.
The Danish carbon dioxide (CO2) tax on fuels and electricity relates to the CO2 content of the fuel. For electricity, the tax rate relates to the CO2 content of coal, since most power plants in Denmark are coal- fired. With a tax rate of DKK 100 per ton CO2 emitted when electricity is generated from coal, the tax for electricity is DKK 0,10/kWh. Currently, windmills and other RE-based power plants, which emit no or very little CO2, receive a grant of the same amount as a compensation for the tax. During the coming years, these grants will be replaced by the minimum price of the RE-certificates, which is also DKK 0,10/kWh. In this way it is ensured that the power plants concerned continue to be compensated for the CO2 tax.
(2001/C 46 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0945/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Release of airspace
At a meeting of the federation of European civil aviation, the French representatives insisted that the steady increase in air traffic which was responsible for delays at airports was due chiefly to the poor organisation of existing slots and recalled that military aviation used 60 % of France’s airspace for long periods of time.
Since the problem of flight delays affects all the Member States, will the Commission say:
1. What percentage of airspace is reserved from military use in the other Member States?
2. Do any figures exist for Greece? C 46 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
3. Does the parallel use of airspace by military aviation pose any safety risk to flights?
4. What are its proposals and those of Eurocontrol on this matter, and specifically on the reduction of the amount of airspace set aside for military flights, so as to increase the airspace for civil aviation flights, thereby increasing their safety?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(22 May 2000)
1. and 2. The percentage of airspace used for military purposes varies between Member States, but is also not constant over time or even over airspace altitude. In addition some ‘military’ airspace can be used flexibly and will be open to civil use as military operations allow.
It is, however, clear that the percentage of airspace used for military purposes is significant and imposes a constraint on civil flights.
The Commission’s communication of 1st December 1999 (1) on the creation of the European single sky sets out some further information on this subject in its fourth annex.
3. and 4. Each Member State should possess a well-regulated air-traffic control sector, with access to all necessary information, in particular strategic planning data, flight plan data and air picture. Mutually coherent management of airspace by civil and military controllers is essential for smooth air-traffic control, which in turn maximises safety. If this is the case, there should be no safety issues arising from use of airspace by military and civilian flights and other activities affecting airspace.
The Commission has established a high level group constituted of representatives of Member States’ civil and military air management authorities, which is currently preparing a report to assist the Commission to prepare proposals on the integrated management of airspace and on the development of new concepts, procedures and practices for air traffic management. The group will report in June 2000. The issue of a more efficient use of the available airspace, including current military restrictions, is closely examined in this context.
(1) COM(1999) 614 final.
(2001/C 46 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0954/00 by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: MCI Worldcom/Sprint telecoms merger
The European Commission now has before it a competition case of exceptional importance to the development of the Internet, information technology, and communications in the European common market the proposed merger of MCI WorldCom and Sprint.
1. The merger of MCI WorldCom and Sprint threatens to create a stifling and unacceptable concentra- tion of power over the Internet in the hands of one company. Estimates provided by outside parties, place MCI WorldCom-Sprint’s combined share of the Internet backbone market at between 43 and 70 %. The proposed merger would enable MCI WorldCom-Sprint to use its dominant position to dictate the terms and pricing of critical Internet backbone connections to European backbones and, in turn, Internet service providers (ISPs), as well as content and portal sites.
How will the European Commission prevent the proposed merger of MCI WorldCom and Sprint from creating a damaging and anti-competitive concentration among top-level Internet backbone providers that would harm European Internet development and growth? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/91
2. In 1998, when the European Commission moved to block the combination of the MCI and WorldCom backbones by requiring the divestiture of MCI Internet, acquired by Cable & Wireless, it recognised the immediate and significant competitive harm the combination posed. The history of the MCI’s Internet backbone divestiture to Cable & Wireless shows that requiring the divestiture of Internet backbone assets is simply not enough. The integrated nature of MCI’s Internet backbone; MCI WorldCom’s apparent efforts to only partially satisfy the divestiture conditions and Cable & Wireless’s lack of an established market presence, base of knowledge, and infrastructure in the Internet backbone market combined in to result in the significant erosion of an important Internet market force.
If the European Commission decides that a divestiture is required, how will it structure the divestiture of Sprint’s Internet or MCI WorldCom’s UUNet to ensure the preservation of the competitive balance among top-level Internet backbone providers?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(24 May 2000)
The proposed merger between MCI WorldCom and Sprint was notified to the Commission on 11 January 2000. On 21 February 2000, the Commission decided to open a second phase investigation of the effects of the proposed transaction on competition. The Commission has to conclude its investigation by 12 July 2000.
One of the areas of focus for this second phase investigation is the provision of Internet connectivity where there are serious concerns that the combined entity would be able to exercise market power independently of competitors and customers. As the investigation has not yet been concluded it is too early to conclude on the effect on competition in the top level Internet connectivity market and even more so on possible remedies to be proposed by the notifying parties to solve any competition issue.
(2001/C 46 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0955/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Production of nuts in Catalonia
In 1989 the COM in fruits and vegetables was reformed, and a plan was instituted for improving the quality and marketing of the nut producers’ organisations, to be implemented over a 10-year period. The measures adopted in support of this sector will, therefore, come to an end in May 2000.
Catalonia dedicates a large proportion of its cultivated land to the production of nuts and carobs: these account for 12,3 % of all cultivated land in the region, but as much as 40-50 % in Tarragona province, while Lleida (Lérida) province is also characterised by a high degree of specialisation in these products. Nonetheless, this sector has had to face considerable competition in the form of cheap imports from Turkey, the US and the countries of northern Africa, which are benefiting from the reduction in customs duties on these products.
What action does the Commission intend to take to encourage and promote measures to guarantee the income levels of nut and carob producers? C 46 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0962/00
by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Hazelnut production in Catalonia
Catalonia is, in Spanish and EU terms, a major producer of hazelnuts and other nuts. Over 90 % of Spain’s total hazelnut production is concentrated in the region, and in some municipalities this production accounts for as much 85 % of the cultivated area. Catalan hazelnuts now have to compete with those from Turkey, the US and the countries of northern Africa all of whose cheap hazelnuts have made large inroads into the EU import market. Producers have had great difficulty in competing with these imports. In recent years, the COM in fruits and vegetables has provided for a system of direct aids for hazelnuts harvested in 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, with a view to guaranteeing minimum income levels for producers. The 1999-2000 harvest is the last one to receive Community aid, and this circumstance will lead to a reduction in potential income for a large number of rural producers in Catalonia.
Is the Commission aware of the importance of the hazelnut crop for Catalonia?
What measures does the Commission intend to take to guarantee that Catalan hazelnut producers’ income levels will be maintained?
Does the Commission intend to ensure that the COM in fruits and vegetables includes provision for renewing the direct aid to hazelnut production specified in Article 55 of Regulation (EC) 2200/1996 (1) for 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000?
(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-0955/00 and E-0962/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(10 May 2000)
The majority of the nut area in Catalonia has benefited from financial support for 10 years under the provisions of Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1) in order to improve nut productivity and competi- tiveness. Community-wide expenditure on nuts in this scheme from 1990 to 1999 was € 725 million. Further expenditure of over € 250 million for improvement plans still in operation is foreseen until 2006.
Nearly all the hazelnut area in Catalonia has benefited from the specific flat-rate aid for hazelnuts which was granted for the period 1997-2000 under the provisions of Article 55 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (2).
These measures were always intended to be temporary and degressive, in order to allow a shift of financial responsibility on to the growers.
Since 1997, aid is available for nuts and locust beans, as for all other products in the fruit and vegetable sector, through the operational fund scheme of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 which provides financial support for all fruit and vegetables marketed through producer organisations. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/93
Member States may also include nuts in their rural development plans under conditions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (3).
(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972. (2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. (3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0960/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Support for venture capital firms in the EU
Venture capital is the primary means of financing start-up companies and undertakings making new high- risk but potentially highly profitable investments.
However, EU venture capital firms are lagging well behind those in the US, whose investment levels are running at almost twice those of their EU counterparts.
What action does the Commission consider it could take to encourage investment by EU venture capital firms, to allow them substantially to increase their investments in SMUs in the Union to the point where venture capital investment levels have caught up with those of the US?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2000)
The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member’s concern regarding the under-development of venture capital in Europe, although the situation is beginning to improve. In order to improve the current situation and ensure that fast growing companies can find appropriate risk capital, the Commission is committed to accelerate the implementation of the risk capital action plan (1). To achieve this goal strong co-operation from the Member States and the private sector is needed. The European Investment bank (EIB) and the European Investment fund (EIF) also have significant roles to play. The Lisbon European Council stressed the need to remove all the barriers outlined in the risk capital action plan by 2003 a clear signal of the political importance now attached to this matter.
The Commission’s communication on risk capital (2) was adopted in April 1998. The risk capital action plan attached to the communication was broadly endorsed by the Cardiff European Summit (June 1998) and the Parliament. The action plan lists six sets of barriers to be removed in the Community namely market fragmentation, regulatory barriers, tax barriers, a paucity of good projects, human resources shortages, and cultural barriers.
A first analysis of the implementation of the risk capital action plan was made by the Commission in October 1999. To speed up the implementation of the risk capital action plan, the Commission highlighted in this communication some key regulatory measures to be taken in 2000, as well as some examples of good practices to encourage reforms in all Member States. The Commission will also regularly monitor and benchmark the implementation of the risk capital action plan. It should also be noted that the Commission’s E-Europe action plan (November 1999) proposed, as one of its targets, tripling the availability of early stage finance by 2003. The final E-Europe action plan will be presented for endorsement to the European Council in Feira in June 2000.
(1) COM(1999) 493 final. (2) OJ C 175, 21.6.1999. C 46 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/00
by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: Community aid to scrapyards
Automobile scrapyard owners are asking for information on the real scope of the new Community legislation concerning their sector. While they welcome the idea of legislation for the sector, they feel they are insufficiently informed as to how they will be affected, how much time they will have to adapt their facilities to the new directive, and whether or not public funding will be available for adaptation.
Can the Commission explain in what fashion it intends to inform undertakings in the sector of the new EU legislation concerning automobile scrapyards?
How much time will undertakings have to adapt?
Will aid be made available to undertakings for this purpose?
Does the Commission intend to establish any kind of criteria relating to excellence, exchange of experiences or best practice, or systems of approval at EU level?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2000)
The proposal for a Council directive on end of life vehicles (1) like all Community directives is addressed to the Member States. The Member States are obliged to comply with the objectives established in directives, while they remain free to choose the appropriate instruments to reach such objectives. It is primarily a task of the Member States to make sure that the concerned economic operators are sufficiently informed and assisted where necessary in order to comply with the requirements of directives.
As regards the time available for complying with the directive, this will only be known once it is finally adopted. At present, the legislative procedure has not yet finished. The Commission reasonably expects that the directive will be adopted before mid-2000. At the moment, the common position (2) foresees that the directive will enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official journal, and that Member States will have an extra transitional period of 18 months for transposing the Directive into national law.
According to the EC Treaty, the financing of Community environmental measures is the prerogative of the Member States. No specific Community financial aid is foreseen in the common position.
Finally, concerning excellency parameters and good practices, the common position, besides setting out minimum treatment requirements in Article 6 and Annex I, in its Article 5(5) refers to the introduction of certified environmental management systems in relation to establishments which carry out vehicle treatment operations.
(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997 as amended, OJ C 156, 3.6.1999. (2) Common Position 39/1999, OJ C 317, 4.11.1999. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/95
(2001/C 46 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0967/00
by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: New technology training
Meeting in Brussels in March 2000, leading IT-sector companies emphasised the growing shortage of workers properly trained in the use of new technologies. They also stressed the need for policies that would encourage businesses to take risks and innovate. If immediate action is not taken at the European level, research findings showing that 1,7 million jobs would remain unfilled in 2003 owing to inadequate training could be borne out in reality. Will the Commission say what urgent action it intends to take to respond to these two major challenges posed by the new economy?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 2000)
The Commission, together with the Member States, has already taken concrete action to address the two challenges mentioned by the Honourable Member, in particular in the run-up to the Lisbon European Council on 23-24 March 2000.
There are signs that the skills available in some Member States no longer suit those required by many new jobs. Recent private industry estimates show that, for instance, some 0,5 million job vacancies in the information technologies sector were unfilled in 1998. This labour shortage is expected to grow to about 1,23 million by 2002.
The mismatch between labour supply and demand is due, partly to strong economic growth in some sectors, but largely to insufficient information and communication technologies (ICT) skills being offered by working-age individuals, who are unable to adapt to ongoing techonological and organisational shifts in production patterns. Moreover, transition towards activities increasingly based on knowledge and innova- tion also means that ever more jobs depend on access to and use of ICT-related technologies and skills.
Closing the skills gap is essential, especially in Member States with high unemployment rates. This calls for rapid action to be taken by Member States and others, notably the social partners. The Commission communication on ‘Strategies for jobs in the information society’ (1) sets out concrete targets for action, for instance on the promotion of access to ICT tools in schools and their integration into the learning process and for the appropriate training of workers, particularly in traditional sectors.
The Lisbon European Council has set an ambitious action plan with concrete targets and timetables to both foster ICT-related activities while providing the Community labour force with adequate ICT-related skills. Under the ‘e-Europe initiative’ (2), available instruments will be reviewed to stimulate early stage financing with the objective of tripling it by the end of 2003, innovative forms of raising capital will be proposed, and the remaining obstacles to the creation of a pan-European risk capital market should be removed by the end of 2003. Full liberalisation of telecommunications markets will be completed by the end of 2001, notably by opening up to competition the still protected market segments. Finally, closer ties will be promoted between research, businesses and investors.
(1) COM(2000) 48 final. (2) COM(1999) 687 final. C 46 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0968/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) and Jas Gawronski (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: Dog fights
The illegal practice of holding dog fights for the purposes of betting is now widespread in many European countries. In Italy alone, the courts have estimated that more than 500 million euro is spent each year on betting and, according to the Anti-Vivisection League, more than 5 000 dogs die each year as a result of this practice.
In 1991 the United Kingdom adopted the Dangerous Dogs Act, which inspired similar legislation in France last year, seeking to eliminate dogs of the pit-bull breed in order to deter the holding of further dog fights.
However, the Anti-Vivisection League, which is committed to preventing and exposing this practice, has listed a further 40 different breeds of dog used in fights, including German Alsatians, Doberman, bulldogs and other popular breeds.
In fact, the United Kingdom law has not succeeded in eliminating the criminal organisations which organise the fights and other ways of dealing with this problem are clearly needed.
Nothing is being done at present to draw up European provisions to tackle the issue and put an end to this practice, although the section on health in the Commission’s work programme for 2000 provides for a European Parliament and Council regulation to be submitted during the year to lay down health policy standards for the movement of pet animals, which could serve as an instrument for action in this sector.
Does the Commission intend to intervene in this area, taking due account of the need to condemn the practice of organising, betting on and watching fights between dogs or other animals, while seeking to avoid penalising specific breeds such as pit-bulls, since animals are the main victims of this criminal activity as they are encouraged by the use of violence to develop excessive and unnatural aggressive tendencies?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(18 May 2000)
The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view that unnecessary suffering of animals should be avoided.
The Commission’s responsibilities towards animal protection have increased under the recent amendment of the EC Treaty, which requires the European institutions and Member States to consider animal welfare a priority when drawing up agriculture, transport, single market and research policies.
The Commission has therefore introduced general rules on the rearing of farm animals with a view to protecting their welfare, whilst more detailed conditions have been laid down on the rearing of calves, pigs and laying hens. Legislation has been also adopted on the conditions for the stunning and slaughter of animals.
Community rules also exist on the protection of animals during transport and on the use of animals for scientific research. Only these two last pieces of legislation are applicable to dogs. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/97
Community legislation does not however, cover animal welfare where it relates to dog fighting. This issue is, therefore, the responsibility of the Member State concerned.
The draft proposal for a Parliament and Council regulation laying down animal health conditions for the movement of pet animals mentioned in the Commission’s work programme for 2000 (1) aims to harmonise the veterinary conditions concerning the movements of pet animals between Member States with no commercial purpose. This proposal is not designed to address the problem of dog fighting.
(1) COM(2000) 155 final.
(2001/C 46 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0969/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: Extraction and marketing of sand from the River Lima
For years the industrial extraction of sand and gravel has been carried out on the right bank of the estuary of the River Lima including cleaning and marketing operations, this has led to the growing salinity of the water of the river, thereby threatening the quality of the water supply of Viana do Castelo.
The situation in the estuary may be further aggravated if moves go ahead to construct new links with the port which would destroy the existing marshes and the biodiversity of the region.
It should be recalled that the River Lima estuary is one of the areas to be included in the NATURA 2000 Network, and is already recognised by the CORINE Programme’s Biotopes project.
In view of the above, will the Commission say:
1. Have Community funds been granted for dredging operations in the Lima River and port works in Viana do Castelo?
2. Has any project for the construction of new access routes to the port been submitted with a request for funding?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(19 May 2000)
Under the European Regional Development Fund, the Commission has part-financed a project to improve access by sea (involving dredging) in the port of Viana do Castelo, preliminary studies for railway works, a pre-project on road access and the relevant environmental impact study.
It is worth recalling that in the case of projects of a total volume under € 25 million responsibility rests with the national authorities for implementation of the programme and checking that projects selected for Community part-financing meet all the necessary administrative and legal requirements, including compliance with the current environmental rules. The Commission is able to check that all these conditions have been met through its participation in the monitoring committees for part-financed programmes.
Regarding the potential impact of the above projects on the natural assets in the area (fauna, flora and habitats), the relevant provisions are those in Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), in particular Article 6, which requires a C 46 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
proper evaluation of the impact as well as a study of alternatives if the area concerned is indeed part of a site of Community importance proposed by Portugal in 1997 as a contribution to the Natura 2000 network in accordance with Article 4 of the Directive.
A letter reminding the Portuguese authorities of these provisions has been sent.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2001/C 46 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0970/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: Construction of an incinerator at Meia Serra
Plans are afoot to construct an incinerator at Meia Serra in the parish of Camacha in the municipality of Santa Cruz, in the Autonomous Region of Madeira, as part of a project to develop and restructure the Meia Serra solid urban waste treatment centre.
The chosen site is very close to a built-up area and is located in an area which contains agricultural land and a number of springs; the project therefore poses an environmental and public health threat.
Will the Commission say:
1. Has any Community funding already been authorised for the construction of the Meia Serra incinerator on the island of Madeira?
2. Has it already taken steps to ensure that all the necessary measures will be taken to protect the environment and the health of the local population?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2000)
By its decision of 22 November 1999, the Commission granted aid from the Cohesion Fund for the first phase of the project concerning the ‘Unidade de Valorizacão de Resíduos Sólidos da Ilha da Madeira’ (Madeira solid waste treatment centre).
This project includes the construction of an incinerator to replace the obsolete plant currently operating at Meia Serra, which does not comply with Community environmental legislation.
The decision to grant this aid includes specific clauses to ensure full compliance with the environmental standards associated with this type of infrastructure. The project in question was also the subject of an environmental impact assessment.
(2001/C 46 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0971/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: Extraction and marketing of sand from the Aveiro estuary
The Aveiro estuary has recently been designated a special protection zone to be included in the NATURA 2000 Network by Legal Decree 384-B/99 of 23 September. However the extraction and marketing of huge quantities of sand from the estuary are continuing. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/99
Under the pretext of ensuring navigability and preventing the silting-up of some areas, dredging is taking place in an uncontrolled fashion; given that the sand is not simply being moved but marketed, there is a risk of very serious consequences for the environmental equilibrium of the lagoon and the coastal strip.
A project is also under way for the construction of a marina for more than 800 in the estuary in Barra in the parish of Ìlhavo.
In view of the above, will the Commission say:
1. Has any Community funding been made available for dredging work in the Aveiro estuary?
2. Has any request for funding been made for the construction of the marina referred to above?
3. In either case, has any provision been made to protect the environmental equilibrium of the lagoon and the coastal strip?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2000)
The Community has indeed part-financed a dredging project in the Ria de Aveiro from the Cohesion Fund (1).
The Ria de Aveiro comprises a lagoon separated from the sea by a barrier of dunes. If it is not dredged, there is a danger that the lagoon will disappear as it silts up rapidly. The solution requires dredging to be carried out to open up and deepen the channels in the Ria.
This assistance forms part of a series of measures to preserve and protect the Ria de Aveiro. The Cohesion Fund is contributing € 59,2 million towards the total cost of € 69,71 million for a project to collect and treat waste water (Simria).
The Commission has insisted that the project to dredge the Ria should be accompanied by a series of measures to minimise the impact of the works and to monitor them. The project approved by the Commission provides for the dredged sand to be used to regenerate the coastal area (combating coastal erosion), to restore the marsh areas, which are in a poor state of preservation, and to construct an artificial island for bird life.
A schedule restricting dredging to the period from October to March has also been drawn up to keep the impact on fauna and flora to a minimum.
The Portuguese authorities have submitted no application for finance to construct a marina.
(1) Decisions C(95) 3061 of 12 December 1995 and C(95) 3259 of 15 December 1995 amended by Decision C(96) 3876 of 5 December 1997 and merged in Decision C(98) 2902 of 2 October 1998.
(2001/C 46 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0974/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: Relations between the European Union and Iran
The election results in the recent parliamentary elections in Iran have demonstrated the strong desire of the Iranian electorate that Iran should emerge from the international isolation in which it has been for years. However, the European Union’s response to the changes taking place in Iran has so far been limited.
Will the Commission say whether it intends to take advantage of current favourable circumstances to improve relations with Iran, thus supporting the opening which Iranian society is seeking with the West? C 46 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(27 April 2000)
Following the positive outcome of the elections in Iran, the Commission is currently reviewing relations with Iran. While it is still too early to formulate specific suggestions for the development of relations with Iran, it is likely that, as a first step, these would consist primarily of a widening and deepening of the dialogue that takes place within the framework of the comprehensive dialogue since the end of 1998. Cooperation could also be enhanced in the areas of energy, refugee assistance and drugs control. In the light of the political development in Iran, and depending on a constructive Iranian engagement on international issues such as non-proliferation and the fight against terrorism, extension of cooperation to new areas, and ultimately an institutionalisation of relations, could be envisaged.
(2001/C 46 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0991/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: New issue procedures
The handling of the Infineon new share issue (Infineon being a subsidiary of Siemens AG) in Germany this March has attracted considerable public criticism. Siemens executives benefited from gross favouritism when the shares were allocated, as did big investors. Furthermore, the bank ‘lottery’ for private investors was not organised transparently, and there are suspicions that it was conducted arbitrarily.
Will the Commission submit proposals for standard rules to govern new stock market issues whereby companies would be obliged to treat investors equally?
Does it believe that preferential treatment of certain domestic investors infringes the ban on discrimina- tion?
Will it investigate issue procedures in Germany in the light of the Infineon case and its implications?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2000)
In order to create a common European market for securities and a common capital market, several directives have been adopted to harmonise investor protection in the national securities legislation. The aim is to create minimum standards of harmonised rules for securities transactions in the internal market. Therefore, the directives harmonising European legislation in the securities field refer in principle to securities transactions and not to investors.
The directives concerning the procedure of initial public offering are Council Directive 79/279/EEC of 5 March 1979 co-ordinating the conditions for the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing (1) and Council Directive 80/390/EEC of 17 March 1980 coordinating the requirements for the drawing up, scrutiny and distribution of the listing particulars to be published for the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing (2). They harmonise minimum standards for the admission of securities to official stock exchanges and for adequate investor information. They do not regulate the initial allocation of shares (allotment).
No decision on European level has yet been made on requirements concerning the procedure for allotment. Allotment procedures follow national rules and vary between the Member States. To respond to this, national supervisory authorities have decided to create a working group within the framework of 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/101
the ‘Forum of European Securities Commissions’ (FESCO). This group was established in December 1999 and is looking to develop a common approach to the regulation of allotment and the equal treatment of investors. A draft paper of this group is expected during the second half of 2000.
Within the framework of its financial services action plan, the Commission will also examine the rules concerning the procedures for issuing securities. It will be looking to see to what extent rules referring to allotment procedures could usefully be proposed.
Member States are not allowed to grant preferential treatment to their own nationals. The preference of certain investors in the allotment procedure of shares of the company ‘Infineon’ occurred between private parties. It is not a result of a Member State rules giving preference to its own nationals. Therefore, this event is not in principle covered by anti-discrimination rules provided by the EC Treaty.
The Commission does not intend to examine the issuing procedures in Germany in the light of the issue of ‘Infineon’ shares. The information available, discloses no basis for such an assessment.
(1) OJ L 66, 16.3.1979. (2) OJ L 100, 17.4.1980.
(2001/C 46 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0996/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety
In paragraph 101 of its White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final), that it will revise the Food Labelling Directive 79/112/EEC (1) in order to address the question of nutrition and functional claims.
Could the Commission please explain:
1. What it means by the term ‘functional claims’, i.e. does this definition encompass ‘enhanced functional claims’, as have been defined in the draft Codex recommendations for the use of health claims (Alinorm 99/22A)?
2. Why has the Commission not addressed the issue of disease risk reduction claims in its White Paper?
(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(22 May 2000)
1. In its white paper on food safety (1) the Commission indicated its intention to consider whether specific provisions should be introduced in Community legislation to govern ‘functional claims’ and ‘nutritional claims’ on foodstuffs. This would include, among other provisions, definitions of the different categories of claims. Work on the subject is still in its early stage and, at present, these definitions have not yet been discussed in detail. In the white paper on food safety, ‘functional claims’ are referred to as claims related to beneficial effects of a nutrient on certain normal bodily functions; this corresponds to the definition of ‘nutrient function claim’ given in Codex Alimentarius Guidelines CAC/GL 23-1997. In the proposed draft Codex recommendations for the use of health claims ‘enhanced function claims’ are presented as a special category of health claim. It must be noted that these draft Codex recommendations are at a very early stage of consultation and that there is no consensus yet on the definitions appearing therein. C 46 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
2. Under current Community legislation (Article 2 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (2)) the attribution to any foodstuff of the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, or reference to such properties, is prohibited. As indicated in its white paper on food safety, the Commission does not foresee the need to modify the principle of this provision. Disease risk reduction claims are regarded as prevention of a disease and therefore covered by this prohibition.
(1) COM(1999) 719 final. (2) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.
(2001/C 46 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0999/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: Ferry services in remote areas
Is the Commission aware of the absolute dependency of remote island communities, e.g. in the Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Shetland Islands on adequate ferry services, and of the need to keep open routes that would not be commercially viable in themselves? Does the Commission agree that merely dogmatic moves to privatise such services would be regarded with great disfavour by communities served by ferries such as those of Caledonian MacBrayne?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(15 May 2000)
The Commission is fully aware of the dependency of remote island communities such as the Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Shetland islands on adequate ferry services and the need to keep open routes that would not be commercially viable in themselves. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) specifically takes into account the transport needs of island regions and establishes in its Article 4 the conditions under which Member States may conclude public service contracts with or impose public service obligations as a condition for the provision of cabotage services, on shipping companies participating in regular services to, from and between the islands.
Concerning the privatisation of such services, it is recalled that the Treaty establishes both the principle of impartiality with regard to the system of property ownership and the principle of equality between public and private undertakings.
(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992.
(2001/C 46 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1012/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(31 March 2000)
Subject: Regulation, import and possession of dangerous animals
According to journalistic sources, the number of rare and dangerous animals in Italy can be estimated at more than 11 200. From time to time there are reports of wild animals attacking and savagely wounding their owners or defenceless persons who happen to cross their path. The keeping of such animals by zoos 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/103
is subject to regulation, whereas the keeping of such animals by private individuals may be governed only by simple safety standards with the animals often kept under intolerable health and hygiene conditions. In Italy such animals must be registered, in accordance with the 1975 Washington Convention, but the official figures would suggest that many animals are imported and kept illegally.
1. Are there any common rules in the EU governing the importing and keeping of animals of this type?
2. If not, do all the Member States comply with the provisions of the Washington Convention?
3. What public safety guarantees are there when such animals are kept by private individuals?
4. What criteria and parameters are used to determine the health and hygiene conditions applying both to these animals and to human beings?
5. Are there any special reasons, apart from scientific research and entertainment purposes, that would warrant private individuals being allowed to import and keep wild animals?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(25 May 2000)
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1) contains provisions for transport, keeping and housing of specimens of wild fauna included in the annexes of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES).
In relation to animal health conditions, import rules have been laid down by Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and import into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (1) to Directive 90/425/EEC (2). Special conditions are foreseen for movement of animals between zoos.
Any other measures concerning import or possession restrictions of non-domestic animals, or matters dealing with problems resulting from keeping of exotic animals in places other than zoos, do not fall within Community competence.
(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997. (2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.
(2001/C 46 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1014/00 by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Limestone quarrying, concrete, cement and asphalt plant in the Tavira region of the Algarve
There are plans for a limestone quarry in a nature and water conservation area in the Tavira region of the Algarve and also for a concrete, cement and asphalt plant. Allegedly the mayor of Tavira has already had test drillings carried out, circumventing the local authorities. Funding from the EU may play a role in this project. Does the proposed project fall within the law in terms of the nature and water conservation aspects? Was application made for EU funds for this project and were they granted? If so, what type of funds and what was the amount involved? C 46 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000)
Under Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), quarries must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive in cases where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares. Other quarries must be made subject to an impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
Under Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3), any project not necessary to the management of a site but likely to have a significant effect thereon must be appropriately assessed in view of the site’s conservation objectives.
In order to form an estimate of the situation, the Commission has asked the Portuguese authorities to provide information on the project in question. The Commission will also draw their attention to the obligations deriving from the abovementioned provisions of Community law.
The project is not being cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund.
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2001/C 46 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1017/00 by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission (4 April 2000)
Subject: Transfer of surplus EU fishing vessels to third world countries
How does the Commission view the current practice of transferring surplus fishing vessels from EU Member States to Third World countries, given that this seriously endangers current fish stocks as well as existing small-scale fisheries ventures in those countries? To date, the Commission has spent € 30 million on redeploying surplus fishing vessels. Since EU fish stocks are seriously over exploited because of the over-efficiency of the EU fleet, it surely cannot be sensible policy to impose the same threat on countries that depend to an even greater extent on the sustainability of their fish stocks?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 May 2000)
The Commission recognises that the transfer of fishing capacity from Member States to third world countries should be mutually beneficial and should not endanger the fish stocks or the existing small scale fisheries in those countries.
For this reason, financial aid for the transfer of capacity to third countries can be granted only under the conditions specified in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC)No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1). Financial aid can be granted only with the agreement of the competent authorities of the third country concerned and if there exist appropriate guarantees that international law is not likely to be infringed, in particular with respect to the conservation and management of marine resources and with respect to working conditions of fishermen.
The Commission considers that, provided these conditions are met, the transfer of fishing vessels and the creation of joint enterprises can be beneficial for the development of the fishing industry in third world countries.
(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/105
(2001/C 46 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1018/00 by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Council
(6 April 2000)
Subject: Community preference for nuts, chestnuts and carob beans
Throughout Europe approximately 300 000 families are involved in the production of almonds, hazelnuts, chestnuts and carob beans. However, since its needs far outstrip production, the European Union leads the world in imports of almonds, (74 % of which are supplied by the United States), hazelnuts (75 % produced by Turkey) and walnuts from California and China.
The lowering of customs duties to 2 % in accordance with the Marrakesh Agreements threatens to wipe out nut production in Europe, which cannot reduce its production costs to the social and environmental dumping levels in Turkey, China and the United States.
Almond, chestnut and walnut plantations protect the soil and the environment and are a source of employment and balance in the countryside. Although in ten years the European Union has invested € 725 million in the sector, today there is no one specific aid instrument dedicated to it.
Does the Council intend to set aside funding, even if only as part of environmental and rural policy, to provide adequate financing for this sector, the disappearance of which would prove a great deal more costly than ensuring its survival?
What practical, specific and workable measures does the Council intend to adopt?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The Council would like to point out that in March 1989 it adopted specific measures for nuts and locust beans (1); these measures provide for per hectare aid of ECU 200 to 475 per year as part of plans put in place between 1989 and 1996 and have a maximum duration of 10 years; they aim to improve the quality and marketing of locust beans, almonds, hazelnuts, walnuts and pistachios. The approved plans are administered by recognised producers’ organisations and include measures designed to improve production of these products, as well as phytosanitary measures. The measures apply until the expiry of the last plans, i.e. until 2006.
In addition, the Regulation on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (2) provides under Article 55 for the granting of a flat-rate aid of € 15/100 kg for hazelnuts for the 1997/1998, 1998/ 1999 and 1999/2000 marketing years.
Furthermore, this Regulation provides for Community financing for those producers’ organisations which implement operational programmes aimed at improving the production and marketing of fruit and vegetables as well as respect for the environment. These operational programmes, which are approved by the national authorities, may include specific measures for the nut-growing sector.
The Council thus recognises the economic and social importance of the nut-growing sector and is aware of the difficulties which a great number of those engaged in that sector would be faced with if institutional aid measures were to be withdrawn. While the Council has as yet received no proposals from the Commission which are specifically aimed at the nut-growing sector, it would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to Mr Fischler’s reply, on behalf of the Commission, to Written Question E-0524/ 00 (3) stating that the Commission would be more in favour of social and environmental support measures, i.e. within the framework of the regulations on rural development.
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 789/89, OJ L 85, 30.3.1989. (2) Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. (3) Reply not yet published in the OJ. C 46 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1019/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(6 April 2000)
Subject: Five cases of torture and violation of human rights in Turkey
In the past week, several newspapers, non-governmental organisations and sources from the International Red Cross and the UN have brought to Parliament’s attention the serious case of five Turkish professionals, engineers and entrepreneurs Halil Muftuoglu, Emre Nil, Ferhat Terkoglu, Hasan Basri Guner and Timur Ayan who, after prolonged and excruciating torture, were forced to sign false confessions to crimes against the state. According to the victims’ declarations and evidence gathered from several sources, but not reported by the Turkish press, the torture comprised electric shocks to the testicles, jets of freezing water and beatings with clubs wrapped in towels to avoid bruising. The torture was inflicted by officers and officials of the Istanbul directorate for organised crime, a body which is part of the Turkish government’s criminal investigation department. All five are now being detained in Bayrampasa prison while awaiting trial.
1. Does the Council not consider that these continuing grave violations of human rights provide a startling contradiction to the statements made by the Prime Minister, Mr Ecevit, and the entire Turkish government to the effect that the reform of the judicial system, which should facilitate Turkey’s accession to the EU, is already under way?
2. Does the Council not consider that the essentially positive opinion expressed by the Commissioner for enlargement, Mr Verheugen, after his recent visit to Istanbul, on the progress achieved by Turkey in this regard is largely unjustifiable, or at the very least, premature?
3. Should the Council not ask the Turkish government to provide immediate explanations for the inhuman treatment of the five aforementioned prisoners before starting negotiations on the accession of Turkey to the European Union?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The European Union has raised, and will continue to do so, the issue of human rights with the Turkish Government, most recently in connection with the EC-Turkey Association Council on 11 April 2000. The EU is concerned about reports of human rights violations and will continue to closely monitor the human rights situation in Turkey and, if necessary, raise individual cases with Turkish authorities.
Turkey has embarked on a process of reform in this area. The EU welcomes Turkey’s intention to improve the human rights situation and will continue to support and encourage the Turkish efforts in this regard. The EU looks forward to further progress in this area.
In this context, the EU recalls that compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria, which include guaranteeing human rights, is a prerequisite for the opening of accession negotiations. Consequently, no such negotiations have yet started with Turkey.
(2001/C 46 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1023/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Payment of co-responsibility levy
Council Regulation (EC) 603/95 (1) on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder introduced an EU quota system for the dried fodder industry which sets a production quota for each Member State. If 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/107
the production quota is exceeded at EU level, all Member States are liable to pay a common co- responsibility levy of up to 5 %.
Any Member State which has not exceeded its quota (or has not even used it up) is, therefore, financially penalised for other Member States’ overruns.
In the Commission’s view, is this co-responsibility levy appropriate?
Will the Commission take measures to amend the common organisation of the market in dried fodder?
(1) OJ L 63, 21.3.1995, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(27 April 2000)
On the occasion of the market reform Member States accepted a compromise whereby one of the fundamental changes was a general reduction in aid in the event of overrun of the maximum guaranteed quantity. The other changes were national guaranteed quantities (NGQs), fixed aid per tonne and application of the integrated administration and control system (IACs).
Under the provision in question the aid rate reduction if the MGQ is exceeded by up to 5 % applies equally in all Member States. This was freely accepted by all Member States as an integral part of the compromise package. In this context the Commission considers it an appropriate provision.
It has been applied only once, at the end of the 1998/1999 marketing year, and a proposal to withdraw it would mean reopening discussion among Member States on the other features of the reformed scheme: NGQs, aid rate, control rules etc. in the absence of any valid reason for major readjustment of the sector to meet the wishes of a majority of Member States the Commission has no plans at present for proposing modification of the market organisation to the Council.
(2001/C 46 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/00 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Petrol and MTBE
With reference to the use of MTBE as an additive in petrol to raise the octane after removal of aromatics, benzene and lead, is the Commission aware of the problems created by MTBE in the USA through seepage into ground water?
Will the Commission take steps to investigate alternatives to MTBE, such as bioethanol extracted from sugar cane?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(31 May 2000)
The Commission is well aware of the political and public concern about the contamination of water supplies in the United States and recent statements by the American Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and will keep abreast of developments. C 46 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Methyl-tertiary-butylether (MTBE) is on the third priority list, published in 1997, of priority substances for assessment, as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1) (Commission Regulation (EC) No 143/97 of 27 January 1997 concerning the third list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/ 93) (2). The Community risk assessment will address the possible environmental and human health concerns in the Community, taking into account the American findings. When the risk assessment report is finalised, it will be presented to the scientific committee for toxicity, eco-toxicity and the environment for independent peer-review.
The Commission addressed in August 1999 a letter to Member States asking for information on whether they have encountered any problems with (water) pollution due to MTBE. As, until now, most Member States have not sent any information at all, the Commission is not in a position to make a firm assessment of the situation. To the Commission’s present knowledge based on limited information there are no significant problems with MTBE in water at Community level. Concerning drinking water, it should be pointed out that under the new Drinking Water Directive (Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (3)) a Member State is obliged to set values for additional parameters not included in the Directive where the protection of human health within its territory or part of it so requires (Article 5.3).
Risk reduction measures will be recommended in those areas where concerns have been indicated and legislative measures taken, if appropriate. At this stage, the Commission will review the need to investigate alternatives to MTBE.
In any case, in the framework of the agricultural non-food set-aside scheme, the production of raw materials like sugarbeet or cereals intended for renewable energy purposes like bio-ethanol is allowed, which offers processors access to raw materials at relatively low prices.
(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993. (2) OJ L 25, 28.1.1997. (3) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
(2001/C 46 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1036/00
by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Fall in the water table in the Les Marínes region (Valencia, Spain)
Residents, landowners and farmers from the municipality of Dènia in the Les Marínes region (Valencia) have complained that the drainage operations conducted by the Blau Verd S.L. construction company prior to laying the foundations of luxury flats have caused the water table in local wells to fall by more than 1,2 metres. These operations, which have not undergone a standard environmental impact assessment, are under way on a former camping site, where the aforementioned company has installed a number of pumps which work around the clock to draw off the water so that the foundations can then be laid.
The water which the system of pumps draws off is channelled directly into a drainage system flowing into the sea, the result being that numerous litres of a resource in short supply are being wasted in an area particularly hard hit by drought. The complainants maintain that this practice has already caused several wells which had never previously lacked water to run dry, the result being that, in addition to the impact on the irrigation of orange trees, which are important to local agriculture, there is the risk of an ecological disaster occurring in the medium term. In fact, the complainants have described the squandering of badly needed water supplies as ‘an assault on the environment’. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/109
The Water Framework Directive currently before the Conciliation Committee makes reference to the desire to lessen the impact of human activity on the environmental status of the various river basins. With this in mind, does the Commission take the view that the drainage system used in building the luxury flats could amount to an environmental offence under Community legislation?
Does it not believe that there has been a definite breach of Directive 85/337/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2), on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, over which Spain is currently involved in an infringement procedure before the Court of Justice (Case C-474/99) for its failure to transpose the Directive properly and promptly?
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(23 May 2000)
The Commission would point out that the Water Framework Directive has yet to enter into force.
As to whether the situation reported by the Honourable Member constitutes an ‘environmental offence’ under Community legislation, the fact is that this concept is unknown in Community law as it currently stands. It falls to the courts of each Member State to determine whether it exists.
Article 2 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) stipulates that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia of their nature, size or location must be subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before authorisation is granted. This provision applies to the projects listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive.
If the project in question is covered by Directive 85/337/EEC, it would have to come under one of the categories in Annex II (point 10(b) refers to urban development projects and point 11(a) refers to holiday villages and hotel complexes). Article 4(2) of the Directive stipulates that projects of the classes listed in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
The Commission has already instituted infringement proceedings against Spain for failure to transpose Directive 85/337/EEC properly into Spanish law, and has now decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice (2).
As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will in any event take the necessary steps to ensure that Community law is observed in this instance.
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) Case C-474/99.
(2001/C 46 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1040/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Financial aid to the British oil industry
In her answer to Question E-0218/00 (1), Mrs de Palacio states that, since 1975, the Commission has provided aid to the United Kingdom totalling € 189,05 million. C 46 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Can the Commission give a breakdown of this figure by year and by undertaking subsidised in the UK?
(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104.
(2001/C 46 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1041/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Financial aid for the French oil industry
In her answer to Question E-0218/00 (1), Mrs de Palacio states that, since 1975, the Commission has provided aid to France totalling € 270,49 million.
Can the Commission give a breakdown of this figure by year and by undertaking subsidised in France?
(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104.
(2001/C 46 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1042/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Financial support for the Italian oil industry
In her answer to Question E-0218/00 (1), Mrs de Palacio states that, since 1975, the Commission has provided aid to Italy totalling € 119,36 million.
Can the Commission give a breakdown of this figure by year and by undertaking subsidised in Italy?
(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1040/00, E-1041/00 and E-1042/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2000)
Since 1975, the Community has run programmes to give financial support to innovative technology for exploration, production and transport of hydrocarbons. In reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-0218/00 (1), the Commission provided a breakdown of this support by year and by Member State. As regards the request for a detailed breakdown by company, the Commission can provide data for the period 1990-1998. This information is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. It should be noted, however, that the attribution of the support to certain Member States could be somewhat misleading, as contracts in addition to the main contractor often involve several participants from different Member States.
With regard to the data requested for the period 1975-1990, it should be noted that a reply to the Honourable Member’s questions would, due to lack of electronic support for data at that time, require a lengthy and difficult research which the Commission is not in a position to undertake.
(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/111
(2001/C 46 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: EPAC restructuring plans
The answer of 15 March 2000 given by Commissioner Franz Fischler on behalf of the Commission to my Written Question E-0221/00 (1) on the EPAC Agro-Foods and Cereals Company states that Portugal forwarded the final version of the restructuring plans to the Commission at the end of 1999 and that the Commission would take a final position on the matter as soon as possible.
The Commission:
can it say when it will take its decision?
can it forward its position on the Portuguese Government’s proposal, once it has been adopted?
(1) OJ C 26 E 26.1.2001, p. 21.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(28 April 2000)
It is not yet possible for the Commission to give a precise date for its final decision, given the possible implications for it of proceedings in hand in the Court of Justice over Portugal’s failure to apply the Commission Decision of 9 July 1997 (1) on a State guarantee to EPAC.
The Commission’s final decision will be immediately notified to the Portuguese Government.
(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1050/00 by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Cost of changeover to euro
In the general debate concerning the abolition of national currencies and the introduction of the common currency, some Member States have focused on the cost of the changeover. According to the English firm of chartered accountants, Chantrey Vellacott DFK, it will cost the UK 4,2 % of one year’s national product to convert pounds to euro.
In the light of the above, will the Commission say whether it has likewise made analyses of the costs involved for each Member State in converting to the euro and, if so, will it disclose that information?
Is the Commission informed of any comparable studies carried out by independent analysts which shed light on the possible costs of conversion? If so, will the Commission likewise disclose such information? C 46 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (16 May 2000)
The Commission has not produced any studies on the costs for individual Member States for the transition to the euro, neither does the Commission plan to produce a study on the subject. The Commission does not believe that studies focusing on the costs for the transition to the euro could be complete or relevant. Although it is true that the change over to the euro results in costs, it should be noted that the transition to euro also has a revenue side. Reports focusing on costs only would therefore not be able to provide a complete picture of the question.
As for the question of independent studies, there are a number of studies made by banks, accounting firms and law firms. However, the Commission cannot and should not recommend one or other of these studies.
(2001/C 46 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1053/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (4 April 2000)
Subject: Draft proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of pedestrians and other road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle
I understand that this subject was discussed at a meeting of the Working Group on Motor Vehicles.
What was the conclusion of these discussions, and when will the proposal for a Directive be forwarded to Parliament?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (8 June 2000)
The matter of pedestrian protection was tackled at the meeting of the working party on motor vehicles held in March 2000. A certain number of factors was examined at that time. Since no conclusion was reached the discussions will have to continue on 5-6 June 2000. The comments and suggestions concerning pedestrian protection made on that occasion will be taken into consideration when a text is finalised.
The Commission shall not fail to inform all involved of the long-term progress made, and thus of the timetable adopted for this matter.
(2001/C 46 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1055/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission (4 April 2000)
Subject: Cyprus
Could the Commission confirm or deny reports that Cypriot citizens will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU unless Turkey joins simultaneously?
In the House of Commons on 15 February 2000 (Hansard Column 781), the Rt Hon Robin Cook MP, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, made the following announcement in relation to the accession of Cyprus to the EU:
Freedom of movement between the Republic of Cyprus and the occupied northern sector would apply only if Turkey simultaneously joined the EU. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/113
Does this statement reflect the views of the Commission? Could the Commission state whether any citizens of the Republic of Cyprus will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU?
If the answer to this question is yes, could the Commission explain why Cypriot citizens are to be denied (on an indefinite basis) the basic rights afforded by the Treaties? Could the Commission justify the decision to discriminate against Cypriot citizens in this way?
Could the Commission explain why the decisions on the accession of Cyprus are being linked to EU relations with a foreign country which maintains an illegal occupation force in the Republic of Cyprus, contrary to the stated position of the UN, the European Parliament, the European Council and the overwhelming majority of the international community?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(4 May 2000)
The European Council meeting in Helsinki in December 1999 concluded that ‘… a political settlement will facilitate the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. If no settlement has been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Council’s decision on accession will be made without the above being a precondition. In this the Council will take account of all the relevant factors.’
As the Honourable Member is aware, the result of the de facto division of the island into two strictly separated parts is that the fundamental freedoms laid down by the Treaties and in particular freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital, right of establishment and the universally recognised political, economic, social and cultural rights cannot today be exercised over the entirety of the island’s territory. These freedoms and rights would have to be guaranteed as part of a comprehensive settlement restoring constitutional arrangements covering the whole of the Republic of Cyprus.
Without prejudice to a case by case appraisal of requests for transitional measures, the Commission takes the view that transitional arrangements can be negotiated provided that they are necessary, appropriate and do not put into question the acceptance of the acquis communautaire by the new Member States. In some cases they must be accompanied by a plan with clearly defined stages for the application of the acquis including investments.
The Commission considers that the enlargement negotiations and the attempts currently being made in the United Nations to find a political solution to the Cyprus problem are mutually reinforcing processes between which coherence should be assured. While a political solution to the Cyprus question is not a pre- condition for accession, it is the objective of the Union that a united Cyprus joins the Union. The Commission recalls the invitation of the Cypriot government to the Turkish Cypriots to take part in the accession process.
(2001/C 46 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Exemptions from the ban on leaded petrol
The fuels directive which came into effect in October 1998 lays down strict limits for the sulphur content of both petrol and diesel motor fuels. In that directive it was also decided to abandon the use of leaded petrol. The time limit for the use of leaded petrol expired at the end of last year, but France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece were granted an extension for the use of leaded and high-sulphur fuels. C 46 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Why did the Commission support the continued use of leaded petrol in these countries, even though it is widely known that lead in fuels can easily be replaced by other less polluting additives?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2000)
The Commission considered carefully the requests for derogation to continue the marketing of leaded petrol from the Member States in question. In coming to its decisions the Commission was well aware of the technical alternatives to leaded petrol. However, it became equally clear that considerable consumer uncertainty would have resulted in these Member States if derogations had not been granted and that this could have given rise to widespread disruption. The Commission thus concluded that the derogation periods granted were necessary to allow the authorities in the Member States to inform consumers accurately on this topic and to implement the necessary measures to ensure a smooth transition to unleaded petrol.
(2001/C 46 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrente, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia)
The initial phase of the project to canalise a 42-kilometre stretch of gullies in the network of water courses in the Chiva ravine has recently been given the go-ahead. The project in question involves making the river bed wider and deeper, diverting its course and undertaking various resurfacing operations, as well as connecting tributary gullies to the main river bed. Although the authorities did indeed approve the mandatory impact assessment, the statement thereon by the Directorate-General for Environmental Quality, dated 15 March, contained a three-page annex setting out as yet undisclosed conditions which the project was supposed to satisfy. Various associations and bodies, including the Spanish Association of Limnology, Agro-Environmental Action, SEO-Birdlife and the Platform for a Green Ravine, have warned of the grave impact that such a project would have on the river and lakeside ecosystems concerned. Besides spoiling the landscape, the project would have a number of effects. For instance, it would destroy completely and irrevocably the plant life which currently colonises the river bed and its banks, as well as the plant species (mates) which line the area where the river flows into the lake, thus wiping out the natural habitats they provide for an array of protected species, bird life in particular. In addition, it would disturb the toxic substances which have settled on the river bed and lead to a build-up of sediment as the water began to circulate more quickly and a larger area of the basin was drained. That sediment would then be deposited in the La Albufera lake, thus inevitably serving to speed up the silting-up of the lake, which enjoys the highest protection afforded by the regulations governing the Nature Park in question.
Furthermore, should this situation occur, the project to canalise the ravines would contravene several national and regional laws and also constitute a breach of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds (under which La Albufera is designated a special bird protection area) and Directive 92/43/ EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (under which Spain included the Nature Park as a protected area in Natura 2000 network).
Could the Commission outline the current state of play as regards petitions 99/4494, SG(99), A/7586 and 99/4430, SG(99), A/6253, filed by environmental organisations from Valencia?
To its knowledge, is the project in question receiving Community funding?
Does it intend to initiate infringement proceedings for failure to comply with the aforementioned Community legislation? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/115
Does it not think that the environmental impact statement is also flawed, since hitherto the requirements laid down in the annex thereto have gone unheeded and the process has failed to assess the damage to the Park’s most highly prized areas?
(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
(18 May 2000)
The Commission was informed of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers by complaints 99/4430 and 99/4494 mentioned in the written question.
As part of its investigation, the Commission contacted the Spanish authorities several times to ask them for their observations. As they did not reply, the Commission then sent Spain a letter of formal notice pursuant to Article 10 (ex Article 5) of the EC Treaty.
The project receives financial support from the Cohesion Fund (project number 98.11.61.012). The Spanish authorities know that this support is conditional upon compliance with Community environ- mental legislation.
Once the Commission has received their reply (including the environmental impact statement) it will examine it to check whether relevant Community legislation has been complied with.
It would therefore be premature at this stage to say whether or not Community law has been infringed.
(2001/C 46 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Registration of GMOs in the USA based on deception and the misrepresentation of evidence
According to Steven M. Drucker, a Doctor of Laws and specialist in administrative law, the Commission’s decisions on registering genetically modified plant varieties are based on erroneous assessments by the US Food and Drug Administration.
For instance, when the American authorisation body permitted the marketing of the ‘Flavr Savr’ tomato which is also marketed in the EU in the form of tomato concentrate and ketchup, it was acting contrary to the specific test results of its own scientists. For laboratory tests show that when these tomatoes are fed to rats, this leads to a bleeding of the stomach walls. In view of this high health risk, the scientists advised against the authorisation of this product as a foodstuff. The safety tests on GMOs that have been authorised since then have been even less demanding in many cases, no tests at all were carried out.
1. Is the Commission aware of this information?
2. Is the Commission prepared to examine these latest findings regarding the bleeding of stomach walls? If not, why not?
3. What lessons will the Commission draw from these latest findings? C 46 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 2000)
The Commission is aware of the lawsuit which a number of organisations in the United States have filed against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concerning assessment of genetically modified food.
The specific product mentioned by the Honourable Member has not been subject to any request for authorisation or notification in the Community and can therefore not be legally marketed in the Community. It is up to the Member States to do the controls.
The Commission is always prepared to ask the scientific committee on food (SCF) to evaluate new scientific findings which cast doubts on the safety of genetically modified organism (GMO) derived products authorised or notified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 Janaury 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1) to be on the European market.
In the light of the results of the feeding experiments on rats with the Flavr Savr salad tomato, the Commission has asked the SCF for complementary information with respect to its opinion concerning the safety of products derived from genetically modified processing tomatoes for which the company Zeneca has applied for authorisation.
The Community legislation on novel foods and novel food ingredients ensures that a safety assessment is carried out prior to the placing on the market in the Community of GMO food and food ingredients. Article 12 of the Novel Food Regulation (1) also provides for the possibility to revise or revoke any decision on specific products in the light of new findings.
(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1070/00 by Gianfranco Fini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission
(4 April 2000)
Subject: Objective 2 funding for Viterbo and the surrounding province
As a result of the delay on the part of the Italian Government and the Lazio region in presenting the Commission with the list of eligible zones under Objective 2, the territory of Viterbo and its province have been prevented from receiving Community assistance in the current year.
Would the Commission redefine the areas fulfilling the Objective 2 requirements with a view to reintroducing the excluded territory of Viterbo and its province into the list?
Will the Commission also verify as a matter of urgency the proposal by the Italian authorities regarding the zones defined as eligible under Objective 2 of the structural funds?
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(24 May 2000)
The Italian authorities sent the Commission their Objective 2 zoning proposal on 1 October 1999. The Commission rejected this on 11 October on the grounds that it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). This requires areas meeting the criteria set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of that Article to account for at least 50 % in population terms of the Objective 2 zones. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/117
The Commission accordingly asked Italy to send as soon as possible an amended proposal which complies with the Council Regulation by adding new areas meeting those criteria and dropping others which do not.
The Province of Viterbo in fact meets the criteria set out in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.
The Commission regrets that no new proposal has yet been received. It has reminded Italy several times of the need to send a proposal urgently so that the regions in question are not penalised. Italy is the only Member State where the Objective 2 zoning has not been adopted.
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1072/00 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(29 March 2000)
Subject: Reform of the system of aid for cotton
Under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1553/95 (1), before the start of the 1999/2000 marketing year the Commission is required to present a report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton and to submit a reform proposal only if the report shows it to be necessary. However, the Commission has submitted a reform proposal directly without first presenting a report. In its explanatory memorandum, the Com- mission acknowledges that ‘this requirement was partly anticipated … by the Report from the Commission to the Council on Greek requests in the cotton sector (COM(1998) 10 final)’. Nonetheless it states that the said report ‘does not in any way replace the report provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1553/95’ and consequently ‘cannot be regarded as an investigation of the economy of the sector in general’.
Despite the fact that Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece to the Community recognises its ‘specifically agricultural nature’, cotton has never been listed in Annex II of the Treaty and is thus excluded from the majority of horizontal measures under the CAP. For instance, cotton is not covered by the environmental and rural development measures adopted with Agenda 2000 or the general regulations on producer groups. Given the status of cotton under the CAP as a whole, it would be advisable to offset the inadequacies in the regulations governing it in the report provided for under Regulation (EC) No 1553/95.
Why has the Commission not presented the report required under Regulation (EC) No 1553/95 prior to submitting its reform proposal? Is it aware of its failure to honour obligations set out in a Council Regulation? Does it still intend to present the report in question and amend its reform proposal in line with the report’s conclusions? Does it believe it possible to introduce environmental restrictions for cotton, seeing that cotton is not covered by the environmental framework established under Agenda 2000?
(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 45.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(18 April 2000)
Paragraph 11 of Protocol 4 on cotton annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece was amended by Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1553/95 (1) and states that the Commission is to send the Council a report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton. So the report does not set out to investigate the economy of the sector in general but seeks to carry out an examination of the scheme, which was to focus on four specific points in line with the Council’s wishes in June 1998 (2). C 46 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
The Explanatory Memorandum and accompanying legislative proposals (3) make up the substance of the report, as the introductory paragraph states. The report examines the system of aid and goes into the four points suggested by the Council.
The Commission proposals flow from the needs that surfaced in the report on the aid scheme.
As the Honourable Member points out, cotton as such is not covered by most horizontal measures under the common agricultural policy because of the special features of the rules governing it. Cotton is therefore not subject to the environmental measures under Agenda 2000.
Nonetheless, cotton growing, which is often a highly intensive activity that guzzles large quantities of water, might have disastrous effects on the environment if it is not made subject to environmental protection rules. Such rules can be introduced under the system of aid provided for in Protocol 4 since they make a long-term contribution to support for cotton production, as provided for in the first indent of paragraph 2 of the Protocol.
(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995. (2) COM(1998) 10 final. (3) COM(1999) 492 final.
(2001/C 46 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1078/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission
(7 April 2000)
Subject: Failure to publish the ‘explanatory directive’ of 19 July 1999 (COM(1999) 372 final) in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities
Following the biased translation into German of the ‘explanatory directive’ of 19 July 1999 (COM(1999) 372 final) on the free movement of Community citizens in EU Member States, it has emerged that this document, originally drafted in French, was not published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities, which regularly publishes communications and information of this kind.
Given that by acting in this way the Commission is failing to publicise the legitimate decisions that the institutions of the Member States will subsequently have to transpose in order to comply with Community legislation, will it take action to resolve a serious problem which is jeopardising the inalienable rights of the Italian community in Germany?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(23 May 2000)
The Honourable Members ask why the Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (1) was not published in the C series of the Official Journal.
The Honourable Members are reminded that it is not compulsory to publish Commission communications in the Official Journal.
In any case, the said communication is available online in all languages on Europa, the Commission server at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/people/right/index.htm.
(1) COM(1999) 372 final. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/119
(2001/C 46 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(7 April 2000)
Subject: Taking account of protests at the devastation of residential and natural areas by the construction of a dam in the Spanish region of Navarre
1. Is the Commission aware that after completion of the Itoiz dam (which is 135 m in height and 35 km in length) the rivers Irati and Urrobi in the Pyrenees in the north of the Spanish region of Navarre will flow into a 1 100 ha reservoir which will require the submersion of nine villages in their entirety and parts of six others, that in addition the nature and bird conservation areas (Txintxurrenea, Gaztelu and Inyarbe) created and protected with support from the European Union will be flooded, resulting in the disappearance of rare species of eagles, vultures and owls, while the otter has already disappeared thanks to the building work?
2. Is the Commission familiar with the action of the Spanish group ‘Solidarios con Itoiz’, as reported in various media, which took place during the opening speech by chairman Abu-Zeid on the occasion of the second World Water Forum held in The Hague from 17 to 22 March 2000?
3. Is the Commission also aware that one of the main official arguments for building the dam, namely the creation of 57 000 ha of land for intensive farming, is not supported by the latest thinking whereby a sustainable environmental policy involves reducing the area of land under cultivation, less intensive farming and maintaining or extending nature conservation areas?
4. Can the Commission confirm that there are still no detailed and approved plans for the 177 km canal needed to the south of Navarre, that the project does not appear in Spain’s national irrigation plan currently in force, that the return on this project is extremely dubious and that two-thirds of the expected increase in electricity production is offset by the discontinuation of existing production of electricity at plants along the existing river banks?
5. Is the Commission aware that the construction of this dam is highly controversial because of:
(a) the trial and sentencing of former ministers of the region of Navarre for accepting bribes for allocating building concessions;
(b) the decisions of 29 September 1995 and 14 July 1987 by the highest courts in Spain which did not approve the technical project;
(c) the fact that the firm Burson-Matseller was brought in to convince the mass media and public opinion of the desirability of this project?
6. What does the Commission intend to do:
(a) to help protect the countryside and fauna in the Western Pyrenees from the detrimental effects of the planned dam on the countryside and natural life, and
(b) to reach an agreement with the relevant Spanish authorities in this respect?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2000)
The Commission received a complaint concerning the construction of the Itoiz dam and conducted an investigation. On 30 November 1994, the Commission decided not to open infringement proceedings in respect of this matter. A press release to this effect was issued on 9 December 1994 (1), including the necessary elements to explain why the file was closed.
It must be noted that the Community has not granted any financing for the construction of the Itoiz dam in the Navarre region of Spain. C 46 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Furthermore, as a result of the suggestions made by the Commission following the closure of the file, the Spanish authorities notified an enlargement of the special protection areas where the project is located. Recently, they have communicated to the Commission new designations of special protection areas in the area of Bardenas Reales.
With regard to the observations concerning the judgements delivered by national courts in this issue, it should be noted that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to comment. It should also be noted that a recent judgement of the Spanish Constitutional Court has overturned a previous decision by the Spanish Supreme Court against this project.
Given the fact that the Itoiz dam project has now been constructed, the Commission does not see any purpose in prolonging commentary on a Commission decision dating from 1994.
(1) IP/94/1175.
(2001/C 46 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1083/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(7 April 2000)
Subject: Reservoir at Caldas, Cuntis and Moraña (Galicia, Spain)
The Autonomous Government of Galicia (Xunta) has authorised the construction of a reservoir on the river Umia. The environmental impact assessment approved by the Xunta reveals serious flaws. Much of it is a verbatim copy of another assessment, conducted on the Sanlúcar reservoir in Andalusia; it refers to Andalusian towns and to Andalusian bird species not found in Galicia.
Consequently, following a decision by the Ombudsman, a lawsuit has been filed against the three high- ranking officials at the Xunta who wrote the assessment, accusing them of a breach of trust, the forging of documents and causing harm to the environment.
The main reason given to the public by the Xunta to justify building the reservoir is the need to supply water to the inhabitants of the Salnés region. To that end, the Xunta has manipulated the population forecasts for the Salnés region for the year 2000, tripling the figures for the towns of O Grove, Sanxenxo and Villagarcía by fraudulent means.
According to a report by Professor Díaz Fierro and the hydrologist Álvarez Enjo from the University of Santiago, technically speaking, the reservoir is designed to supply hydroelectric power rather than water. The most convincing proof of this is the recent go-ahead given by the Xunta for the installation of two hydroelectric power stations on the river Umia, one below the reservoir, the other further downstream, which involves diverting the course of the river and will damage nature in the Molinos area and the Segade waterfall. The project report itself acknowledges that other damage will be caused, including the appearance of parasites, bleaker prospects for tourism, irrevocable harm to fauna and flora, and damage to the landscape as a result of the installation of the power stations and high-voltage electrical cables.
The coordinating committee which opposes building the reservoir at Caldas, Cuntis and Moraña maintains that the project is riddled with flaws, including its failure either to meet public interest criteria or to provide land deeds, an assessment of water supply needs and geological and technical studies into damage to thermal springs. Furthermore, the reservoir would destroy the diverse species of fish and water quality in the river Umia and ruin the tourist potential of three towns whose prospects as spa resorts appeared promising.
Will the Commission verify whether the environmental impact assessment submitted by the Xunta is sound?
Will it examine the reasons given for building the reservoir, in view of the damage caused to the region’s landscape, tourist industry and environment? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/121
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(18 May 2000)
The Commission was informed of the problems relating to the construction of a dam on the river Umia near Caldas de Reis in Galicia by petition 79/98 from Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, and Written Question 1824/99 by Mr Nogueira Román (1).
The Commission decided to investigate the case and registered it under B-1999/2271. It asked the Spanish authorities to comment on the project and the environmental impact study which had been carried out. Their reply has just arrived and the Commission is now examining it with reference to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment (2).
It should be noted that the area where the dam in question is due to be built has not been classified by the Spanish authorities as a special protection area for birds under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3). Neither was it identified by the scientific community as an ‘important area for birds’ in the inventory prepared for the Commission in 1998 by national experts and Birdlife. Moreover, the Spanish authorities have not identified it as a site of Community importance for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (4). Therefore, as far as nature conservation is concerned, this case appears to be the responsibility of the Spanish national and regional authorities alone.
At all events, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with in the case in question.
(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 25. (2) OJ C 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (3) OJ C 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (4) OJ C 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2001/C 46 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1087/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 April 2000)
Subject: Problems peculiar to the Italian canning industry
According to the findings of the recent study of needs as regards supplies of tuna loins from Community industry, the difficulties encountered by the industry in being competitive are confined to structural problems relating to cost structure in certain Italian undertakings.
In view of these facts, what led the Commission to believe that the answer to a structural problem affecting certain undertakings might lie in the indiscriminate trade measures it advocated in its proposal for a regulation on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, which would reduce the competitiveness of the remainder of Community industry?
Does it agree with the findings of the study?
Does it intend to take any structural action to assist in the restructuring of the aforementioned under- takings and enhance their competitiveness? C 46 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2000)
The Commission does not agree with the Honourable Member’s assertion that the Community tuna industry is uncompetitive solely because a number of Italian firms face structural difficulties. The Honourable Member is invited to reread closely the study which the Commission asked to be drawn up on this matter and which highlights the fact that all Community firms in this sector are, or may potentially be, structurally weak.
It is clear that the firms themselves are primarily responsible for taking structural measures, which constitute the only means of restoring their long-term competitiveness. For its part, the Commission is prepared to support such measures as fall within Member States’ structural programmes for fisheries. In the meantime, short-term measures such as the Council’s annual opening, since 1997, of a tariff quota for tuna loins can go some way towards helping the Community’s canned tuna industry. In 1997, for example, Spain and Italy respectively used up 56 % and 44 % of the tuna loin quota.
As already indicated in its answer to Written Questions E-756/00 to E-761/00 by Mr Varela Suanzes- Carpegna (1), the Commission is largely able to endorse the study’s content as a sound analysis of the circumstances, challenges and strategic options facing the sector as a whole.
(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p.104.
(2001/C 46 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1094/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(7 April 2000)
Subject: Cotton-growing in Greece
Under the Agricultural and Home Affairs Ministries’ Interministerial Decision No 38570/10.2.2000, the Greek State has designated cotton-growing as ‘controlled’ cultivation and has imposed conditions on cotton producers. In practice, however, these have the effect of preventing cotton-growing for a large proportion of those concerned. Thus, for example, long-standing producers wishing to increase production above their average over the last three years may not do so, while new producers who wish to start growing may do so only if they have inherited the farming land.
Could the Commission say whether it is aware of this situation, whether it considers that these arrangements and others contained in the above-mentioned Greek interministerial decision are consistent with Community legislation and, if not, what action it intends to take to remedy the situation?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(10 May 2000)
The Commission, recently informed of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers, has asked the Greek authorities for the texts covering the Decision, and thus cannot comment at this stage. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/123
(2001/C 46 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1100/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(7 April 2000)
Subject: The use of Nandrolone
Can the Commission comment on the implications of Council Directive 96/22/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 prohibiting the use of the precursors of Nandrolone in foodstuffs after an Italian sports governing body proved that it was to be found in an iron complex taken by athletes?
Can the Commission also confirm that the presence of unlabelled Nandrolone precursors is unlawful under Council Directive 79/112/EC (2) of 18 December 1978?
(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 3. (2) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(22 May 2000)
As the Commission replied to Written Question P-1611/99 (1) by the Honourable Member, according to Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996, concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/ 602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC the administering to a farm or aquaculture animal, by any means whatsoever, of substances having androgenic action, such as nandrolone, is prohibited. If residues of such substances are found in such animals or processed products derived from such animals and marketed, these should be removed immediately from the market and destroyed.
The Commission has no information about the exact nature of the products mentioned by the Honourable Member. Foods intended for satisfying particular nutritional requirements of athletes are not yet covered by specific Community legislation and national rules, where they exist, apply.
In general under Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer, all ingredients of foods should appear on the list of ingredients on the labelling of foods.
(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.
(2001/C 46 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1102/00 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission
(7 April 2000)
Subject: Promotion of quality beef in Spain
In connection with the European campaign to promote quality beef and in view of the fact that on 25 January last the Commission approved 14 programmes to promote quality beef in the 1999/2000 marketing year submitted by eight Member States Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom can the Commission say what decision it reached regarding Spain, after studying the programmes submitted by that country? C 46 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(19 May 2000)
The Commission’s decision approving part-financing of Spanish promotional measures for quality beef, delayed by the need to obtain more information on regional quality marks, was taken on 28 April.
(2001/C 46 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1104/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(7 April 2000)
Subject: Synthetic drugs and consequences for health
The spread of synthetic drugs among young people in Europe is still on the increase. Commentators, doctors and educators are issuing warnings about the impact on health of taking such drugs. Ecstasy in particular seems to be the most widespread. It is even advertised on the Internet, which also provides instructions for manufacturing it at home.
In view of this scourge and the differing opinions about its consequences, can the Commission confirm:
1. that the increased incidence of Parkinson’s disease among young people can undoubtedly be attributed to the devastating effects of ecstasy and other synthetic drugs on the brain;
2. that there is definite medical and scientific evidence that taking such drugs damages the nervous system;
3. that there are research programmes partly funded by the EU;
4. that there are plans to disseminate this information to schools?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(22 May 2000)
According to the latest figures from the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (EMCDDA), 0,5 to 3 % of the general adult population in Europe and between 1 to 5 % of young adults have tried ecstasy (MDMA). Locally and within specific groups the figures are much higher and in general, EMCDDA information confirms an upward trend in the use of ecstasy and other synthetic drugs.
As yet, little is known about the long-term effect of ecstasy use. Based on recent research findings, it is thought that ecstasy causes damage to the neurones that use the chemical serotonin to communicate with other neurones. Some research findings link ecstasy use to long term damage to those parts of the brain critical to thought and memory. There are also increasing concerns about the possibility of mental health problems, especially chronic depression, in connection with heavy long-term use of the drug.
MDMA structure and effects are related to metamphetamine, which has been shown to cause degeneration of neurones containing the neurotransmitter dopamine. Damage to these neurones is the underlying cause of the motoric disturbances seen in Parkinson’s disease. However, much more research is needed in order to establish a scientifically reliable link between the use of ecstasy and Parkinson’s disease.
The fifth framework programme on research has a specific action line on public health research which also addresses drug related health problems. Research priorities include determining the social, psychological and socio-economic factors related to drug dependence and developing better understanding of the long- term health and social consequences of drug use. Four projects have been selected for funding this year 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/125
and the Commission can assure the Honourable Member that the programme will be effectively used for funding high quality studies in this field.
The risks posed by synthetic drugs are among the challenges identified in the Community drug strategy 2000-2004. The strategy emphasises the need for providing young people with accurate and reliable information on the effects of these substances. The Commission can confirm that every effort is made to ensure that this information is disseminated in schools. Already, many projects funded by the Community drug prevention programme have concentrated on the prevention of the use of synthetic drugs.
(2001/C 46 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1105/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(7 April 2000)
Subject: Effects of exposure to asbestos
Asbestos was banned in western Europe in the nineteen seventies. However, as an Italian epidemiologist has pointed out, the effects of exposure to asbestos on various groups of workers in the last few decades are continuing to grow. The development of asbestos-related cancer takes many years to produce a clinically manifest tumour. In the United States, where asbestos was banned about 20 years earlier than in Europe, the mesothelioma epidemic has already peaked. In Europe it is still growing and the number of deaths caused by this kind of tumour is forecast to double in the next twenty years.
What steps will the Commission take to tackle this situation and to help the families of the workers affected?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2000)
The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member about the health effects of asbestos. A significant body of Community legislation already exists which aims to protect the health of workers and the public from the effects of asbestos. In particular, Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 80/1107/EEC) (1) as amended by Council Directive 91/382/EEC of 25 June 1991 (2) covers the protection of workers exposed to asbestos at work.
In response to the Council conclusions of 7 April 1998 on this subject (3) the Commission is drafting a proposal to amend the above Directive with a view, in particular, to refocusing protective measures on those who are now most at risk, improving training and information for the workers concerned, lowering the limits for permissible concentrations in the air at the workplace and reviewing the assessment of asbestos fibres.
Although the Commission Recommendation 90/326/EEC of 22 May 1990 to the Member States concerning the adoption of a European schedule of occupational diseases (4) refers to all diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, compensation for occupational diseases and possible help for the families of workers affected are matters of Member State competence.
(1) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983. (2) OJ L 206, 29.7.1991. (3) OJ C 142, 7.5.1998. (4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1990. C 46 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 2000)
Subject: Competition in the Spanish electricity sector
In view of the announcement that the Hidrocantábrico shares are to be offered for sale on the open market and given that approval for such an operation is likely to be forthcoming, competition in the Spanish electricity sector is set to decrease, as it has been doing repeatedly on account of operations such as the merger of the Endesa, Fecsa and Sevillana de Electricidad companies.
Does the Commission consider the costs of the changeover to a competitive market to be acceptable under such circumstances? Does the Commission believe there to be genuine competition in the Spanish electricity sector?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000)
State aid in respect of stranded costs is designed to compensate for commitments or operating guarantees which were given before the entry into force of Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 Decem- ber 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1) but which may not be honoured on account of that Directive. Compensation, therefore, is for historical costs which become non- competitive following the liberalisation of the electricity market. The costs are determined on a firm-by- firm basis. Consequently, the merger in question should not, in principle, have any impact on the analysis of the compatibility of stranded costs in the light of the EC Treaty rules on state aid.
At this point, the Commission cannot say how competitive the Spanish electrical market is following the operation referred to by the Honourable Member before it has been examined under the rules applicable. It will conduct such an examination only if the operation has a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2). Otherwise, it is for the national authorities to vet the operation.
(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997. (2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ L 180, 9.7.1997).
(2001/C 46 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council (13 April 2000)
Subject: Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey
On Tuesday 28 March 200 the Public Prosecutor in Ankara refused to suspend the prison sentence against Arkin Birdal, a renowned and courageous defender of civil rights in Turkey accused of making ‘subversive speeches’. His lawyers had requested a six months’ suspension of the sentence because he needs intensive medical treatment for injuries sustained as a result of an attempt made on his life.
At the beginning of March the former Prime Minister Necmettin Erkaban was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment for similar offences, because of a speech he made in 1994.
1. Does the Council not consider that these blatant violations of freedom of expression and human rights are at odds with the commitments entered into by the Turkish Government with a view to EU membership and the basic conditions for the accession of new States, such as respect for the founding principles of the Union, sanctioned in Article 6(1) of the TEU, and the political criteria laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993?
2. Does the Council not consider that it should prevail upon the Ankara government to put an end to the judicial and other forms of persecution inflicted on Mr Birdal and Mr Erkaban? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/127
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The Council regrets the re-imprisonment of Mr Birdal, which constitutes a serious setback for the freedom of expression in Turkey and is not in accordance with the spirit of the Helsinki conclusions. The Council has urged the Turkish Government to take measures to release Mr Birdal and to ensure adequate medical treatment while he remains in prison. The Council will continue to closely monitor the human rights situation in Turkey and, if necessary, raise individual cases with Turkish authorities.
The Council notes that the sentences against Mr Birdal and Mr Erbakan are both founded on Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code. Article 312 makes it a criminal offence to ‘incite the people to hatred or hostility on the basis of a distinction between social classes, races, religions, denominations or regions’. This provision has been interpreted by Turkish courts and other authorities in a way that, in the Council’s view, limits the freedom of expression.
The Council notes that Turkey has embarked on a process of reform in this area. The Council welcomes Turkey’s intention to improve the human rights situation and will continue to support and encourage Turkish efforts in this regard. The Council looks forward to further progress in this area.
(2001/C 46 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1121/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The EFA advises, gathers information and communicates, but has no legislative or regulatory powers. In crises the Commission, which will retain responsibility for monitoring, takes measures. The EFA is to cooperate with national bodies and is to play a leading role in this respect. However, it will not have any powers in the event of differences of opinion.
Primary European legislation is adopted by the Council and the European Parliament. The Commission and the regulatory committees are responsible for delegated legislation which is based on primary legislation. The EU Treaty does not allow an independent authority, such as the proposed European Food Authority, to have powers of delegated legislation.
1. Does the Commission feel that the EFA should ultimately have the power to enact delegated legislation, for example in respect of authorising novel foods and determining maximum values for residues of pesticides and contaminants?
2. Has the Commission taken action to ensure that the EFA acquires the power of delegated legislation? If so, what initiatives have already been taken and what additional action will the Commission take to ensure that the EFA acquires the power of delegated legislation? If not, is the Commission opposed to the granting of the power of delegated legislation to the EFA and on what grounds? C 46 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1124/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
Large quantities of information are gathered on food safety, but often it is not properly collated or analysed. The (daily) risk analysis therefore needs to be improved in order to facilitate a prompt response to potential risks (sections 16 and 17).
What procedural and practical forms will cooperation between the EFA and the Commission take in order to satisfy the high requirements of the (daily) risk analysis in order to facilitate a prompt response to potential risks?
(2001/C 46 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1126/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The existing Scientific Committees have a fairly heavy work load and they have drawn attention to the time required for their advisory activities (section 22 ff.). The Food Authority will have to take account of this problem. Recruiting sufficiently well-qualified staff to the Authority can help enhance and speed up the process of providing scientific advice.
1. How will the Commission bridge the period pending the creation, and commencement of activities, of the Authority?
2. How will the Commission handle the division of labour between the staff of the Authority and the advisory committees?
(2001/C 46 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1129/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The White Paper gives three reasons why risk management is not included in the Authority’s mandate (section 33). For example, the EU Treaty says that the control function and legislative powers are the responsibility of the Commission.
Is the Commission prepared to put the question of the control function and delegated legislation for the EFA on the agenda of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference so that solutions for the longer term can be considered? If not, does the Commission not feel it necessary for the EFA to eventually acquire a control function and the power of delegated legislation? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/129
(2001/C 46 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1130/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Authority will be responsible for scientific advice and it has to acquire the status of a visibly appreciated point of reference. It must be available to give consumers information on developments in food safety. Finally, it has to work in close collaboration with national bodies and network with them.
1. What form will cooperation on providing information to consumers between the EFA and the national information bodies take? Will the Authority and the national bodies have clearly defined powers in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity?
2. What form will cooperation on scientific advice take between the Authority and the national information bodies? Will the Authority and the national bodies have clearly defined powers in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity?
(2001/C 46 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1131/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Commission believes that the Authority should have legislative status in order to perform its tasks independently, to maximise its impact on protection of the health of consumers and to be independent of the EU Institutions.
Does the intended independent position give the Authority the power to ask the Commission for an interpretation of policy decisions reached in the light of opinions from the Authority? If not, why does the Commission not think it necessary for the Authority to be able to inquire into the follow-up to, or implementation of, its opinions?
(2001/C 46 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1132/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Commission does not rule out an extension of the Authority’s competencies in the future (section 40).
1. What new competencies does the Commission have in mind?
2. When will this extension of competencies take place? C 46 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1135/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The field of activities of the Authority covers the entire food chain, including both food safety and food- related matters. The Authority will be given its own budget in urgent cases and will maintain contacts with the scientific committees and the Commission (section 45 ff).
Increasing the size of the scientific secretariat to support scientific advisory activities is needed to improved both the quality and the rapidity of scientific advice. A separate budget for ad hoc research will make for greater flexibility. Furthermore, the composition of the Authority’s staff is crucial.
1. What budget does the Commission propose for the Food Authority?
2. What are the criteria for the recruitment of staff? How many staff will the Food Authority have (at all levels)?
(2001/C 46 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1136/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
Identifying and utilising information from within and outside the Community will be a key activity of the Authority (section 49 ff). Information is important in order to identify potential problems as soon as possible. The Authority will act as a watchdog with regard to emerging hazards.
1. To what extent can the Authority advise the Commission on potential problems without involving the scientific committees?
2. Does not the existence of a twin-track system of advice the Food Authority and the scientific committees undermine the efficiency of the Food Authority? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that duplication of advice does not inhibit the effectiveness of the Authority?
(2001/C 46 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1137/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/131
The Authority will have the opportunity of communicating directly and openly with consumers. It can provide all interested parties with direct information on its findings on both food safety and food. The Commission will retain responsibility for communicating risk management decisions (section 51).
1. Where, in the Commission’s opinion, is the dividing line between informing the public and communication as a result of risk management?
2. Will the Authority be able, on its own initiative, to inform the public of the risks of certain products, for example Listeria? If not, who will communicate this information, given its importance to consumers?
(2001/C 46 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1138/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The role of the Authority in a crisis is to mobilise and support (and if necessary implement) (section 52 ff). It will not take decisions on specific measures in crises. This will remain the task of the Commission and the regulatory committees consisting of representatives of the Member States.
Does the Commission acknowledge that the current decision-making procedures have not always operated satisfactorily in crises because of the different views of the Member States? If not, does the Commission believe that the approach to crises hitherto has been exemplary? If so, is the Commission considering giving the Authority responsibilities in future for tackling crises?
(2001/C 46 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1139/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Authority and the Commission have to work closely together (section 56 ff.). By operating in close proximity to the Commission the Authority will remain well-informed and able to take due account of the needs of the Commission’s services.
Given the need for close cooperation and a smooth exchange of information, will the Authority be located in the vicinity of the Commission? If not, is not the location of the Authority an obstacle to close cooperation and the smooth exchange of information with the Commission, as stated in the White Paper? C 46 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (8 June 2000)
In the White Paper on Food Safety (1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.
However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority’s powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission’s assessment of the Authority’s performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.
(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
(2001/C 46 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1123/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Commission wants to apply the precautionary principle in full. Account will also be taken of other legitimate factors relevant to protection of health and to promoting fair practices in trade (sections 14 and 15).
1. What guarantees does the Commission have wthat the precautionary principle will be interpreted in a uniform way by all parties concerned?
2. How will the Commission determine that other factors are legitimate as far as protection of health and promoting fair practices are concerned? What specific factors does the Commission have in mind (please give example)?
3. How will the Commission prevent the decision-making process losing its transparency as a result of the other legitimate factors?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (9 June 2000)
Following the publication of the White Paper on Food Safety, the Commission adopted a communication concerning the application of the precautionary principle. This communication aims to promote a common understanding of the principle and of its application. It is currently being examined by the Community Institutions and the Codex Alimentarius, an international organisation among whose other members the Community is currently seeking to obtain a consensus on the application of the precau- tionary principle to food standards. The idea of discussing the possibility of taking other legitimate factors into consideration in the decision-making process has also been put forward by Codex Alimentariusin the its Procedural Manual but no indication of what these other legitimate factors are was included. This topic 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/133
is the subject of wide-ranging discussions in which the Commission is making the case for a broad interpretation of the concept which includes aspects of ethics, economics, health, animal welfare and the environment, whereas other countries want to restrict these legitimate factors to good veterinary or agricultural practices and to sampling and analytical methods. The discussion has gained a higher profile in connection with the use of bovine somatotropin, which the Community banned because of its negative effects on the health and welfare of dairy cows. The Community opposes the approval of this hormone by Codex Alimentarius, citing inter alia the aforementioned other legitimate factors.
Transparency in the decision-making process is not simply a matter of the scientific basis used by the legislator. Clearly it is essential that consumers should be informed in a clear and comprehensible manner of the scientific opinions on which the decisions have been based. However, the considerations taken into account by the decision-makers, particularly the evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the various risk management schemes in terms of total cost for society, must also be clearly explained and the final decision fully justified. In any case, the Court of Justice has ruled on several occasions that considerations relating to the protection of human health must take priority over all economic considera- tions.
(2001/C 46 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1125/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Commission says that scientific cooperation needs to be enhanced and coordinated with the work programme of the Scientific Committees. Hitherto there has been not much funding for this and there have often been delays in the programmes that have been implemented (section 20).
How does the Commission intend to enhance scientific cooperation and speed up procedures? What proposals have already been formulated in this respect?
(2001/C 46 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1133/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
Many EU Member States have made massive cutbacks in the public funding of scientific research in recent decades. As a result, scientists are partially dependent on industry for funding of their research. This position of dependence can impair the credibility of researchers and the advice which they give (section 41).
1. In what way will the Commission guarantee the independence of European scientists?
2. Does the Commission accept the proposal to establish a ceiling on the private funding of scientific research? If so, in what way will the Commission set the maximum and minimum levels of private and public funding, respectively? If not, does the Commission believe that private funding has no effect on the independence of scientist? C 46 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1134/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Commission wants the process leading to recommendations etc. to be as open as possible.
Will the Commission publish the reports of the scientific committees from now on? If not, why not, and is this attitude not a violation of the Commission’s intention to be ‘as open as possible’?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1125/00, E-1133/00 and E-1134/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2000)
The Honourable Member has raised a series of questions in response to the Commission’s proposal to establish a European food authority (EFA) as set out in the white paper on food safety. As part of the consultation process, the Commission invited comments on the EFA proposal with a deadline for comments of 30 April 2000. The Commission is currently evaluating these comments in preparation for the legislative proposal announced in the white paper.
The white paper emphasises the importance of networking with Member States and the need to work in close collaboration with their national agencies. It also stresses the important role that the EFA will have in gathering and analysing information that would allow it to take a pro-active approach to the identification of emerging hazards and, where possible, the avoidance of crisis.
Scientific co-operation is the common used term for the procedure established under Council Directive 93/5/EEC of 25 February 1993 on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food (1). It is one of a number of networks that have been established under Community legislation to gather information or to provide assistance to the Commission on matters related to food safety. The Commission is reflecting on the future organisation and resourcing of these networks in the EFA context to ensure their optimum efficiency.
The Commission has attached great importance to the independence of the scientific committees and their members. Article 6(1) of Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up scientific committees in the field of consumer health and food safety (2) stipulates that the members of the committees ‘shall act independently of all external influence’. In order to ensure such independence, members make three separate declarations of all their interests that could be considered prejudicial to their independence: a declaration of interest as part of the original expression of interest (application) to become a member of a scientific committee; an annual declaration of interest, and a declaration of any particular interest which could be regarded as prejudicial to the expert’s independence in respect of an item on the agenda of a meeting of the committee. As the Commission has indicated in its communication ‘Towards a European Research Area’ (3), the Community’s investments in research & development, both public and private, are lagging behind those of its major competitors. The question of setting ceilings on any component of research expenditure does therefore not arise. In any case, the Commission considers that the provisions mentioned above are such that should conflicts of interest arise, they would not 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/135
compromise the objectivity of the committees. In practice the committee decides on a case by case basis on the extent of a member’s participation in the work. A member who is not able to act independently is not invited to be rapporteur or chairman and may not seek to influence conclusions. Declarations of interest are recorded.
Since November 1997, when the Commission’s scientific committees were reorganised under common internal management, the opinions expressed by the committees have been made publicly available on the internet, generally within three working days of their adoption. All the opinions of the scientific committees issued since that time can be found on the Commission’s Europa server: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/index_en.html.
(1) OJ L 52, 4.3.1993. (2) OJ L 237, 28.8.1997. (3) COM(2000) 6 final.
(2001/C 46 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1154/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The existing procedures for adapting legislation to technical and scientific progress are not always satisfactory (sections 82 and 83). The procedures are often cumbersome, different committees are involved, different modalities apply and official support is limited and fragmented.
Better coordination is needed to ensure that food safety issues are adequately tackled. This could be done by having a single regulatory procedure for delegated legislation, a single management procedure for adopting individual decisions and a single emergency procedure for all urgent matters of food safety.
With a view to improving coordination of food safety, will the Commission concentrate responsibilities for delegated legislation, the management procedure and the emergency procedure in the Health and Consumer Protection DG? If not, why not? If so, (a) in what way and by what date will the Commission achieve this concentration and (b) in what respect will the recent decision on commitology change the division of powers between the Commission and the Member States?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2000)
In October 1999 and March 2000 the Commission undertook a two-stage restructuring of its departments in order to concentrate all responsibilities relating to food safety into a single Directorate-General. As a result, the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection is now responsible for all aspects of safety in food production, covering all sectors from the farm to the dinner table.
Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (1), also referred to as commitology, modified certain aspects of the procedure for adopting decisions under the delegation of powers. However it did not alter the division of powers between the Commission and the Member States.
(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999. C 46 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1163/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(12 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Commission is to draw up an action plan to develop a comprehensive and coherent nutritional policy (section 106).
To what extent does the Commission seek to tailor this action plan to national and international (FAO and WHO) policy plans?
(2001/C 46 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1164/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(12 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Commission wants to collect information on food intake, diets and nutritional status (section 107). It is also working on promoting nutritional research and efficient and accurate consumer information. These activities are already being carried out at national or subnational level.
1. What does the Commission think is the added value of comparable activities at EU level?
2. Is there not a risk with this approach of overlap and duplication? If so, is the Commission prepared to restrict itself to a coordinating (pivotal) role? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that there will not be any overlap or duplication?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1163/00 and E-1164/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 June 2000)
In drawing up a nutritional policy, the Commission will use the results of two current projects that are financed by the Health Promotion Programme. Each of these projects mobilises numerous national experts involved in national policies and representatives of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The first project is designed to draw up European recommendations on nutrition and the second will produce a background document for the French Presidency, which intends to promote nutritional health.
As far as health surveillance is concerned, most Member States have introduced a monitoring system, but it rarely includes monitoring of nutritional status. Although food consumption surveys are conducted, they are only the first stage in the evaluation of nutritional status. The rare data available on nutrition across the various Member States are not all of the same quality, and their comparability leaves something to be desired. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/137
That is why the Commission has called on the Council and the Parliament on several occasions to improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on health, and their quality and comparability.
The Commission would reassure the Honourable Member on the question of possible overlap between the measures of the Commission and those of the Member States. It has no intention of taking the place of the Member States. All the work under way in the area of nutritional health monitoring is being done together with the Member States, with the Commission initiating and coordinating such work.
(2001/C 46 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1165/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(12 April 2000)
Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority
The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.
The Commission wishes to clarify and enhance the existing WTO framework (section 108). The precautionary principle must be respected in the field of food safety. The main requirement is to devise a standard methodology for applying this principle. Measures taken by other countries to refuse EU products are to be studied in the context of the opportunities afforded by the SPS Agreement. The EU wants to accede to the Codex Alimentarius and the International Office of Epizootics.
Does the Commission regard the existing rules of the SPS Agreement as insufficient for adequate application of the precautionary principle? If so, what shortcomings does the Commission identify in the Agreement? What proposals will the Commission make to remedy them? If not, will the Commission nevertheless make proposals?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(16 June 2000)
The Commission believes that the provisions of Article 5(7) of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) reflect the application of the precautionary principle. This article does not provide for the preparation of guidelines for its application.
However, with regard to food safety, the Codex Alimentarius, whose standards are taken into consideration by the SPS, took on the responsibility, at the Community’s request, for defining the precautionary principle and drawing up guidelines for its application.
The various reports of the Standing Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation have shown that this paragraph does not exhaust the application of the precautionary principle in the SPS Agreement and that it must not be considered independently of the provisions of Articles 2 and 5 thereof. Although the SPS Agreement could be modified to classify better the conditions for the application of the precautionary principle, in the view of the Commission this is probably not necessary, since the same result may be achieved by developing binding guidelines for the application of Article 5(7) which would certainly allow for the correct and non-protectionist use of the precautionary principle in the future.
The Community presented a Communication on the Application of the Precautionary Principle at the meeting of the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the WTO in March 2000 in an attempt to stimulate a discussion with its partners and to pave the way for a joint approach in the future. C 46 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1172/00 by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(12 April 2000)
Subject: Age discrimination in health care
A prohibition on discrimination based on age was, for the first time, incorporated into the Amsterdam Treaty (EC Treaty, Article 13). Yet there are some Member States in which certain, usually costly, treatments or operations are no longer covered for patients above a certain age.
Has the Commission accurate data on practical arrangements applied in the different Member States as regards age discrimination in health care?
Is the Commission prepared to forward such data to the European Parliament?
Does the Commission consider that guarantees must be given in every Member State that everyone, independently of age, must be entitled to all medical treatments, and that the costs must be covered by the social insurance schemes concerned?
If so, what action will the Commission take to prevent age discrimination from being applied to health care, and how will this be implemented in practical ways in Member States?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2000)
It is for each Member State to organise its own social security system, including health systems, and to determine the conditions for entitlement to benefits under those systems. The Commission has proposed a concerted strategy for modernising social protection (1) based around four key objectives, one of which is to ensure high quality and sustainable health care, and this has been endorsed by the Council (2).
Regarding data, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its report on social protection in Europe 1999, which provides an update on recent developments in Member States’ health care systems (3), and to the mutual information system on social protection in the Member States (MISSOC) (4). However, the Commission has no more precise data on the benefits or treatments provided to elderly people or other specific groups within Member States’ health care systems.
Nevertheless, in its communication ‘Towards a Europe for all ages promoting prosperity and intergenerational Solidarity’ (5), the Commission underlines the need for improving access to health treatment for all ages and for older persons, as well as the need for providing an adequate supply of quality care for the very old and frail.
In addition, the Commission has highlighted the question of discrimination in access to public services, including health care, in its proposal for an action programme to combat discrimination on grounds of racial or eithnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age of sexual orientation (6).
(1) COM(1999) 347 final. (2) OJ C 8, 12.1.2000. (3) COM(2000) 163 final. (4) Website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/missoc98/english/f_main.htm. (5) COM(1999) 221 final. (6) COM(1999) 567 final. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/139
(2001/C 46 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1177/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(13 April 2000)
Subject: EU enlargement and regions
We have reached an historic and crucial moment in the history not only of the Union but of the continent of Europe as a whole. Leaving aside Turkey, the other twelve applicant countries have a population of more than 100 thousand, which would mean a 27 % increase in the population of the EU, whilst the European Parliament would probably have little more than 700 seats, i.e. only 11 % more than the current number.
Since it is not proposed to change the role and powers of the European institutions, does the Council not consider that the representation of the regions will be seriously undermined? Does the Council not envisage any other way of ensuring that regions such as the Basque Country (3 million inhabitants) or the Catalan-speaking regions (12 million inhabitants) can be given proportional representation equivalent to that of future Member States such as Malta or Cyprus? Does the Council not envisage a thorough reform of the Committee of the Regions in order to ensure that it actually represents the regions?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The issues raised by the Honourable parliamentarian relating to the composition of the Committee of the regions and the allocation of seats within that Committee are currently being considered by the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reform. The Council is of course aware of the suggestions which have been put forward on these matters by both the European Parliament and the Commission as contributions to the Conference’s work, neither of which addresses the issue of the breakdown of seats for the Committee of the Regions within each Member State. The Council would recall that the present Treaty fixes the number of members from each Member State; it is up to each Member State to determine the basis on which these seats are allocated internally.
Given that the Council has no formal role in the Conference itself, which brings together the governments of the 15 Member States, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Council to speculate on the possible outcome of the Conference’s work. The European Parliament, on the other hand, is closely associated and involved in the work of the Conference. Meetings of the IGC preparatory group are attended by two observers from the European Parliament, and each session of the Conference at ministerial level is preceded by an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament, assisted by two EP representatives.
(2001/C 46 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1178/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(12 April 2000)
Subject: EU enlargement and the regions
We have reached a crucial historical moment, not only for the EU but for the entire continent of Europe. The twelve applicant states (other than Turkey) have a total population of over 100 000 m. This means that the total population of the EU will rise by 27 %, although, as we know, the number of MEPs is not expected to rise to more than 700, that is, only 11 % more than the present number.
Given that no proposals exist to modify the role and competences of the EU institutions, does the Commission not consider that the representation of the regions is likely to be seriously undermined? Has the Commission not provided for new measures to ensure that regions such as the Basque Country (with 3 million inhabitants) or the Catalan-speaking regions (totalling 12 million inhabitants) can enjoy their due representation as compared with prospective Member States such as Malta or Cyprus? Does the Commission have no plans for a wide-ranging reform of the Committee of the Regions, with a view to its becoming a truly representative organ of the regions? C 46 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 2000)
As regards representation of the regions in Parliament, the Commission would recall the answer given to oral question H-666/99 from Mrs Evans during question hour at the November 1999 part-session (1).
As regards the Committee of the Regions, the Commission, in its opinion of 26 January 2000 on the Intergovernmental Conference, proposed the same geographical formula as the European Parliament. For the Committee of the Regions as a whole, the Commission proposed a ceiling of one third of the number of representatives (233 members), so as to safeguard the Committee’s effectiveness.
As regards the Committee’s future role, the Commission considers that in an enlarged Union cooperation between the regions will assume even greater significance, as will evaluation of the impact of proposed legislation at regional level. The Committee of the Regions’ consultative role must therefore be maintained so that it can fulfil its mission, which is to represent, at European level, the interests of the regional and local authorities.
(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999).
(2001/C 46 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1192/00 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 April 2000)
Subject: Closure of the SGL Carbon plant in Ascoli Piceno
The SGL Carbon plant, an industrial plant producing graphite electrodes, is located in the city centre of Ascoli Piceno in Italy, in a densely populated area which, under local regulations, should be used for the creation of parks.
Each year the plant releases into the atmosphere tens of thousands of tonnes of highly pollutant substances known as PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) with serious effects on the health of thousands of local inhabitants. It is not by accident that Ascoli Piceno has the unfortunate distinction of being the city with the highest incidence of cancers in Italy.
Given that the agreement authorising the installation of the plant concluded 25 years ago between the city authorities and the company concerned is due to expire in 2004, can the Commission oblige the Italian local authorities to carry out an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Directive 85/337/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC (2), so as to bring forward the possible closure or transfer of the SGL Carbon plant, or, in any case, before granting it a fresh authorisation in 2004?
Does the Commission not consider that the provisions of Directive 84/360/EEC (3) on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants and Directive 96/61/EEC (4) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control are applicable in the present case?
Finally, will the Commission say whether and under what conditions the SGL Carbon plant could be converted so that the workers employed there could be found new jobs?
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (3) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20. (4) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/141
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(18 May 2000)
The Commission considers that Council Directives 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC are not at present relevant to the case. An industrial plant authorised 25 years ago does not fall within their scope of application. Directives on environmental impact assessment (EIA) are of application with reference to projects where the requests for development consent were introduced after the date for Member States to transpose them. Directive 85/337/EEC does not apply to projects for which the requests for development consent were submitted to the competent authority before 3 July 1988; Directive 97/11/EC does not apply to projects for which the requests for development consent were submitted to the competent authority before 14 March 1999.
However, should a new authorisation be granted in the future, it would fall within the scope of application of Community EIA legislation.
On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the installation mentioned is not covered by Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants. In contrast, it may be covered by Council Directives 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996, concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive) and 1999/13/ EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (1) (VOC Directive). However, under both these directives, Member States have until 2007 to apply provisions and emission limits to existing installations.
(1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1194/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(12 April 2000)
Subject: Illegal slaughter of sheep in France
Following the submission of video evidence to the Commission by the RSPCA which proves that the slaughter of sheep during the Eid el Kebir festival in France (16-19 March) was not carried out according to the provisions of Directive 93/119/EC (1) on the protection of animals for slaughter, how does the Commission intend to ensure full enforcement of this Directive by the French Government in future years?
(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(29 May 2000)
The Commission is currently analysing the information just received from animal protection organisations on the recent Eid-el-Kabir.
The information available will be evaluated in the light of the reassurances that the Commission received prior to the festival from the French authorities that they were taking a wide range of measures to improve the situation, including close contact with the Muslim community. C 46 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
The Commission fully understands that the issues involved are sensitive and that they currently, in certain localities in France, involve serious problems for the French authorities. It must, on the other hand, be observed that failure to respect the fundamental provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing and relevant Community sanitary rules involves serious breaches of Community law and risk to public health.
The Commission is currently awaiting a formal report from the French authorities on the recent Eid-el- Kabir. In the light of this report the Commission will consider if further initiatives are necessary including the possible opening of the Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty infringement proceedings.
(2001/C 46 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1195/00 by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Council
(13 April 2000)
Subject: Religious persecution in India
Attacks are being reported in several states of India on Christian communities in the shape of murder, gang-rapes, beatings, threats, and destruction and desecration of churches. Meanwhile legislative initiatives have been undertaken in a number of Indian states which seek to restrict religious freedom. In Orissa state, for example, the state government passed an order at the end of 1999 prohibiting conversion without the prior permission of the local police and the district magistrate. In Gujurat state, a freedom of religion bill was introduced last year which established stiff penalties for the crime of converting individuals from one religion to another. Although the bill was shelved this February, it is thought likely that attempts might be made to revive it at a later date. Christians there believe that the bill is open to subjective interpretation and may be used to halt their humanitarian efforts amongst the poor as well as curtailing any public expression of their faith.
In the light of these events, does the Council intend to address the question of religious tolerance and freedom at the upcoming EU-India summit?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The Council is aware of the problems mentioned in the honourable MEP’s question. In the framework of the regular political dialogue between the European Union and India, the Council has already, on several occasions, raised the issue of tolerance, religious freedom and the rights of minorities in India. Similarly, the EU Heads of Mission in New Delhi have raised individual problems directly with the Indian authorities. Whenever necessary, the Council will continue to voice its concerns over Human Rights problems, including at the forthcoming EU-India Summit.
The Union pursues also at a multilateral level its efforts aimed to counter intolerance and violence based on religion or belief. In this context, Member States recently cosponsored the resolution ‘Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief’, introduced by Ireland and adopted by consensus at the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (20 March-28 April 2000). 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/143
(2001/C 46 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1196/00 by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission
(12 April 2000)
Subject: Religious persecution in India
Attacks are being reported in several states of India on Christian communities in the shape of murder, gang-rapes, beatings, threats, and destruction and desecration of churches. Meanwhile legislative initiatives have been undertaken in a number of Indian states which seek to restrict religious freedom. In Orissa state, for example, the state government passed an order at the end of 1999 prohibiting conversion without the prior permission of the local police and the district magistrate. In Gujurat state, a freedom of religion bill was introduced last year which established stiff penalties for the crime of converting individuals from one religion to another. Although the bill was shelved this February, it is thought likely that attempts might be made to revive it at a later date. Christians there believe that the bill is open to subjective interpretation and may be used to halt their humanitarian efforts amongst the poor as well as curtailing any public expression of their faith.
In the light of these events, does the Commission intend to address the question of religious tolerance and freedom at the upcoming EU-India summit?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2000)
The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member and would like to emphasise that the Commission Delegation in New Delhi continues to monitor closely and report on the situation regarding the situation of religious minorities in India, including the Christian community. It does so in close consultation with the Community missions in New Delhi.
Ever since the surge in 1998 in the number of attacks on Christian families and facilities, ambassadors have consistently expressed their concern in this regard to the Indian government.
The Government of India has since set up a National Commission for Minorities. This is charged in particular with the protection of religious minorities in India, and following-up complaints received. Although the National Commission for Minorities has no judicial powers, it is hoped that it will continue to exert a restraining influence on extremist groups and thus contribute to upholding the principle of secular government and free religious practice enshrined in the Indian constitution.
Regarding the reported legislative initiatives by a number of Indian states, the Commission will request its delegation in New Delhi to work closely with its colleagues from Community sister missions, with a view to analysing the factual background and implications of any discriminatory legislative measures taken that may affect the freedom of faith of Christian and other religious groups in India. Based on their findings the Commission will consult its partners and decide on the extent, form and appropriate forum of possible representation to be made to the Indian authorities.
(2001/C 46 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1203/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(13 April 2000)
Subject: Use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack carried out by the Turkish army
In reply to Written Question E-2386/99 (1), the Council says that ‘the sources referred to by the Honourable Member have not been brought to the attention of the Council’. C 46 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
However, the information sources on: German help in building a chemical weapons laboratory in Turkey, the use of chemical weapons by the Turkish army against the Kurdish PKK movement, and the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of chemical shell bodies used by the Turkish army were mentioned in the introduction to the question
The sources are: the German Ministry of Defence, the ‘Kennzeichen D’ programme on the ZDF television channel and research carried out by the University of Munich.
Furthermore, Points 3 and 5 of Written Question E-2386/99 literally stated that the Council had been made aware or had been informed of the facts (i.e. construction of a laboratory for chemical weapons and the use of chemical weapons).
Will the Council now seek information from the University of Munich on the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999?
If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information on the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999, given that it is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?
If so, will the Council convey to the German and Turkish governments its displeasure at this violation of the CWC?
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 38.
(2001/C 46 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1204/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council (13 April 2000)
Subject: Use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack carried out by the Turkish army
In reply to Written Question E-2386/99 (1), the Council says that ‘the sources referred to by the Honourable Member have not been brought to the attention of the Council’.
However, the information sources on: German help in building a chemical weapons laboratory in Turkey, the use of chemical weapons by the Turkish army against the Kurdish PKK movement, and the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of chemical shell bodies used by the Turkish army
were mentioned in the introduction to the question
The sources are: the German Ministry of Defence, the ‘Kennzeichen D’ programme on the ZDF television channel and research carried out by the University of Munich.
Furthermore, Points 3 and 5 of Written Question E-2386/99 literally stated that the Council had been made aware or had been informed of the facts (i.e. construction of a laboratory for chemical weapons and the use of chemical weapons). 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/145
Will the Council now seek information from the makers of ZDF’s ‘Kennzeichen D’ programme on the use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack by the Turkish army on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999?
If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information on the use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack by the Turkish army on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999, given that it is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?
If so, will the Council convey to the German and Turkish governments its displeasure at this violation of the CWC?
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 38.
(2001/C 46 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1205/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(13 April 2000)
Subject: Use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack carried out by the Turkish army
In reply to Written Question E-2386/99 (1), the Council says that ‘the sources referred to by the Honourable Member have not been brought to the attention of the Council’.
However, the information sources on:
German help in building a chemical weapons laboratory in Turkey,
the use of chemical weapons by the Turkish army against the Kurdish PKK movement, and
the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of chemical shell bodies used by the Turkish army
were mentioned in the introduction to the question
The sources are:
the German Ministry of Defence,
The ‘Kennzeichen D’ programme on the ZDF television channel, and
research carried out by the University of Munich.
Furthermore, Points 3 and 5 of Written Question E-2386/99 literally stated that the Council had been made aware or had been informed of the facts (i.e. construction of a laboratory for chemical weapons and the use of chemical weapons).
1. Will the Council now seek information from the German Ministry of Defence on the ministry’s help in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey?
(a) If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information from the German Ministry of Defence on the ministry’s help in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey, given that it may be a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention?
(b) If so, does the German aid in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey conform with the CWC which obliges the signatories, including Germany, never, under any circumstances, to develop, produce, acquire in any other way, stockpile, possess or transfer directly or indirectly chemical weapons? C 46 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
2. Will the Council now register its opposition to German aid in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey in the light of the answers to question 1?
(a) If not, what are the Council’s reasons for not registering its opposition to German aid in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey, given that this is a violation of the CWC?
(b) If so, in what way will the Council make its opposition known to the German government?
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 38.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00
(10 July 2000)
All EU Member States are States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their destruction (CWC).
Article VIII of the Convention established the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) ‘to ensure the implementation of its provisions, including those for international verification of compliance with it’. All States Parties to the CWC are members of the OPCW. This is the organisation entrusted with the verification of compliance by States Parties with the provisions of the Convention.
The specific questions referred to by the Honourable Member have not been raised within the Council or the Council bodies.
(2001/C 46 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1211/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Deutsche Post and the German Government
The German Government has granted a legal monopoly to Deutsche Post and fixed stamp prices, resulting in Deutsche Post gaining a substantially higher income than is necessary to ensure universal service. Deutsche Post has been able to use this financial advantage to subsidise Deutsche Post’s commercial parcel delivery services (putting competitors of this service at an immediate disadvantage) and also to make acquisitions throughout the EU (e.g. Deutsche Post has acquired 50 % of Securicor Distribution and has also purchased Herald International Mailings).
The Commission has already indicated that the support given by the German Government to Deutsche Post seems to involve state aid. Will the Commission now state clearly whether or not this is actually the case, and if so what action the Commission intends to take to prevent this infringement of EU legislation?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(26 May 2000)
The Commission decided on 20 July 1999 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty in respect of possible state aid granted to Deutsche Post AG.
The procedure covers the whole range of state aid allegations concerning Deutsche Post AG: use of revenues of monopoly letter service to cover losses of parcel activities, use of such revenues for acquisitions, use of proceeds from real estate transferred to Deutsche Post AG to finance acquisitions, state guarantee for debts, and coverage of pension obligations by state. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/147
The Commission is currently examining the observations received from the German Government and interested parties. Since the examination is still pending no indications about the possible outcome of the investigations can be given at this stage.
(2001/C 46 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/00 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Fire resistance standards for furniture in the single market
Is the Commission aware that at present furniture in the single market meets two different standards of fire resistance? In the UK and Eire furniture meets a higher flammability resistance than the rest of Europe. Since the introduction of legislation in the UK there has been a 50 % reduction in fire deaths.
Work done by the European standardisation body (CEN) has produced agreement on test methods for cigarettes and match ignition sources, but has failed to deliver progress on post ignition fire tests using larger ignition sources, which are essential for upholstered furniture safety, principally in the home but also in places of public assembly. This lack of progress is despite considerable expenditure by the Commission.
Is the Commission satisfied with this lack of progress and what pressure will it bring to bear to ensure rapid progress on agreeing post ignition fire tests standards and that the tests are applied in regulation at the earliest opportunity?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2000)
The Commission follows safety issues closely, including those relating to fire. It is aware that effective fire safety depends on national or local authorities taking measures on all factors affecting fire risk, such as building regulations, fire-reaction and fire-resistance requirements, evacuation arrangements, the presence of fire-fighting devices (sprinklers), and public information. A comprehensive policy can therefore be implemented only at the appropriate national level.
Furniture’s resistance to the spread of flames is one such factor, and in the absence of specific Community harmonisation on furniture it is up to the Member States, within the framework of Council Directive 92/ 59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (1), to protect the health and safety of people and goods by means of appropriate national regulations and standards.
However, the Commission’s proposal of 29 March 2000 (2) to amend the General Product Safety Directive introduces provisions to ensure that products which meet European standards drawn up by the European standardisation institutes in response to mandates from the Commission be deemed to comply with the safety criteria laid down by the Directive.
In the light of these proposed new provisions, the Commission intends to check whether new standards are needed, or whether existing standards need to be modified, in various areas of interest for consumer safety. This will include the various aspects of fire safety. Should a particular aspect prove to require a standardisation mandate, and assuming there is sufficient agreement among the parties concerned, the Commission might consider drawing up such a mandate.
(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. (2) COM(2000) 140 final. C 46 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1217/00
by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(27 April 2000)
Subject: Employment, education, and geographical mobility: the Galician situation
The report adopted by the Lisbon European Council held on 23 and 24 March ‘to agree a new strategic goal for the Union in order to strengthen employment, economic reform and social cohesion as part of a knowledge-based economy’ noted that the European economy was facing a severe problem on account of the 15 million unemployed, most of whom are women and older workers and who are concentrated in given parts of the Union.
The European Council has consequently undertaken to prepare for the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society by focusing on learning, training, and education.
This reading of the employment situation and the proposed means of remedying it, namely by taking advantage of the new kind of economy, will not go far enough unless it is also borne in mind that unemployment today occurs chiefly in countries with low income per caput and can even affect regions such as Galicia where, although they can offer the necessary educational standards, especially at technical and university level, the circumstances are such that the most talented people have to emigrate in order to enter the knowledge-based economy, producing the paradoxical result that the resources invested in their education are squandered for the benefit of richer countries. This harmful trend is even being promoted in the Union under the name of geographical mobility.
How does the Council therefore propose to tackle the matter of consolidating employment, economic reform, social cohesion, and the regional balance with a view to creating a knowledge-based economy and society when the projected areas of operations are countries in the same position as Galicia, which are hampered by a combination of high unemployment and low income and, although in theory they have the wherewithal to improve education and training, are losing their most gifted young people because they have to emigrate in order to seek work in richer countries with lower unemployment?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The Lisbon European Council set a new strategic goal for the Union: ‘to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.’
In order to achieve this objective, the European Council defined a global strategy for enabling the Union to regain the conditions for full employment and to strengthen regional cohesion in the European Union.
As part of this new process established in Lisbon, the Union will set up a framework for using all available resources in order to ensure transition to the knowledge-based economy and make its own contribution to the effort within existing Community policies in compliance with Agenda 2000.
Under Agenda 2000, regions such as Galicia whose development is lagging behind will be able to receive aid from the Structural Funds and thus benefit from the new Community regional and social aid arrangements in order to deal with problems such as those referred to by the Honourable Member. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/149
(2001/C 46 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1226/00 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Environment
The Commission recently proposed a system of emissions trading amongst the different Member States to facilitate, and reduce the cost of, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, under which current emission levels are to be brought down by 8 % over the period 2008-2012. The proposal refers to net emissions of the gases in question throughout.
Does the Commission not believe that it would be more appropriate to adjust these values to emissions per unit produced, thereby making our undertakings more competitive in environmental terms and directly encouraging research into, and the development of, more environmentally friendly production techniques?
What measures does it intend to take to dissuade our industry from relocating to countries with more flexible legislation in this area?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(30 May 2000)
The Commission does not believe that it would be more appropriate to use ‘emissions per unit produced’ as a basis for meeting its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Most basically, this is because the Kyoto Protocol’s targets are absolute targets, and the Community’s emissions of greenhouse gases must therefore be reduced in absolute terms if its international commitments are to be honoured.
With regard to the possible relocation of industry outside the Community, it is to be noted that all the Community’s major industrialised competitors undertook emission reduction targets, the achievement of which will also require policies to be put in place. It is likely, therefore, that companies located in other industrialised countries will have to make efforts comparable with the efforts required of Community companies.
With regard to the possible relocation of industry to developing countries that do not have targets to meet under the Kyoto Protocol, it is the Commission’s opinion that decisions on relocation depend upon a multitude of factors, of which environmental criteria is only one. However, in the longer term, it is to be expected that efforts to contain emissions will also have to be taken by developing countries if the objectives of the Climate Change Framework Convention are to be met.
(2001/C 46 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1232/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(27 April 2000)
Subject: Presence of regions such as Galicia at meetings of the Fisheries Council of the European Union
The Spanish Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr Jesús Posada, said in Santiago de Compostela that he doubted whether autonomous communities such as Galicia, which hold the corresponding powers and have a large fishing industry, could represent the state at meetings of the Council of Ministers.
Does the Council share this view? Are there other Member States whose federal states or other internal political entities already participate in the Fisheries Council? C 46 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Reply
(10 July 2000)
In accordance with the provisions of Article 203 of the EC Treaty, the Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level authorised to commit the government of that Member State.
Accordingly, it is for each Member State to determine how and by whom it is represented in Fisheries Council meetings.
(2001/C 46 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1233/00 by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission
(10 April 2000)
Subject: Emergency phone number in the EU
From one Member State to another in the European Union there are differing telephone numbers which may be called in an emergency. This actually means that few people know the relevant emergency number when staying in other Member States. The example of the USA shows how a single emergency number can simplify the calling of assistance.
With this in mind:
1. How does the Commission view the fact that there are differing emergency numbers in the countries of the European Union?
2. Does the Commission agree that a single EU-wide emergency number would help improve the effectiveness of assistance in emergencies?
3. Does the Commission have any plans to introduce a single EU-wide emergency number?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2000)
Council Decision 91/396/EEC of 29 July 1991, on the introduction of a single European emergency call number (1) requires the Member States to ensure that the number ‘112’ is introduced in public telephone networks, ISDN networks and public mobile services. However it does not mandate its exclusive use but allows existing emergency call numbers to continue in parallel. In addition, the Voice Telephony Directive 98/10/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment (2) guarantees that users of fixed and mobile phones, including public payphones, can access the 112 emergency service free of charge.
Although the Decision specified an introduction date of 31 December 1992, it allowed for derogations until 31 December 1996 in case of technical, financial, geographical or organisational difficulties. In the meantime, ‘112’ is available free of charge from fixed and mobile phones and from public payphones in all Member States except Greece against which infringement proceedings have been opened.
Several Member States have adopted ‘112’ as the unique national emergency number and several major information campaigns have been funded with a view to develop its use both nationally and when travelling in the Community. Moreover, although not required by the Decision, in several Member States, calls are answered in several languages when necessary. Details can be found in a report dated January 1999 published by the Commission, available on the Internet at: http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/comm-en.htm. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/151
In the light of further European integration with the increased travel for leisure or in conjunction with cross-border economic activity, the issue is important from a general societal point of view and manifests a good example of a Community measure that directly benefits the citizens of Europe. The Commission shares the view that the common emergency number helps improve the effectiveness of providing emergency assistance in the Community.
To strengthen further the current framework, the Commission has proposed in the 1999 review communication (3) that location data of callers in distress are passed on to the emergency service authorities, in both fixed and mobile networks. This will be one important aspect of the forthcoming review of the Community’s telecommunications policy.
The common emergency number is an assurance for all 380 million Community citizens and for travellers from abroad that they can call for assistance whenever they are in an emergency or life-threatening situation. The guaranteed availability throughout the Community on fixed and mobile networks, the ability to make emergency calls free of charge and the ability to provide location data of users in an emergency are key issues.
(1) OJ L 217, 6.8.1991. (2) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998. (3) COM(1999) 539 final.
(2001/C 46 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1238/00 by Karin Scheele (PSE) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Legal classification of tattooing dyes
The number of Europeans having themselves tattooed has been growing year by year. Tattooing involves among other things the use of azocolourants. In the Commission proposal amending for the nineteenth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC (1) relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (azocolourants) that applies to textiles and leather goods, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment voices its concern that, on breakdown, azocolourants form amines that are classified as carcinogenic. In view of this possible health hazard, a legal basis is also required for azocolourants used in tattooing.
1. Have studies dealing with the health risks of tattooing dyes already been carried out or are there plans to do so?
2. Can the Commission name legal bases that include tattooing dyes in their field of application?
3. If not, is it making preparations to provide at a future date a legal classification for tattooing dyes? Will azocolourants be covered at the same time?
(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(13 June 2000)
1. The Commission is not aware of toxicological or epidemiological studies to specifically assess the health safety risks from the use of certain dyes in tattooing. Adverse effects of tattoos are well known. However the evidence is stronger for those effects arising from the tattooing procedures themselves (e.g. transmission of infectious diseases from non-sterile equipment, scarring) and less convincing for possible adverse effects arising from the tattooing dyes. C 46 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
In considering possible legislative proposals on the safety of tattooing dyes, the Commission requested the opinion of the scientific committee on cosmetics and non food products (SCCNFP). In its opinion of 17 February 2000, the SCCNFP noted the large number of dyes used in tattooing for which the chemical structure, identity, and toxicological profile are incomplete or unknown, thereby precluding a proper health risk assessment. In its opinion, the SCCNFP recommended that a systematic effort be undertaken to amass the needed chemical and toxicological information on tattooing dyes so that a proper risk assessment can be conducted. In its remit to better protect public health, the Commission is currently evaluating the options to carry out this task.
As for the azo-dyes mentioned specifically by the Honourable Member, the Commission would also share the view that in theory azo dyes in tattoos will break down in a similar way as they do in leather goods to give rise to the carcinogenic amines. Confirming scientific evidence is however lacking at present. The Commission intends to include this aspect on a priority basis when assessing tattooing dyes.
2. and 3. Tattooing dyes are used for cosmetic purposes yet the route of their administration (injection) puts them outside the scope of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States to cosmetic products (1) which considers that ‘substances or preparations intended to be ingested, inhaled, injected or implanted in the human body do not come under the field of cosmetics’. However, tattooing dyes could be considered as general consumer products and hence would fall under the scope of Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (2) and Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations.
(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
(2001/C 46 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1239/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Postal rates in Germany
Germany’s Minister for Economic Affairs Müller has instructed the regulatory authority for postal services in Germany to halt the procedure relating to the expiry at the end of 2000 of the latest increase in postal rates to DM 1,10 and DM 1,00 per letter/postcard respectively and to grant a longer-term authorisation to retain these postal rates. The regulatory authority in Germany was already due shortly to complete the procedure and had the intention of refusing authorisation to retain the postal rate increases. This would have meant reintroducing a letter rate of DM 1,00 and a rate for postcards of DM 0,80. In the meantime, the advisory board of the regulatory authority has censured the Minister’s action by 11 votes to 7 as uncompetitive and has called for this decision to be rectified.
Deutsche Post AG is a company that is also active in the European market outside Germany and is today one of the largest European companies engaged in the transmission of letters and parcels. The increased postage rate has up to now served to cross-subsidise less lucrative business sectors of the postal service, e.g. the parcels sector where there is much private-sector competition.
This prompts the following questions:
1. How does the Commission view this behaviour by the Deutsche Post AG?
2. How does it view the attitude of the Federal German Ministry of Economic Affairs towards the regulatory authority?
3. Does it intend to investigate this episode in terms of its Europe-wide implications for competition law?
4. What steps will it take if necessary? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/153
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2000)
1. The Commission is currently dealing with several complaints concerning alleged cross-subsidisation of business sectors of the postal service using revenue from the reserved sector (collection, sorting, transport and delivery of domestic and foreign letters). The complaints are being examined in the light of the competition rules contained in the EC Treaty. The Commission would point out that this examination will be meaningful only if carried out on the basis of separate cost-accounting systems for each service in the reserved sector, on the one hand, and for non-reserved services, on the other. Article 14 of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service requires the introduction of separate accounts (1).
2. The compatibility with Community legislation of the attitude of the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs towards the regulatory authority must be examined on the basis of the special legal provisions of Article 22 of Directive 97/67/EC. Should these special provisions not suffice to ensure the operational independence of the national regulatory authority for the postal service, it will be possible, if necessary, to resort to the general rules on competition, particularly Article 86 (formerly Article 90) of the EC Treaty.
3. In line with the answer given to the second question, the Commission intends to examine the matter initially in Article 22 of Directive 97/67/EC, which requires each Member State to designate one or more national regulatory authorities for the postal sector that are legally separate from and operationally independent of the postal operators.
4. On the basis of the separate accounts kept for reserved and non-reserved services, the Commission will look further into the allegation that competition in the non-reserved sector is being unlawfully impaired by revenue from the reserved sector. It may also prove necessary to examine whether, in view of the current postal rates for domestic and foreign letters, it is absolutely necessary for the German mail monopoly to continue in its present form in order to preserve a universal service.
(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
(2001/C 46 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1241/00 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Provisions of the working time directive
Could the Commission explain the provisions of the Working Time Directive with regard to ‘voluntary’ work. If a worker is implicitly expected to work longer hours than the 48 hours per week maximum through understaffing elsewhere, but this work is not contracted, how should this be covered by the Working Time Directive?
Could the Commission also explain how the provisions of the Working Time Directive specify the necessary measurement? If, for example, a worker has forty timetabled hours per week, but must do a large amount of work in his/her own time, how should those unmeasured hours be taken into account in the implementation of the directive?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(29 May 2000)
Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) (‘Working Time Directive’) does not recognise the notion of ‘voluntary work’. Article 6(2) of the Directive lays down that ‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, in keeping with the need to protect the safety and health of workers: the average working time for each seven-day period, including overtime, does not exceed 48 hours.’ C 46 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
According to Articles 16(2) and 17 of the Directive, the reference period over which the average is to be calculated may vary between 4 and 12 months depending on the situation and the means by which the reference period is laid down.
These provisions must be implemented into national law by the Member States. It is for the Member States’ authorities to ensure that national legislation implementing Community law is applied and enforced.
(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
(2001/C 46 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1242/00 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Teachers and the working time directive
Would the Commission please specify that teachers are covered under the Working Time Directive? Could the Commission give details regarding the provisions of the Working Time Directive in the educational sector in the UK?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2000)
Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (‘working time directive’) (1) states that ‘This Directive shall apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private, within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EC, without prejudice to Article 17 of this Directive, with the exception of air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea and the activities of doctors in training.’
According to Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (2), this Directive shall apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private (industrial, agricultural, commercial, administrative, service, educational, cultural, leisure, etc.). This Directive shall not be applicable where characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil protection services inevitably conflict with it. In that event, the safety and health of workers must be ensured as far as possible in the light of the objectives of this Directive.
On the basis of these two provisions, it is clear that the working time Directive applies to the work of teachers.
According to information available to the Commission, the Working Time Regulations 1998 (Statutory Instruments 1998 No 1833), which implement the working time Directive in the United Kingdom, apply to the work of teachers.
(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. (2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/155
(2001/C 46 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Ministerial concessions for radio-relay systems frequencies
Italian operators in the dedicated radio-relay systems sector, a telecommunications technique used by the police, Provinces, Forestry Service and emergency services among others, have been complaining for some time about the confusing and bureaucratic procedures used by the Italian Ministry of Communications for granting the necessary frequencies, which often takes two years or more.
Apart from this inefficiency, the fees charged for licences for the frequencies have apparently suddenly increased almost threefold, in a sector in which market forces and recent liberalisation have, on the contrary, pushed tariffs down.
Can the Commission say whether the relevant Italian legislation complies with Community competition rules and whether this increase, which, significantly, coincides with the advent of cellular mobile communications, is in any way attributable to more or less visible cartels operated by mobile phone companies?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2000)
It is true that Italian operators have complained to the Commission about the time taken for this procedure and the fees charged by the Italian Communications Ministry for granting frequencies for mobile communications for closed user groups.
Italian law governs telecommunications services offered to the public differently from those offered to closed user groups, although Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (1) makes no such distinction. This Directive requires the Member States to take the necessary measures to guarantee the right of any economic operator to provide these telecommunications services. It also provides that as long as frequencies are available a Member State may not refuse to allocate them. The requirement is all the simpler to implement for mobile communications for private use as these services do not, in general, require exclusive frequencies to be allocated.
The Italian authorities have announced that a regulation intended to solve the curent difficulties is to be adopted, though this has not yet been done. The Commission has contacted the Italian authorities on this subject several times, most recently by letter dated March 2000. If no progress is made, the Commission will be obliged to send a formal letter of complaint to the Italian Government.
The Commission has no information suggesting that the increase in frequency fees may be intended to favour mobile network operators.
(1) OJ L 192, 24.7.1990.
(2001/C 46 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1248/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council
(27 April 2000)
Subject: Turkish ‘green passports’
In spite of representations from various European governments to date, Turkey is continuing to issue ‘green passports’ to Turkish nationals who are travelling abroad, especially to Europe. These passports enable Turkish citizens to avoid obtaining a visa for countries which they are about to visit and are usually issued to high-ranking Turkish state officials and members of their families. C 46 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Estimates put the total number of these passports at the excessively high figure of 1,5 million (see the Turkish newspaper ‘Milliyet’, 14 March 2000). The most worrying aspect of the Turkish ‘green passport’ industry is the fact that many of these passports are held by individuals with direct links to the Turkish mafia, organised crime, drug trafficking, espionage and the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. Contrary to the assurances it has given on various occasions, Turkey has not stopped issuing ‘green passports’ or set about recalling them to the Turkish issuing authority.
What action does the Council intend to take to control and restrict the entry into the EU of individuals from Turkey with ‘green passports’ in order to prevent the ‘backdoor’ entry of individuals who have links with international smuggling and organised crime?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The Council would inform the Honourable Member that, except in the cases covered by Article 17(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, the movement of bearers of diplomatic, official and service passports is, in the current state of development of Community law, within the competence of the Member States.
(2001/C 46 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1249/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Turkish ‘green passports’
In spite of representations from various European governments to date, Turkey is continuing to issue ‘green passports’ to Turkish nationals who are travelling abroad, especially to Europe. These passports enable Turkish citizens to avoid obtaining a visa for countries which they are about to visit and are usually issued to high-ranking Turkish state officials and members of their families.
Estimates put the total number of these passports at the excessively high figure of 1,5 million (see the Turkish newspaper ‘Milliyet’, 14 March 2000). The most worrying aspect of the Turkish ‘green passport’ industry is the fact that many of these passports are held by individuals with direct links to the Turkish mafia, organised crime, drug trafficking, espionage and the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. Contrary to the assurances it has given on various occasions, Turkey has not stopped issuing ‘green passports’ or set about recalling them to the Turkish issuing authority.
What action does the Commission intend to take to tackle the issue of Turkish ‘green passports’, with the additional aim of preventing the ‘backdoor’ entry of individuals who have links with international smuggling and organised crime?
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2000)
The Commission is aware that the Turkish authorities issue green passports to people such as senior officials and their families. The special passports are recognised by several Member States, which exempt holders from the visa requirement for entry in to their countries, whereas the holders of ordinary Turkish passports need a visa to cross the external borders of the Member States.
This practice is in conformity with the law as it stands, since Article 4 of Council Regulation No 574/1999 of 12 March 1999 determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the Member States (1) states that ‘a Member State may exempt nationals of third countries subject to visa requirements … from such requirements. This shall apply in particular to … holders of diplomatic passports, official duty passports and other official passports’. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/157
It is not for the Commission to give an opinion on the character of holders of Turkish ‘green passports’, and it has no information on alleged unlawful acts by such persons on the territory of the Member States.
(1) OJ L 72, 18.3.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1252/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Tar content of tobacco in Greece
The maximum tar content of cigarettes for sale within the European Union is being harmonised at a level of 10 milligrams. However, the Commission has granted Greece a long-term derogation, whereby it may continue to allow tobacco products to be sold within the country with a maximum tar content significantly higher than the EU limit.
Why has the Commission granted Greece a derogation from the rules on tar content which does not accord with the Union’s public-health objectives?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(26 May 2000)
Under Council Directive 90/239/EEC of 17 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the maximum tar yield of cigarettes (1), the Commission has granted Greece a derogation enabling it to postpone its obligation to achieve a tar yield of 12 milligrams (mg) per cigarette until 31 December 2006. This derogation has been granted as a result of this Member State’s socio-economic difficulties.
Under the recasting of Council Directives 89/622/EEC of 13 November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products (2), 90/239/EEC and 92/41/EEC of 15 May 1992 amending Directive 89/622/EEC (3), which has been proposed by the Commission (4) and is currently being discussed by Parliament and the Council, the Commission proposes to maintain Greece’s derogation for the same reasons, i.e. the socio-economic difficulties faced by this Member State.
However, it must be pointed out that although the implementation derogation is maintained until 31 December 2006 (or six years from the date of adoption), the maximum tar content per cigarette has been reduced to 10 milligrams (mg).
This is already contained in the recitals of the Tar Directive (90/239/EEC) and refers to the fact that tobacco produced in Greece has a high tar content. This Member State is therefore more affected by the Directive’s provisions than any other tobacco producing country. It also takes a long time to change tobacco varieties. Lastly, the number of workers employed in tobacco production in Greece is very high, thus a large number of families depend on this industry.
(1) OJ L 137, 30.5.1990. (2) OJ L 359, 8.12.1989. (3) OJ L 158, 11.6.1992. (4) COM(1999) 594 final. C 46 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1253/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission
(14 April 2000)
Subject: Guidelines of 19 July 1999 (COM(1999) 372 final) concerning the free movement of Community citizens in the European Union
The question of simple expulsions and refusal to grant the right of residence is an issue of concern to Italians in Germany who, although they are Community citizens, are sometimes penalised by a law used primarily in Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria which is in breach of Article 18(1) of the Treaty, which gives all citizens of the European Union the right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States.
However, it emerges that there are a number of serious mistakes in the German text of the guidelines for the interpretation of Directive 64/221 (1) in the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (COM(1999) 372 final) compared with the original French version.
Consequently, Community citizens who live in a country where the German version of the directive applies are penalised enormously.
The section of the text at issue is the German translation of Part I, Section 2.2 ‘Principles and fundamental rights’ and Part II, Section 3 ‘Guidelines for application’.
Can the Commission take urgent action to cancel or amend the sections concerned, which, as they stand, penalise and will continue to penalise the Italian community living and working in Germany?
(1) OJ 56, 4.4.1964, p. 857.
Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission
(22 May 2000)
Several complaints and petitions have drawn the Commission’s attention to the fact that Germany has expelled a large number of Italian citizens on grounds of public order. As has already been recalled several in communications to Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, infringement proceedings have been started against the German authorities. The Committee on Petitions is kept up to date on developments.
The Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (1) is not a legally binding act. Guarantees for Community citizens and the limits to public order measures (in particular expulsions) set for the Member States do not flow from the communication but directly from the Treaty and Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (2), as interpreted by the Court of Justice.
The Commission regrets that differences occurred in the German translation; it is revising the text in line with the original. The new version will be published as soon as possible and will replace the current version on the Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/people/right/index.htm).
(1) COM(1999) 372 final. (2) OJ 56, 4.4.1964. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/159
(2001/C 46 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1262/00 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission
(12 April 2000)
Subject: Thought control directed against the EU Member States
According to the respected Danish newspaper ‘Berlingske Tidende’ of 4 April 2000, Commissioner Barnier has indicated in a conversation with a group of Scandinavian journalists that he has a proposal ready for introducing a system of thought control directed against the EU Member States.
It transpires from the article that the Commissioner believes that existing EU legislation, i.e. Article 7 of the EU Treaty which authorises sanctions against Member States in serious and persistent breach of the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights, is too difficult to implement. He believes, according to ‘Berlingske Tidende’, that there is a need for the Commission or the Council to monitor continuously democratic developments in the Member States so that, in the event of political developments in a country that are undesirable in the eyes of the Commission or the Council, internal sanctions can rapidly be implemented against that country.
According to the available information, this is not about the EU needing to be able to impose sanctions rapidly in the event of a military coup or similar move against the democratically elected government of a country such guidelines already exist but about the EU wanting to determine what attitudes and opinions may be held by the populations in the Member States. As a follow-up to the campaign against Austria, this has to be construed as meaning that only social democratic, socialist and related views will be acceptable.
It therefore looks as though measures such as the sanctions by the 14 heads of government against Austria, which were planned under the aegis of the Council but which are not authorised under existing EU legislation, are now to be provided with a legal basis within the EU. It is of the utmost importance that these plans should immediately be brought into the public domain since they clearly represent an attempt at regimentation and thought control on classic totalitarian lines.
Will the Commission inform the peoples of Europe of the contents of the proposal for thought control which Commissioner Barnier will have ready for consideration by May at the latest?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(25 May 2000)
Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union states: ‘The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.’ The Commission, as a Union institution, attaches great important to respect for these fundamental rights, and particularly to the right of freedom of thought and expression as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union currently being drafted in accordance with the decision taken at the Cologne and Tampere European Councils confirms the Union’s attachment to the defence of these rights.
Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union lays down a procedure allowing the Union to suspend certain of the rights of a Member State which has committed a serious and persistent breach of the principles laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. Some delegations in the negotiating group at the present intergovernmental conference on institutional reform have suggested that it might be appropriate to insert in the Treaty a special alert or monitoring provision to guard against any breach of these principles. The purpose of such a mechanism would be to encourage public debate and an exchange of ideas on the values on which the Union is based, but certainly not, as the Honourable Member seems to fear, ‘thought control’. The Commission, which is a participant in the intergovernmental conference, has taken part in some preliminary internal exchanges of ideas on the subject, but has not yet taken a position. C 46 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1264/00
by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: Animal waste incineration
Can the Commission state whether it has any plans to address the issue of incineration standards for non- hazardous animal wastes, following the dismay of many British operators of small on-farm incinerators, and owners of pet crematoria, at the likelihood that they will have to comply with the standards set out in the current proposal for a directive on the incineration of waste, since this would increase their costs considerably? Does the Commission agree that this situation could best be dealt with either by a separate proposal, or by relaxing the standards for such small-scale incinerators, or by giving them a specific exclusion from the directive on the incineration of waste?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2000)
According to Article 2(2) (v) of the future directive on incineration in its common position (1) form, plants treating ‘waste excluded from the scope of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (2) pursuant to Article 2(1) of that Directive’ are excluded from the scope of the future directive on incineration. According to Article 2(1) (iii) of the directive, animal carcasses which are already covered by other legislation are excluded from the scope of Directive 75/442/EEC and therefore from the scope of the future directive on incineration in its common position form.
Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/425/EEC (3), laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, is such a piece of legislation. Therefore, animal carcasses are excluded from the scope of the future incineration directive. Instead, the disposal of animal carcasses must comply with the regulations of Directive 90/667/EEC and any other relevant Community legislation.
In its second reading the Parliament adopted an amendment which seeks to remove that exclusion. If the Council accepts this, animal waste will no longer be excluded from the scope of the future directive. The Commission can accept this amendment of the Parliament only in principle, meaning that the Commission can accept the removal of the ambiguous wording of Article 2(2) (v) of the future directive on incineration in its common position form, but would like to clarify that there is specific Community legislation on the veterinary aspects of the disposal of animal waste. The Commission will also make sure that these measures are also consistent with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods and taxation.
However, the Commission considers that the incineration of animal waste will have also to comply with environmental standards. The Commission is currently preparing such standards within the scope of the future proposal for a Council and Parliament regulation laying down the health rules concerning animal by-products not destined to human consumption. Such standards will be broadly in line with those laid down by the future directive on incineration.
(1) OJ C 341, 5.12.1994. (2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (3) OJ L 363, 27.12.1990. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/161
(2001/C 46 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1265/00 by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 April 2000)
Subject: Clarification regarding the admissibility of special export aid under Community law
The storms which struck the western part of Europe in December 1999 have wreaked unprecedented havoc for forest industry. In spite of the debates in Parliament, the Union institutions have apparently failed to gauge the economic, social, and cultural impact of the devastation not to mention the increased fire risks as summer draws nearer.
To deal with the emergency, the French Government has decided, among other things, to grant the sum of FF 50 per tonne for the transport of timber intended for export to Union Member States and non-member countries.
Community rules on competition, and in particular the Community preference obligation, rightly prohibit aid of the above type unless its purpose is to bring relief to an exceptional situation. Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty accordingly stipulates that ‘[The following shall be compatible with the common market: …] aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’.
Will the Commission treat the present emergency as a special case of the same kind as, for example, the severe drought in Portugal in 1993 and 1994, and approve the aid that France has undertaken to provide?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(3 May 2000)
The aid proposal notified by the French authorities is under examination by the Commission with reference to paragraph 2(b) of Article 87 (formerly 92) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is doing all it can to reach a decision rapidly.
(2001/C 46 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1276/00 by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission
(19 April 2000)
Subject: The Commission’s plans for promoting lifelong learning agreements
On a number of occasions, the European Parliament has called on the Commission to promote lifelong learning agreements between partners on the European labour market. The conclusions of the Lisbon European Council called for higher priority to be given to ‘lifelong learning as a basic component of the European social model, including by encouraging agreements between the social partners on innovation and lifelong learning’. (conclusion 29). The Commission’s efforts to promote agreements between the partners could take the form of providing an indication of the legislative initiatives which the Commission intends to adopt in order to promote lifelong learning.
What initiatives has the Commission adopted, and does it intend to adopt, with a view to promoting agreements between European labour-market partners concerning lifelong learning? C 46 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(23 June 2000)
Council Decision 2000/228/EC of 13 March 2000 on guidelines for Member States’ employment policies for the year 2000 (1) provides the policy framework for promoting lifelong learning in the context of the employment strategy objectives, in particular guidelines 5 and 6 on improving employability and guideline 15 on modernising work organisation. Implementation of the guidelines is monitored in the context of the Luxembourg process and assessment is carried out in the joint employment report by the Commission and the Council.
Within this framework, the social partners are urged to conclude agreements to promote lifelong learning, while Member States have responsibility for defining the legal and institutional conditions for facilitating such activities in a partnership approach. In the employment guidelines 2001 the lifelong learning dimension will be strengthened and agreements between the social partners will be further encouraged.
In that respect, it is worth noting that at European level the intersectoral social partners have stepped up their activities in the field of lifelong learning and the modernisation of work. The European trade union confederation (ETUC), the Conseil européen des entreprises publiques (CEEP) and the Union of industrial and employer’s confederations of Europe/European union of crafts and small and medium-sized enterprises (UNICE/UAPME) are setting up a working group to identify ways to promote access to lifelong learning and skills development, and are preparing a joint report on good practice in the areas of adaptability and work organisation. The framework agreements on part time work (1997) and fixed term contracts (1999) also include clauses on the promotion of access to training.
At sectoral level, many sectors joined forces to send a joint contribution to the Lisbon European Council highlighting the need for training and skills development, and initiatives to promote lifelong learning are being developed in several sectors, such as workshops on training and qualification needs; multi-skilling; Europe-wide certification of skills, access to Information and communication technologies training.
Moreover, the Commission is preparing a communication on ‘Lifelong learning for active citizenship in a Europe of knowledge’ in which concrete actions on key themes on lifelong learning will be identified, including the promotion of a partnership approach to investing in human resources and a flexible organisation of work.
The Commission is also preparing a new social policy agenda and initiatives to promote lifelong learning and the modernisation of work will be part of the agenda.
(1) OJ L 72, 21.3.2000.
(2001/C 46 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1281/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(12 April 2000)
Subject: Export of waste to third countries/Basle Convention
Despite international conventions, there is an increase in exports of (toxic) waste to developing countries. The Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC (1) regulate these cross-border flows of waste. According to UNEP, in 1989 the OECD countries exported one fifth of their waste. UN rapporteur Fatma-Zohra Ksentini says the countries which export most are Australia, the US and EU Member States the Nether- lands, Germany and Britain. She is particularly concerned at the growing tendency to ship toxic waste to developing countries where it is simply dumped. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/163
1. How does the European Union ensure compliance with the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/ EEC, in particular:
(a) what service, and
(b) how many officials are involved,
(c) how many checks are carried out every year, and
(d) where?
2. How much category 1 waste has the European Union exported to third countries since the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC entered into force (broken down by year, exporting Member States and countries of destination)?
3. How much category 2 waste has the European Union exported to third countries since the Basle Convention and regulation 259/93/EEC entered into force (broken down by year, exporting Member States and countries of destination)?
4. How many infringements of the Basle Convention and Regulation 259/93/EEC have there been since they entered into force, in particular:
(a) in which Member States,
(b) to which third countries was the waste shipped,
(c) by which companies,
(d) what substances and quantities were involved (detailed breakdown of type and weight), and
(e) when (chronological breakdown of infringements)?
(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2000)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community, transposes the obligations of the Community under the Basel Convention. The Regulation prohibits the export of all wastes for disposal to destinations outside the Community with the exception of European free trade area (EFTA) countries. Since 1 January 1998, the export of hazardous wastes for recovery to non-Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) countries is also prohibited in the Community.
The export prohibitions pursuant to Community law are directly applicable. Their enforcement, including checks of shipments, is up to the authorities designated by the Member States. The Commission as such does not carry out any checks of individual shipments.
Member States are obliged on a yearly basis to report on the implementation of the Regulation, and every three years the Commission establishes a summary report on implementation of the Regulation by Member States. The first report was adopted in July 1998, covering the years 1994-1996 (1). For this, a number of Member States also submitted extensive documentation regarding data on waste exports and this is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
Overall, the European environment agency in ‘Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century’ indicates that according the reports by the Member States and Norway to the Basel Convention and the Commission, very little hazardous waste was exported to non-OECD countries (5 802 tonnes out of a total of 1,47 million tonnes, corresponding to 0,4 %). It should be noted that all country reports on which these figures are based, pre-date the entry into force, on 1 January 1998, of the export ban of C 46 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
hazardous waste for recovery to non-OECD countries. As noted above, from 1 January 1998, no exports of hazardous wastes to non-OECD countries may occur from the Community.
As for information on illegal shipments, the Commission concluded in its first three-year report on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 that a whole series of obligations under the Regulation were not referred to in the questionnaire which served as a basis for the Member States’ yearly reports. Therefore, a new additional questionnaire has in the meantime been adopted (Commission Decision 1999/ 412 of 3 June 1999 concerning a questionnaire for the reporting obligation of Member States pursuant to Article 41(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2)). This obliges Member States also to report on cases of illegal traffic of waste. The information requested in the additional questionnaire will have to be provided for the first time for the reporting period of the calendar year 2000.
(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament concerning the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community, COM(1998) 475 final. (2) OJ L 156, 23.6.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1284/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(19 April 2000)
Subject: Rescue flight contracts with the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions
Further to my Question No E-0137/00 (1) I wish to submit specific supplementary information. As my research has shown, the problem arises in connection with the closed settlement contracts concluded in Austria between the Federal Ministry for Internal Affairs and a private-sector association on the one hand and the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions on the other, not just from the inadequate tendering procedure for those contracts. The problem arises more from the fact that direct settlement between the above bodies has, since 31 March 1995, been concluded without any contractual basis, whereas the option of direct settlement by other suppliers of such services is rejected by the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions. It is against that background that I wish to ask the Commission the following supplementary question:
Does the circumstance that direct settlements between the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions and the said rescue flight undertakings are concluded without any contractual basis not raise doubts in the Commission whether these arrangements are compatible with the provisions of Directive 92/ 50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992?
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 183. (2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2000)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Question No E-0137/00, which also dealt with rescue flight contracts with the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions.
The Commission will be in a position to answer the question raised by the Honourable Member once it has received the information it is awaiting from the Austrian authorities. The conclusion of a contract does not, of course, preclude the possibility of an infringement of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/165
(2001/C 46 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(19 April 2000)
Subject: Limited companies annual accounts on the Internet
In Austria it is compulsory for limited companies (GmbH) to publish in the Official Journal supplement to the Wiener Zeitung a notification of submission of their annual accounts to the company accounts court.
An entry such as ‘XY-GmbH has submitted its annual accounts to the company accounts court’ costs ATS 1 500 annually, an amount that has to be paid into the company accounts court.
Since more than 8 000 small limited companies out of Upper Austria’s total of 8 500 limited companies are affected by this requirement, a distortion of competition might well be said to exist by comparison with undertakings from other Member States.
Where does the Commission stand on this competitive disadvantage, and does the Commission not consider that, instead of these notifications having to be published in the Official Journal supplement to the Wiener Zeitung, it would be sufficient for them to be published free of charge on the Internet?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(30 May 2000)
Article 3(4) of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (1) requires limited companies to disclose certain documents and particulars related to the company (including the annual accounts) ‘by publication in the national gazette appointed for that purpose by the Member State’. In Austria, ‘the national gazette appointed for that purpose’ is the Official journal supplement to the Wiener Zeitung. This requirement to publish affects limited companies in all Member States, therefore the requirement does not in itself constitute a distortion of competition.
Following recommendations made by the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) working group, which is composed of representatives of Member States and of the Commission, the Commission is currently looking at ways of amending the First Directive to make use of technological advances. Although Article 3(4), as it stands, does not prevent Member States from moving to modern forms of disclosure, clarification is needed, particularly with regard to issues such as electronic filing and the use of the Internet.
(1) OJ L 65, 14.3.1968.
(2001/C 46 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission
(19 April 2000)
Subject: Animal testing for cosmetics
Referring to the Commission’s statement dated 5 April (IP/00/335) regarding the adoption of a proposal to amend Council Directive 76/768/EEC (1) on animal testing for cosmetics, does the Commission agree that this proposal is likely to lead to the cruel testing being exported from the EU and the products of that cruelty subsequently being imported for sale, and will the Commission also state the number of contacts that it has had with the industry and with the World Trade Organisation in respect of this proposed change of policy?
(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169. C 46 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2000)
The Commission does not aim to increase cruelty towards animals. On the contrary, the Commission is continuing its efforts to reduce the suffering inflicted on animals during testing, cut down on the number of tests, and, as far as possible and within the shortest feasible timescale, eliminate animal suffering, an aim also found in Directive 86/609/EEC regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1).
The Commission took this objective into account when drawing up its proposed seventh amendment. It does, in fact, propose to introduce a definitive ban in Europe on carrying out animal testing for both finished cosmetic products and the ingredients used for these. In addition, since the key to solving this problem is to perfect methods which substitute animal testing, the Commission is continuing its efforts to develop alternative methods, making it compulsory to use these once they have been scientifically validated at Community level. The Commission will also seek to ensure that these alternative methods obtain the rapid approval of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, thus enabling them to be used world-wide.
As for the contacts which took place during the drafting of this proposal, the Commission consulted all the parties concerned by the issue of animal testing, including animal protection groups.
(1) OJ L 358, 8.12.1986.
(2001/C 46 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council
(27 April 2000)
Subject: Ability of Council to answer Parliamentary questions on time
Can the Council state why I did not receive an answer to my written question on Tax Discussions (P-2219/99) (which was submitted on 5 November 1999 and which should have been answered in December) until 4 February 2000?
(2001/C 46 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1300/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council
(27 April 2000)
Subject: Solutions to the Council’s frequent inability to answer Parliamentary questions on time
Can the Council indicate whether slow responses on the part of certain Member States are responsible for the Council’s frequent inability to answer Parliamentary questions on time, and if so, has thought been given to setting a time limit for objections by states to suggested answers so that those answers can be provided to Members of the Parliament within the allotted time frame? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/167
(2001/C 46 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1541/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council
(12 May 2000)
Subject: Infringement of Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament
I have submitted a number of questions to the Council on the subject of Austria:
a priority question tabled on 21 February 2000 and registered on 25 February. Pursuant to Rule 44(5) of the Rules of Procedure, priority questions must be answered within three weeks of being registered. Accordingly, this question should have been answered by 17 March,
two questions tabled on 21 February and registered on 13 March. Pursuant to Rule 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure they must be answered within six weeks of being registered by the Council: they should therefore have been answered by 25 April.
In view of this infringement of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, is the Council aware of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure currently in force and does it intend to comply with them in future?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00
(10 July 2000)
The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is not bound by the deadlines mentioned, as these ensue from Rule 44(5), (6) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.
It would, however, stress that with a view to better collaboration with the European Parliament in this area the Council has acted swiftly to introduce a series of internal measures enabling it to reply to written questions within two months. In this context its preparatory bodies have defined a procedure for examining questions intended to strike the requisite balance between this objective and the essential need to provide replies of the highest quality possible after consultation with the competent departments and an exchange of views at Council level.
Over the years various factors have made it harder to keep this balance, with adverse consequences on the promptness of replies, examples being the significant increase in the number of written questions put to the Council, which should not be under-estimated, the emergence of questions in areas which call for in- depth study, or the topical nature of certain issues which on occasion require some time for Members to be given genuine updates.
The Council does, in any case, share the concern expressed by the Honourable Member and reaffirms its commitment to providing, in all circumstances, the most appropriate and fullest replies possible to written questions put to it. It will reflect on solutions to optimise the current procedures for studying questions, in compliance with the requirements listed above.
(2001/C 46 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1303/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council
(27 April 2000)
Subject: The EU and Austria
A study carried out by the Irish Institute of European Affairs is critical of the measures taken by the other fourteen EU Member States against Austria which, it says, violate not only Community law but also the principles of democracy. The study, written by Eugene Regan, an Irish lawyer and former member of the private office of EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland, is also highly critical of the action of the Portuguese Presidency. C 46 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
The main points of criticism are the interference in a democratic process, the type of action decided on by the fourteen EU States which are to be implemented not within the Union but outside this legal area, and the controversial action of the Portuguese Presidency which gave the new Austrian government no opportunity to put its views across.
The author explicitly points out that there are no grounds for the assumption that ‘Austria is a less democratic country than Ireland or any other EU Member State’.
In the light of this sound academic study:
is the Council familiar with the study,
if not, does it intend to obtain and examine it, and finally
what does it intend to do to put relations with Austria back on a normal footing?
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The Council has not examined the study to which the Honourable Member refers, and does not have a view on it. The measures to which the question refers are not binding on the Council, and the Council has not taken any view on them.
(2001/C 46 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1305/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council
(27 April 2000)
Subject: Question H-0191/00
On 17 March 2000 I received a written reply to my oral question H-0191/00 on Israel and Russia. I should point out that the Council discussed only the first and second paragraphs of my question while fully ignoring the third, and decisive paragraph. In particular the Council failed to make the link with the action currently being taken by fourteen Member States against Austria, which was the point of the question. The question must therefore be regarded as largely unanswered, and I should now like a more detailed answer.
Reply
(10 July 2000)
The Council refers the Honourable Member to the answer given to his earlier question on this issue. Since the last paragraph of this question was addressed to the Portuguese Presidency, it would not be appropriate for the Council to respond. This is in any case an issue on which the Council has not taken a view.
(2001/C 46 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1310/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission
(27 April 2000)
Subject: Labelling of textiles
What provisions exist governing labelling requirements at European or multi-lateral level for textile products from non-EU countries? What steps does the Commission propose to take to introduce improved 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/169
and binding labelling requirements so that European consumers of non-EU textile products are furnished with more information on the country of origin and method of production of the textiles products they buy?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2000)
At European level, the only legal instrument relating to textile labelling is Directive 96/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on ‘textile names’ (1), as amended by Commission Directive 97/37/EC of 19 June 1997 (2). Textile products, irrespective of their country of origin, may be marketed within the Community only if they comply with that Directive, which provides for the correct indication of the fibre composition of textile products. Apart from that, Member States remain free to apply national provisions ‘on the protection of industrial and commercial property, on indications of provenance, marks of origin and the prevention of unfair competition’ (Article 14), as long as such provisions are in conformity with the principles underlying the Community’s internal market.
At multilateral level, no specific legislation on textile labelling exists. Any national legislation adopted in this area therefore has to be judged against the background of general World Trade Organisation (WTO) principles such as the non-discrimination rule. Furthermore, under the agreement on technical barriers to trade, WTO members must ensure that technical regulations do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.
Therefore, whilst WTO rules require that any compulsory labelling of origin requirement is applied in a non discriminatory manner to both Community and non-Community goods, a requirement to determine the precise country of origin at least within the Community would not be compatible with Community law.
As regards the specific case of ‘origin marking’, the Court of justice has ruled that the mandatory labelling of national origins (such as ‘made in the United Kingdom’) is inconsistent with Community law, since it has to be considered a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited by Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty. Any origin marking requirement within the Community might prompt the consumer to give his preference to national products, and would thus have the effect of ‘slowing down economic interpenetration in the Community’ (3).
In addition to those legal restraints, due account has to be taken of the likely impact of such measures on other parties, such as Community manufacturers, given that additional labelling requirements cannot be imposed on third countries only. The requirement to meet different sets of standards for different geographical markets would imply an administrative burden on manufacturers operating in global markets. The lack of mandatory labelling requirements in areas such as origin marking does, however, not prevent manufacturers from providing additional information on a voluntary basis.
While endeavouring to keep mandatory administrative requirements to a minimum, the Commission remains, of course, open to examine any suggestions for improvements to the existing labelling regime which might be put forward by interested parties.
(1) OJ L 32, 3.2.1997. (2) OJ L 169, 27.6.1997. (3) Case 207/83. C 46 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission
(27 April 2000)
Subject: Implementation of Directive 86/653/EEC in Italy
A company has awarded a severance payment to an employee (sales representative) pursuant to an economic agreement of 25 July 1989 rather than Legislative Decree No 303 of 10 September 1991, based on Directive 86/653/EEC (1) on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, in accordance with Article 15 of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990.
The company’s decision considerably reduces the amount of the severance payment. The application of LD No 303, on the other hand, which is based on the European directive, would work to the advantage of the worker who, quite rightly, is invoking it, so far without success.
Can the Commission therefore state:
whether the European directive should take priority over the 1989 economic agreement?
whether European legislation takes precedence over national legislation?
if so, what action can the worker take to exercise his rights as recognised by the directive?
(1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.
Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2000)
The meaning of commercial agent, for the purposes of Council Directive 86/653/EE on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, is defined in Article 1 (2) of the directive as ‘a self-employed intermediary who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or the purchase of goods on behalf of another person, hereinafter called the “principal”, or to negotiate and conclude such transactions on behalf of and in the name of that principal’.
The definition of commercial agent as given in the directive excludes certain types of commercial intermediary, especially sales representatives, who do not work as self-employed intermediaries but as paid employees of an enterprise.
(2001/C 46 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1324/00 by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission
(17 April 2000)
Subject: Psychological support in the event of major accidents and natural disasters
Several serious accidents and natural disasters have occurred in Europe in recent years earthquakes, avalanches, landslides, floods, train accidents, accidents at sea, mining disasters, etc. Apart from causing countless deaths and physical injuries, these disasters have also inflicted mental suffering and trauma on a great many people.
There is a crucial need for psychological support for individuals who have experienced traumatic events. Psychological support during the first few days significantly improves the chances of recovery. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/171
Many European countries have set up organisations to help care for victims who are in need of psychological help. These organisations come together in the EFPPA, for example (European Federation of Professional Psychologists Associations), which has 30 member associations.
Are there any projects in the EU which endeavour to organise assistance for victims of accidents in need of psychological support, or are there plans to set up such programmes at European level?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (16 June 2000)
Under the Community action programme in the field of civil protection for 1998 and 1999 (Council Decision 98/22/EC of 19 December 1997 (1)), the Commission financed the following measures in the area of psychosocial help in the event of disasters, as part of the major disaster medicine project: self-training workshop on preparing those responsible for, and involved in, civil protection to deal with the psychosocial dimension of disasters; several workshops on the management of psychosocial monitoring in the case of collective emergencies; a workshop on psychosocial support in crisis situations.
These activities led to the drafting of practical recommendations on the organisation of psychosocial support for those involved, victims and family members, which have been published on the Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/.
Accordingly, within the framework of the Community action programme in the field of civil protection for 2000-2004 (Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999 (2)), Belgium has proposed a project relating to the management of psychosocial support in the case of disasters. The purpose of the project is to prepare a methodological guide, monitoring indicators and a system for training those responsible, covering the entire Community.
A programme of Community action on injury prevention (Decision No 372/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 February 1999 (3)) has been adopted in the area of public health, the main objective of which is to contribute to public health activities to reduce the incidence of injuries by promoting the epidemiological monitoring of injuries and exchanges of information on the use of these data in order to help to define priorities and improve prevention strategies. No projects relating to psychological support in the case of serious accident or natural disaster have yet been submitted. However, they could be considered, account being taken of the eligibility criteria, the annual priorities and the annual resources available.
(1) OJ L 8, 14.1.1998. (2) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999. (3) OJ L 46, 20.2.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1328/00 by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission (27 April 2000)
Subject: Proposal for an European Parliament and Council regulation on the closure of the ECIP programme
On 31 January 2000 the Commission published a proposal for an European Parliament and Council regulation on the implementation of the European Communities Investment Partners financial instrument (ECIP), in which it proposed the liquidation of the existing set of programmes (COM(1999) 0726).
Is it true that in the more recent years of this programme’s life there have been procedural delays in the Commission in allocating projects? Can the Commission state whether in fact ECIP virtually ground to a halt in 1999, in the wake of the creation and entry into operation of the Joint Service for the management of Community Aid to Non-Member Countries, the resignation of the Commission and the reorganisation carried out within the new Commission? Is it true that these circumstances have led to certain requests, including Nos 3749 (Mercosur) and 3750 (Mexico), being accepted but not subsequently processed by the Approvals Committee? C 46 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Does the Commission not believe that the proposed measures run totally counter to the notions of ‘continuity’ and ‘sound management’, despite being presented as a piece of ‘sound financial management’? In view of the circumstances, does the Commission not consider that the best solution would be to provide the interested parties with a detailed explanation of the underlying reasons for the liquidation of these projects?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(13 June 2000)
The European Community Investment Partners scheme (ECIP) was launched in the 1990s and quickly flourished. It became increasingly difficult to manage, geared as it was initially to a small number of operations, because of various factors: the marked rise in the number of projects quickly outstripped the capacity of the available Commission staff to manage them -- recourse to a technical assistance unit (in 1997) and a financial assistance unit (in 1999) gradually helped to offset the staff shortage, but only in part -- and the tightening up of the Commission’s financial procedures in line with the observations of the Court of Auditors led to a delay in procedures (requiring a written procedure involving the Commission rather than the delegation procedure) and the separation of the technical and financial functions.
As a result, payment arrears built up, though these have now largely been dealt with, and decision-making slowed down. Since the legal basis for the scheme expired on 31 December 1999 the ECIP programme has been in the process of closure, despite continued demand for financing, following the Commission’s decision to give exclusive priority in 2000 and 2001 to financial execution and closure of existing ECIP contracts and to recovering unused funds to be repaid. A letter to this effect has been sent to all the financial institutions concerned.
Applications for operations Nos 3 749 and 3 750, received in June 1999, were not presented for approval by the Steering Committee for the reasons outlined above.
(2001/C 46 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1336/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Measures to combat high unemployment in the Prefecture of Pieria
In the Prefecture of Pieria in Greece, the unemployment rate is soaring towards 35 %. The main groups affected are young people, women and first-time job-seekers. The main factors contributing to this development are the severe blow to tourism in the region caused by the war in Kosovo the largest number of tourists to the area come from Central and Eastern Europe by road through Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) the fall in income from farming and the closure of many small, piece-rate based clothing manufacturers who mainly employed women.
When approving the Third Community Support Framework, will the Commission take account of the special situation of the Prefecture of Pieria? What additional measures will be taken by the European Social Fund, in cooperation with the national authorities, to combat unemployment and create more jobs?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2000)
The Commission would like to clarify that according to the structural funds regulations (Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund (1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2)), responsibility for formulating and submitting proposals lies with the Member States. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/173
However, the Commission is aware of the specific problems mentioned by the Honourable Member and will take them into account during the negotiations of the operational programmes of the third Community support framework which are expected to start in June 2000.
(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (4 May 2000)
Subject: Merger of Commercial Intertech Corporation with Parker Hannifin Corporation
Is the Commission aware of the merger between Commercial Intertech Corporation and Parker Hannifin Corporation and its implications for European competitivity? Will the Commission investigate whether it is appropriate for the merger to take place in the light of European competition policy? Will it undertake to meet with representatives of the workforce to hear their views?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 June 2000)
The Commission has not been informed of the merger, which is the subject of the questions raised by the Honourable Member.
With regard to the Commission meeting with representatives of the workforce of undertakings concerned by a notified merger, in general the Commission is willing to meet with such representatives to hear their views on the competition aspects of the operation. Furthermore, Article 18.4 of the Merger Regulation, Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989, on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) provides for the entitlement of the recognized representatives of employees to be heard upon application, in specific instances, most notably in the case of in-depth investigations.
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.
(2001/C 46 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission (4 May 2000)
Subject: IAF and the Directorate-General for Competition
Last February, Members of the European Parliament received a dossier from the IAF (International Automobile Federation) concerning the not altogether transparent links between the Directorate- General for Competition and the Federation. Enclosed with the dossier was a copy of a letter sent on 1 February 2000 to the Commissioner responsible, formally asking him to state his position on four points.
In the interests of improving transparency in the relations between certain much-discussed departments and their contacts in the relevant sector, and ensuring public accountability, would the Commission answer the following questions: 1. Did the Commission reply to the IAF’s requests? 2. If so, what was the substance of the Commission’s replies? 3. If not, why were the complaints that had been made not followed up? 4. When will the Commission take the necessary decisions to ensure transparency and honesty, which were called for on all sides when the last Commission was turned out of office? C 46 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2000)
The Honourable Member’s questions relate to a competition investigation which continues.
As regards parliamentary questions on pending cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the letter of the former member responsible for Competition dated 28 January 1999 to the former Chairman of the Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy. In his letter, the responsible member explained that only limited, general and non-confidential information can be provided in relation to pending cases.
As to the Honourable Member’s questions, the Commission would like to reply as follows:
1. Yes, the Commission has replied to the International automobile federation (IAF) public letter of 1 February 2000.
2. The member responsible for Competition made a public statement immediately following the publication of the IAF’s letter. In this statement the responsible member noted that the major part of the criticism of the Commission’s behaviour was based on events which happened already in December 1997 and which led to an order of the Court of first instance on 6 December 1999 after IAF had withdrawn a claim against the Commission for damages. He also said that, as already in the past, the IAF was criticising the behaviour of an individual competition official. Such criticisms had previously turned out to be totally unfounded. The responsible member stated that the new criticism had already been subject of an internal investigation which concluded that it was equally unjustified.
3. As explained in point 2 above, the Commission did reply to the IAF’s public letter of 1 February 2000.
4. In this case, the Commission took all the necessary measures to ensure transparency and proper casehandling. In particular, the Commission informed the public of all important developments in the case by a notice of 27 November 1997 summarising the notified agreements, by a press release of 29 June 1999 summarising its objections and by the spokesman’s statement of 5 May 2000 on the postponement of the oral hearing and the settlement discussions with the IAF.
(2001/C 46 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/00 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Compulsory metrication of British weights and measures (loose goods)
On 1 January 2000, the UK government introduced legislation purporting to make it illegal for British traders to sell to British customers in traditional, imperial, weights and measures, such as pounds, ounces, feet, inches, pints and gallons.
While it appears that the British Government specifically allowed British traders to sell in British weights and measures under the Weights and Measures Act 1985, the government now insists that it must obey the European Union by implementing a 1989 directive that all sales in the United Kingdom should be carried out in metric units.
Recent public opinion surveys in Britain have shown opposition to compulsory metrication, with over 90 % of British customers strongly opposing the purchase of loose items in kilograms, metres etc.
The European Union frequently boasts that it is in favour of ‘cultural diversity’ in its publications. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/175
There is a huge resistance campaign in Britain to these measures with tens of thousands of traders openly defying the government’s metrication regulations. The reason for the resistance is that British people see no good reason to give up their traditional weights and measures which have many advantages over the metric system.
The Commission is asked:
1. What are the procedures for reversing the 1989 directive, or any other directives dealing with compulsory metrication, in the light of the manifest wish of the majority of people not to go metric?
2. Does the European Union in fact insist that the British Government should completely metrify the sales of loose goods, or does the British Government have any option, according to the European Union, to delay the implementation of these measures?
3. Does the European Union approve of criminal penalties for those British traders selling in British, imperial measures, in order to achieve compulsory metrication?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 2000)
1. Amendment of Council Directive 89/617/EEC of 27 November 1989 amending Directive 80/181/ EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement (1) would require a new directive.
2. The Commission has received no representations from the British Government proposing any reversal of metrication policy.
3. The enforcement mechanisms to ensure implementation of the United Kingdom legislation putting the Directive into effect are of course a matter for the British authorities.
(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989.
(2001/C 46 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1353/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Delay by the EU in reaching a decision on an increase of capital for the Santana Motor company
The Spanish car manufacturer Santana Motor registered a loss of ESP 2 986 million in 1999, in excess of all forecasts, whether those of the Andalusian regional government or those of the company’s own strategic plan.
This company is owned by the Andalusian Development Institute (Instituto de Fomento de Andalucía), which is an organ of the Andalusian regional government. The Institute believes that these losses have arisen owing to the appreciation of the yen and to the delay by the EU in reaching a decision on an increase of capital for the company and on its requests for aid.
Can the Commission state whether the Institute’s complaint as regards the Union in this respect is in fact justifiable, and explain to what extent it believes the Union can be considered responsible for the prejudice for which it is being blamed by the owners of Santana Motor? C 46 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2000)
The company in question carried out a restructuring plan between 1995 and 1997, which was supported by state aid approved by the Commission in its Decision 97/17/EC of 30 July 1996 (1). The aid to Santana was approved under certain conditions, such as the provision of an annual monitoring report and the prohibition of any new restructuring aid. The Commission points out that the restructuring plan on which the above Commission decision from 1996 was based should have lead to the viability of Santana. It takes note of the information submitted by the Honourable Member that the losses incurred by Santana in 1999 amount to PTAS 2 986 million.
In 1998, the Commission learned through the press that a credit of PTAS 3 800 million was granted to Santana Motor by a consortium of five banks, which was accompanied by a public guarantee of the regional government of Andalusia. Following this information, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for additional information which was provided only in part. Documents such as the company’s medium-term strategic plan made reference to investment aid as well as a capital injection by a public body. The measure was registered as non-notified aid. In order to be able to assess the public financing measures, the Commission required further information, which was gradually submitted by the Spanish authorities.
The Commission is currently examining the measures; it is therefore too early to arrive at any conclusions regarding the nature of the measures and the compatibility with the Community competition rules or the need for proceedings under Article 88 (2) (ex-Article 93) of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1354/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Research on the work of Estanislao Sánchez Calvo
A century after the decease of the eminent philosopher and linguist Estanislao Sánchez Calvo, a native of the Asturias region in Spain, his work as a scholar and teacher is still remembered in Central European intellectual circles, especially in Germany.
In view of the modernity of his thought in relation to the European linguistic tradition as a whole, it would seem of major interest to promote a study, which should be as wide-ranging and extensive as possible, of the work of this illustrious citizen of Avilés, with a view to establishing which of the various facets of his thought are of relevance to the new linguistic realities generated, in the intellectual context of the European Union, by the Union’s very existence.
Can the Commission state whether, if it endorses the interest of a detailed study of the linguistic and philosophical influence of this Asturian intellectual on the European dimension of contemporary thought, it would be willing to promote such a study with its support and cooperation?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(14 June 2000)
The Commission can support cultural initiatives through patronage, which consists of moral rather than financial support, and through grants.
Commission patronage may be granted for an event that meets the criteria set by the Commission. It must be a European event dealing with a subject closely connected with Community priorities. It must not place the Commission under any financial obligation. It must be for a single specific event. It may not be for 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/177
commercial purposes. It should not offend Member States. It may not as a rule be a publication. Requests should be addressed to a member of the Commission, through Commission offices or delegations.
Alternatively, the initiative may qualify for a grant under a Community programme. In order to do so, an application would have to be submitted in response to a call for proposals published in the Official journal and the initiative would have to meet the selection and award criteria set out therein. The Culture 2000 programme (Decision No 508/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 (1)) is the principal instrument for Community funding in the cultural field.
(1) OJ L 63, 10.3.2000.
(2001/C 46 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1364/00 by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Lifelong training
Given that continuing training and access to new technologies have been declared a priority so as to enable every citizen to work in the ‘information and knowledge society’, does the Commission intend to introduce a Community programme to promote lifelong training?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(26 June 2000)
Lifelong learning is already being promoted through a number of Community programmes and actions. Following the European Year of Lifelong Learning in 1996, lifelong learning has become a more articulated aspect in the new phase of the Community programmes for education (Socrates), vocational training (Leonardo da Vinci) and youth policy (Youth).
The Commission is currently preparing two new initiatives directly linked to lifelong learning, namely a communication on ‘e-learning’ in order to provide digital literacy and wide access to learning for all citizens, and a communication on ‘Lifelong learning for active citizenship in a Europe of Knowledge’. The latter aims to provide impetus to the European process for implementing lifelong learning, particularly following the Lisbon conclusions, to summarise achievements made in developing lifelong learning at Member States and Community level to develop a conceptual framework identifying challenges and points for action and to propose recommendations for action in terms of objectives, benchmarks or guidelines underpinned by indicators and information.
In addition lifelong learning is funded by the European Social Fund, objective 3. Innovative approaches to lifelong learning are also funded under the Community initiative EQUAL. Lifelong learning is also being promoted through the European employment guidelines (the Luxembourg process) according to which the Member States, in partnership with the social partners, will develop lifelong learning based on a broad definition and followed up by concrete targets.
Promoting lifelong learning is also considered through the 3rd, 4th and 5th framework programme research programmes, notably under the DELTA Research and technological development (RTD) pro- gramme on learning technologies, the telematics applications for education and training and within the Information society technologies (IST) programme area addressing education and training applications. The C 46 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
call for proposals in February 2000 specifically addressed ‘the learning citizen’ and associated new technologies, approaches, methods and services to facilitate motivation for and access to lifelong learning to the population at large.
Following the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council on 23-24 March 2000, the Commission’s proposed action plan for the eEurope initiative includes two explicit objectives to address ‘Preparing youth for the Digital Age’ and ‘Working in the knowledge-based economy’.
(2001/C 46 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1366/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Twinning in the Commission’s work programme
During an interview published in the Italian daily newspaper ‘La Repubblica’ on 20 March 2000, Vice- President Kinnock, speaking about the challenges and priorities for the Commission’s future, mentioned the question of twinning, saying that the Commission was working on twinning between cities, which was a task it had taken on with pleasure and which its officials had always carried out well. However, the shortage of staff meant that it had to ask itself whether twinning was one of the Commission’s main tasks. This last question seems to be rhetorical. Indeed, when the question is asked in this way, it is clear that twinning cannot be seen as one of the Commission’s main tasks. At least that is the impression given.
1. Has the Commission already answered the question asked by its Vice-President?
2. Did it perhaps intend to indicate by this rhetorical question that in future neither the staff nor financial resources would be available to implement the programme currently under way?
3. If so, does it not think that the withdrawal by the Commission of political and financial support from twinning represents the latest in a long series of setbacks to the people’s Europe and the involvement of towns and cities in the Union in a measure designed to promote awareness and knowledge of the cultures of the different peoples of Europe?
4. Can it give formal assurances regarding its support for the programme?
(2001/C 46 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1446/00 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission
(3 May 2000)
Subject: Twinning of towns
On 20 March 2000, in an interview given to the Italian daily newspaper ‘La Repubblica’, Commissioner Kinnock questioned whether the Commission should continue supporting the twinning of towns and cities in Europe, given the staff shortages in the unit concerned.
Will the Commission say whether this is indeed its policy and whether, as the Commissioner responsible maintains, it no longer sees this measure as a priority?
Does the Commission not think that the European Parliament should be properly consulted before it adopts a position on this matter? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/179
(2001/C 46 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1467/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission
(10 May 2000)
Subject: Town twinning
What is the Commission’s attitude to town twinning?
In particular, is the Commission convinced that town twinning is an important means of enabling citizens genuinely to participate in and work together for Europe?
What political and financial support does it intend to provide for town twinning?
(2001/C 46 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1519/00 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission
(12 May 2000)
Subject: Town twinning in the European Communities
Can the Commission say whether the statement made by Commissioner Kinnock to Franco Papitto, journalist on the newspaper ‘La Repubblica’, that ‘we need to ask ourselves whether town twinning is an essential task of the Commission’ indicates that this important institution might be abolished?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1366/00, P-1446/00, E-1467/00 and E-1519/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(28 June 2000)
In the interview in La Repubblica mentioned by the Honourable Members, Vice President Kinnock was asked about the review of all tasks and resources which was then being proposed in the Commission and has since begun, as publicly announced. The Vice President referred inter alia to the fact that there are some activities undertaken by the Commission which could not formally be regarded as ‘core’ activities in terms of the Treaty, but which are nevertheless considered to have value for the development of the Union. In response to a request for examples of such activities he referred to town twinning.
The reference was factual and implied no decision or intended decision to withdraw commitment from town twinning.
Support for town twinning activities across the Union has been provided from the Community budget for several years. In the current year, € 10 million is provided for that purpose. The finances are administered by two grade A officials in the Directorate general for Education and culture.
The comprehensive review of all tasks and resources is being undertaken as a requirement of responsible management by the Commission and with the intention of improving and increasing the transparency of the relationship between Commission activities and the staff available to provide them efficiently. A report based on the review will be compiled and presented to the Commission and, subsequently, to Parliament and Council, later this year. C 46 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1373/00 by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(26 April 2000)
Subject: Madeira Free Zone
The Madeira Free Zone (MFZ), which was established in the 1980s, was set up in order to further the island’s social and economic development. In order to provide the MFZ with the resources it needed in order to become fully established on the international markets, a financial and fiscal incentive scheme was set up to promote and secure new investment over a minimum operating period of 25 years (until 2011) a length of time which was essential if the MFZ was to be successfully launched on the international markets through the gradual building up an image of trust and credibility.
The scheme was notified to the Commission in 1986 (pursuant to Community rules on competition) and was over the years subjected to a number of reviews which always resulted in its being extended. At the last review the Commission authorised the scheme to continue in operation until 31 December 2000 and described it on the occasion as one of the most dynamic aspects of the region’s economy.
The scheme was recently the subject of an analysis by the Working Party on the code of practice relating to company taxation (which, without taking due account of paragraph G of the code of practice, concluded that the tax incentives granted to the MFZ’s financial activities were damaging, which could result in the dismantling of the free zone) and was reviewed in the light of the new Commission guidelines on state aid for the regions which, where the MFZ is concerned, impose a timelimit on the scheme and require aid for entities which have been granted a licence since 1 January 2000 to be made degressive. The future of the scheme is currently uncertain.
Despite the efforts which have been made by the regional, national and Community authorities and which have resulted in Madeira’s moving significantly closer in economic terms to the Community average, the island continues to be one of the EU’s ten most disadvantaged regions and one in which the commercial, industrial and financial activities carried on in the MFZ play, like tourism, a crucial development role.
In view of this, would the Commission answer the following questions:
1. How compatible are the new measures with Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, which specifically allows special treatment for remote regions in areas such as fiscal policy, free zones and state aid?
2. Why, then, is an attempt being made to seriously undermine the type of state aid granted to the MFZ, which in recent years has provided tangible evidence of the contribution it makes to the region’s social and economic development, in particular by enabling new investment projects to be established, the manufacturing sector to be diversified, know-how to be acquired and the local workforce to be trained, jobs to be created and Madeira to be promoted to the outside world?
3. Would the discontinuation of the scheme not drastically affect a focus of activity which is essential to Madeira’s development and place the island at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other islands, European regions and dependent or associate territories of the Member States which, for many years, have had (or still have) the opportunity to successfully run similar schemes, many of which operate in highly-developed areas?
4. Is the Commission aware of the implications in terms of the damage which is being done to the MFZ by the atmosphere of uncertainty which surrounds it and which is having a detrimental effect on the image of trust and credibility which took years to create?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(16 June 2000)
1. The Commission would refer to its report of 14 March 2000 (1) which outlines the measures aimed at implementing Article 299(2) (formerly Article 227) of the EC Treaty, notably in those areas mentioned by the Honourable Member. For instance, where state aid is concerned, the Commission indicates that it will amend its guidelines on regional aid (2) to allow operating aid that is neither degressive and nor limited 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/181
in time to be granted in the European Union’s outermost regions. The conditions are that such aid must be intended to reduce those additional costs of carrying out an economic activity which arise out of the disadvantages identified in Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, taking into account its contribution to the future development of the region and the particular characteristics of certain economic sectors. Where direct taxation is concerned, and without prejudice to the Commission’s competence to assess the current aid arrangements, it will be up to the Commission to decide what guidelines to use, inter alia, in the light of the outcome of work currently being done by the Council’s Code of Conduct working party.
2. The Commission has no intention of undermining the development of the Madeira region. On the contrary, it has demonstrated repeatedly that it is attentive to the special situation of the Community’s outermost regions. However, it would remind the Honourable Member that, following adoption of the guidelines on regional state aid, the Commission proposed to the Member States in its letters of 24 February 1998 as appropriate measures that they alter all regional aid schemes that would still be in force on 1 January 2000 to bring them into line with the guidelines as from that date. Similarly, the Commission called on the Member States to communicate within six months any such changes that they were considering. On the question of the direct tax advantages granted to the Madeira Free Zone, and as the Honourable Member himself emphasises, the main effect of the changes would be that any operating subsidies granted after 1 January 2000 are limited in time may be granted and degressive. In addition, such aid may be granted only where it contributes to regional development and the amount granted is in proportion to the disadvantages it is intended to palliate. These are all conditions which will have to be met in any case when operating aid measures are evaluated in the light of Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty.
3. The Commission can but point out that some of the Member States’ dependent territories are not subject to Community surveillance in matters of competition. Nevertheless, in the territories to which Articles 87 to 89 (formerly Articles 92 to 94) of the EC Treaty apply, discriminatory treatment of any kind is precluded by the strict and transparent application of the criteria for assessing whether state aids are compatible with the common market, published by the Commission in the form of notices and guidelines. It would therefore point out that, although they accepted the Commission’s recommendations (‘appropriate measures’), the Portuguese authorities have not yet adjusted the arrangements applicable to the Madeira Free Zone to make them compatible with the pertinent provisions of those guidelines.
4. The Commission regrets that a climate of uncertainty should be affecting the free zone. However, it would remind the Honourable Member that the Commission authorised application of the arrangements up to 31 December 2000 only and that any future implementing rules therefore have yet to be notified to, and examined by, the Commission prior to being implemented.
(1) COM(2000) 147 final. (2) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
(2001/C 46 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1374/00
by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission
(26 April 2000)
Subject: Confidentiality of the data contained in the file relating to the state aid made available to the Spanish electricity sector
In reply to numerous questions which I and other MEPs have tabled regarding certain details of the file relating to the state aid to be granted to the ATCs of Spanish electricity companies, the Commission has said that the file contains data which are confidential and which cannot therefore be communicated either to the European Parliament or to the consumers’ association which is named in the file. The 17 April 2000 edition of the Spanish newspaper El Mundo y Expansión contains an article concerning the existence of a technical report which endorses the ATCs and from which that article even quotes paragraphs. C 46 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
It seems strange that the press should be acquainted with internal Commission reports to which MEPs are denied access, but it is even stranger that the substance of a report which endorses the ATCs cannot be contradicted even though, if the report reaches such a conclusion, it must contain obvious errors.
Can the Commission forward to Parliament the report which is already available to the press?
Is this an example of the Commission’s commitment to transparency?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(26 May 2000)
With regard to the information which appeared in the Spanish press on 17 April, the Commission’s Spokesman’s Service has already stated that it is far too early to comment on the possibility of a positive decision on the costs of transition to competition in the Spanish electricity sector. The supposed Commission report to which the newspaper article refers is in fact an internal note by the Directorate- General for Competition which was drawn up as a basis for discussion within the DG but has not been the subject of any official decision. The Commission regrets that the contents of the note were leaked, but it is not responsible for any conclusions reached by the press as to the Commission’s final decision on the matter. In any case, the document has nothing to do with the report submitted by an independent expert asked by the Commission to verify certain assumptions made by the Spanish authorities regarding calculation of the costs of transition to competition. This report contains confidential information and is covered by the rules on business secrecy. For this reason, the Commission considers that it should not be made available.
(2001/C 46 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1376/00 by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Payment of a pension to an EU national moving to Australia
A Dutch citizen by birth moved to England, married and took up British nationality in 1954. Now, in her 70s and divorced, she wishes to move to Australia to live with her children. Her UK pension will be frozen at the rate when she leaves the UK but will continue to be paid. However, the small pension to which she is currently entitled from Holland will cease should she move out of the EU to Australia.
An unsatisfactory explanation is that the Dutch old age pension started in 1957, which was after the date when this lady left the Netherlands, and therefore she does not qualify for her pension under Dutch law but only under European law.
Is this not a case of discrimination on the grounds of nationality? Does the Commission agree that EU pension rights should be equally applicable to all our citizens everywhere?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2000)
The Honourable Member raises a question concerning the payment of an old-age pension under the legislation of the Netherlands to a former Dutch national who acquired British nationality and now intends to take up residence in Australia.
Under Community law there is no unified European social security system. Each Member State is responsible for its own social security system and decides which benefits shall be provided, the conditions for eligibility and the value of these benefits. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/183
There are, however, Community provisions for the co-ordination of these systems in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1), and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (2), in order to ensure that migrant workers and members of their families do not lose their social security protection when they move within the Community.
Therefore, the export of benefits to persons who are not resident within the Union does not fall under the scope of these regulations.
The question raised by the Honourable Member is a matter to be dealt with solely under Dutch national legislation.
(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971. (2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 as last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
(2001/C 46 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1382/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Positive discrimination in favour of women as a means of promoting equality
Positive discrimination must be used in order to increase the representation of women in all sectors of society. Measures of this kind have proved successful in various countries such as Sweden where the principle of the preferential treatment of women in the case of persons with the same qualifications has been applied in the public sector. However there seems to be some difference of opinion about initiatives of this kind at European level, as the European Court of Justice’s Kalanke judgment shows: the Land of Bremen was found to be in breach of EU law because it gave preference to a woman in a case where a man and a woman were equally well qualified. Furthermore, the Treaty of Amsterdam avoids mentioning positive discrimination as such: Article 141 merely refers to specific advantages in the framework of the equality of women and men.
Will the Commission say whether it intends in future to make positive discrimination in favour of women a general principle underpinning all policies?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(3 July 2000)
Article 2 of the EC Treaty states that one of the tasks of the Community shall be the promotion of equality between men and women, while Article 3(2) states that the Community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and promote equality, between men and women in all the activities of the Community listed in Article 3(1).
The principle of gender mainstreaming, which may include positive action if policy analysis deems it necessary, has been adopted as a means of analysing all Community policies with regard to their effect on equality of the sexes.
A Group of Members of the Commission on equal opportunities monitors Community policies with regard to their gender impact, and the fifth action programme on gender equality adopted by the Commission on 7 June 2000 proposes to deepen this approach (1). C 46 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
As regards its internal reform the Commission has underlined in the white paper of 1 March 2000 (2) (Part II p. 37) that ‘the principle of “mainstreaming”, that is the systematic consideration of gender issues in all policies and actions, must be a basic parameter for the reform of the human resources policy’. The measures necessary to promote equal opportunities will be taken by creating an environment which is favourable to the recruitment of women, to their promotion and career development within the institution. The Commission already decided in December 1999 that ‘in making appointments to senior management posts, the appointing authority will, in principle, give priority to women where it finds, after conducting an assessment, that candidates are of equal merit’. This policy will not be followed automatically, but it will be one of the important means used by the appointing authority to reach the objective of the Commission to double the present number of women at director general and director level during its mandate.
In addition, for the last five years, the Commission has adopted annual objectives for recruitment to the Commission and appointments of women to middle management posts.
(1) COM(2000) 335 final. (2) COM(2000) 200 final.
(2001/C 46 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1384/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: The Swedish example as a model for the equality of women in the public sector
During the 1990s exemplary practices in Sweden led to the balanced representation of women in the public sector. This was achieved by pursuing a training and awareness programme for top management in all spheres of the public sector: even the prime minister and all members of the cabinet were involved.
Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to ensure that these exemplary practices are extensively publicised so that the other EU Member states and the candidate countries follow them?
What financial instruments does the European Union have at its disposal to co-finance initiatives of this kind?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2000)
The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the Swedish model for the promotion of women in the public sector has been very successful.
For this reason, it has served as an example in various projects supported under Council Decision 95/593/ EC of 22 December 1995 on a medium-term action programme on equal opportunities for men and women (1996-2000) (1) which foresees the co-financing of initiatives to disseminate models of best practice on the promotion of women, including in the public sector. Furthermore, the Commission supported a conference on the promotion of women in the public sector in which the Swedish Ombuds- man gave an extensive presentation on the Swedish system.
In the new framework programme on gender equality, for the period 2001-2005, the promotion of women to top management positions will be an important priority (2). 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/185
Finally, within the Commission, awareness raising training on gender equality is offered to civil servants to support the Commission’s active gender equality policy in decision-making positions. The Commission will shortly adopt a decision on gender balance in the committees and expert groups established to advise it.
(1) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995. (2) [Due for adoption by the Commission on 30 May].
(2001/C 46 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1385/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Education and training as a means of preventing inequality between women and men
The old saying ‘prevention is better than cure’ has successfully stood the test of time. Since much remains to be done to bring about the equality of women and men in many working environments, particularly in management posts, and this is due, according to scientific surveys, primarily to a lack of training among women, will the Commission state whether, as part of the new EQUAL Programme, it intends to devote special attention to educational and training measures in favour of women so as to remedy this situation at the earliest opportunity?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(23 June 2000)
The guidelines for EQUAL have taken into account the training deficit of women, in particular by requiring the Member States to include in their programme proposals ‘a description of the actions and methods planned to implement the gender mainstreaming approach effectively’ (§ 61) (1).
In addition, the guidelines specify that one of the thematic fields serving as a basis for the first call for proposals will be ‘promoting lifelong learning and inclusive work practices which encourage the recruit- ment and retention of those suffering discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market’ (§ 16).
(1) OJ C 127, 5.5.2000.
(2001/C 46 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1386/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Expiry of the NOW Programme
From 1994 to 1999 the NOW Programme was a key instrument for promoting the interests of women in the employment sector and it basically supported training and labour market integration projects.
The new Structural Fund regulations do not, however, make any provision for an instrument specifically geared to women; instead, the EQUAL Programme is to be used to reduce all forms of discrimination on the labour market. C 46 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Since women do not constitute a ‘separate discriminated category’, but are represented in all social groups (i.e. women are also to be found in the groups such as the disabled, foreigners etc. who are subject to clearly defined discrimination) and are thus in some cases subject to double discrimination, will the Commission say whether this will be taken into account in the new EQUAL Programme and in the aid criteria based on this Programme?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 2000)
The guidelines for EQUAL have taken into account the double discrimination of women, in particular by requiring the Member States to include in their programme proposals ‘a description of the actions and methods planned to implement the gender mainstreaming approach effectively’(§ 61) (1).
In addition, the guidelines specify that one of the selection criteria for development partnerships will be the submission of an agreement presenting ‘its strategy and mechanisms for implementing a gender mainstreaming approach’ (§35).
(1) OJ C 127, 5.5.2000.
(2001/C 46 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1388/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Measures to promote paternity leave
In Sweden and now also in Italy, for instance a special bonus is provided to give fathers a greater incentive to take paternity leave: if the father takes three months childcare leave, the family is entitled to a further month of such leave. Statistics show that as a result of this measure 80 % of Swedish fathers now take paternity leave.
Will the Commission consider pushing through such examples of good practice in the other Member States so as to ensure that the contribution of fathers and mothers in bringing up children is more evenly balanced?
Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(16 June 2000)
The Commission takes the view that, while the examples mentioned by the Honourable Member encourage fathers to opt for parental leave and are part of a move towards balancing the involvement of both parents in bringing up their children, it is the responsibility of the Member States to introduce ‘good practices’ of this kind.
At Community level, the legislation on parental leave is the subject of a framework agreement concluded by the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and implemented by Council Directive 96/34/EC of 2 June 1996 (1). Clause 2.2 of this framework agreement provides that the right to parental leave should, in principle, be granted as a non-transferable right, in order to promote equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women. Given that this framework agreement is designed to introduce minimum requirements, the Member States enjoy complete freedom to adopt more favourable measures in this area.
(1) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/187
(2001/C 46 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1394/00 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission
(3 May 2000)
Subject: Principles of the Single Market
One of my constituents was stopped in France recently and asked how much money he had. I understand it is illegal to bring in more than FF 50 000 in cash without declaring it to the authorities and stating the source of the money and for what purpose it will be used. Surely this contradicts the principles of the Single Market?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2000)
According to the Community legislation, the transfer of cash is considered as a ‘capital movement’. The basic principles of the ‘freedom of capital movements’ (which is one of the four basic freedoms of the single market) are enshrined in the EC Treaty under Article 56 (ex Article 73b), which stipulates that all restrictions on the free movements of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited. This applies also to the physical import and export of means of payments of all kinds (i.e. notes, coins, bearer securities, etc).
However, under Article 58 (ex Article 73d) of the EC Treaty, it is set out that the provisions of Article 56 shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to ‘lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information’ or to ‘take measures which are justified on grounds of public policy or security’, provided the measures and procedures applied ‘shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital’.
This allows Member States to establish a ‘declaration system’ by which the import or export of currency in excess of a given amount has to be declared to the customs administration. Moreover, the Member States using such a ‘declaration system’ have also the right to define amounts of fines in case of infringement of the said regulation. In this context, it appears that the obligation to declare to the French authorities any import or export of means of payments above the limit of FRF 50 000 does not constitute, in principle, a breach of the freedom of capital movements since the custom regulation adopted seems compatible with the Community legislation in that matter.
While they are, in principle, compatible with Community rules, and can be a weapon in the fight against illegal activity, a lack of information on the requirements to declare can cause problems for legitimate operations. In the context of its information campaign on the single market, the Commission is making requirements on declaration more widely known.
(2001/C 46 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1396/00 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission
(4 May 2000)
Subject: Standardisation of clothing for motorcyclists
Rumours about attempts to standardise protective clothing for motorcyclists are still doing the rounds. For instance, the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) is said to have already submitted several drafts for such standards.
Is the Commission planning to standardise clothing intended for motorcyclists?
Have any steps already been taken in this direction? C 46 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2000)
The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) is a private organisation which is free to establish the standards it deems necessary or useful for economic operators as a whole. The Commission has no influence on the choices made by the CEN in this context.
However, the Commission can ask the European standardisation bodies, of which the CEN is one, to draw up harmonised European standards to meet the essential requirements of the ‘New Approach’ Directives. Indeed, this was the case with ‘New Approach’ Directive 89/686/EEC relating to personal protective equipment (1), referred to as the PPE Directive.
Since 1994, the CEN, the Commission, experts of the Member States and various organisations represent- ing manufacturers have been holding discussions on the rules concerning clothing for motorcyclists within the meaning of the PPE Directive. The results of these discussions have been approved by the Member States: clothing for motorcyclists (in addition to gloves, boots and shoes) does not constitute PPE unless the manufacturer claims, or implies in sales literature or advertising, that the garment as a whole provides special protection. In that case, the manufacturer must meet the essential requirements of Directive 89/ 686/EEC. Protective equipment such as elbow and knee protectors, which may also be built into clothing for motorcyclists, is always PPE.
Only one standard (EN 1621-2 (draft)) is currently being drawn up in the area of clothing for motorcyclists. It concerns the requirements and test methods for back protectors used in motorcycle rider’s protective clothing to protect against mechanical impact. The last draft for this standard was submitted by the CEN in February 1999. It will complement standard EN 1621-1 on protectors, which was adopted in 1997.
(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989.
(2001/C 46 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1409/00 by David Sumberg (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(5 May 2000)
Subject: Consumer protection fire prevention in the home
In view of the relationship between household electrical goods and the incidence of fire and the need, therefore, to educate consumers as to the potential causes of fire in the home, what data does the Commission have on television fires in the European Union and can the Commission specify which models of television sets are most frequently involved in fires?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(16 June 2000)
The Commission attaches a high priority to fire safety.
The safety of electrical household appliances is regulated primarily by the low voltage Directive, Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (1). Aspects relating to fire safety of television sets are more specifically addressed in harmonised standard EN 60065:1998, ‘Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus Safety requirements’ adopted by the European committee for electrotechni- cal standardisation Cenelec.
The Commission has received no information from national authorities about types of television sets most likely to be the source of an ignition consequently leading to a fire. The Commission is aware of studies in Sweden but the final report will not be available before this autumn. The Commission raised with national 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/189
authorities in charge of the enforcement of the low voltage Directive during their meeting in April 2000 the data on television sets being involved in incidents of fire. The Commission has asked Member States to provide more detailed information on this subject.
The need for further action will be considered on the basis of the data received from Member States.
(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.
(2001/C 46 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1411/00 by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(3 May 2000)
Subject: Details concerning information about the euro
Can the Commission provide details of all books, brochures and other printed matter being published and details of conferences and other activities taking place to ‘provide information about the euro’? Will it also state the cost of each activity and say under which budget heading they are entered?
(2001/C 46 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1495/00 by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 May 2000)
Subject: ‘Infeuro’
What does it cost to publish ‘Infeuro’ in all the languages?
(2001/C 46 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1496/00 by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(11 May 2000)
Subject: Swedish edition of ‘Infeuro’
What does it cost to publish the Swedish edition of ‘Infeuro’?
Joint answer to Written Questions P-1411/00, E-1495/00 and E-1496/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(9 June 2000)
The InfEuro newsletter is published in 11 languages and has a total circulation of 380 000. Some 7 000 copies are printed for the Swedish edition. The cost of publishing and distributing one issue is as follows: € 65 000 for pre-press work, € 45 000 for printing and € 70 000 for distribution (mailing lists). In other words, the total cost per issue is € 180 000 (the single unit cost per issue is € 0,47).
With regard to overall budgetary aspects, the Honourable Member may refer to the tables sent directly to him and to the Parliament’s General Secretariat. These tables show the details of agreements concluded with the Member States which decided to enter into partnerships with the Union, the breakdown by category of the cost of activities planned in 2000 and the breakdown of expenditure in the previous two financial years. C 46 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
A list of all the main products developed can be found in the annex to the Commission Communication on communications strategy in the last phases of the completion of EMU (1), approved on 2 February 2000.
(1) COM(2000) 57 final.
(2001/C 46 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1413/00 by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(3 May 2000)
Subject: Internal market: validity of certificates of origin in another Member State
For the purposes of a civil construction project currently under way in Lisbon, the Portuguese company Brimexo decided to install a particular type of tube for conducting hot and cold water, originating in Italy. The tube used is made of ‘reticulated polycthylene PE-X’ and is manufactured by Unidelta Idrosanitária Savallesse SPA. The brand name is Ultrapex; the tube is accompanied by a certificate of origin issued by the Italian Institute of Plastics (the official Italian certifying authority).
The Portuguese authority (EPAL) responsible for approving the project decided to withhold its approval, on the grounds that this tube had not been certified by the National Civil Engineering Laboratory. In its turn, the Laboratory said that the correct process concerning the tube was not certification but approval, under Article 17 of Portuguese Decree-Law 38/382 of 7 August 1951.
Can the Commission state whether this decision is compatible with the internal market, given that it implies that products received on the market of a Member State (in this case, a tube for conducting hot and cold water) have to be certified by the Member State in which they are located (notably, here, under a decree-law dating from 1951), or whether, in fact, it is sufficient that a product has been certified by the relevant authority in its Member State of origin? Is the principle of mutual recognition being duly respected? Is this decision compatible with the work which the Commission has undertaken in this area? Is it compatible with European Court of Justice case-law?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2000)
The facts related by the Honourable Member agree with those given in a complaint referred to the Commission.
The Commission is investigating this complaint as a matter of urgency in the light of the principle of mutual recognition, as defined by the European Court of Justice’s case law (see in particular the ruling of 20 February 1979, Rewe, known as ‘Cassis de Dijon’). This principle, as cited in the Commission communications of 15 June 1989, on a global approach to certification and testing (1), and of 16 June 1999, on mutual recognition in the context of the follow-up to the action plan for the single market (2), must be implemented by the national authorities at several levels. In terms of the rules of design, manufacture and operation of products lawfully produced or marketed in another Member State, the Member State of destination must accept products that meet technical specifications which, while different from those applied at national level, nevertheless allow an equivalent level of health and safety. In terms of procedures to assess product conformity with certain fundamental requirements, the Member State of destination must accept the documents provided by the operators as issued by the relevant bodies which have been accredited by the Member State where they were produced; further checks are not justified if the results of the checks carried out in the Member State of origin meet the requirements of the Member State of destination. In terms of testing and analysis, the Member State of destination must take into account the analysis and testing carried out in another Member State, where these are equivalent to those it requires itself, and must not require them to be repeated. Finally, the national authorities implement systems to assess the bodies responsible for testing and certification of products. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/191
By investigating the complaint, the Commission will have access to all the information it needs in order to determine whether the principle of mutual recognition has been observed in this case. If, on concluding this investigation, the Commission considers the principle in question to have been breached, it will not hesitate to initiate infringement proceedings.
(1) OJ C 267, 19.10.1989. (2) COM(1999) 299 final.
(2001/C 46 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission
(5 May 2000)
Subject: Import penetration
Would the Commission list percentage import penetration within each Member State since 1988, in the following areas:
high research-intensity goods;
medium research-intensity goods;
low research-intensity goods?
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2000)
The Commission collects and stores external trade data using the combined nomenclature, a classification of goods for tariff and statistical purposes. Using correspondence tables, the data can be analysed using several other nomenclatures, such as the standard international trade classification or the Community production statistics. It does not however have an analysis of products by research intensity, which would allow the data requested to be provided. The Commission is working on an analysis of trade in high technology products, using correspondence tables drawn up by the Organisation for economic cooperation and development.
(2001/C 46 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission
(5 May 2000)
Subject: Fixed investment
Would the Commission list the latest percentage share of gross domestic product each Member State is spending on fixed investment? C 46 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission
(23 June 2000)
(%)
Gross fixed capital formation of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1999 European Union (15 Member States) 20,2 (1) Euro-zone (EUR-11) 20,8 (1) Belgium 21,0 Denmark 19,5 Germany 20,9 Greece 23,0 (1) Spain 23,9 France 19,1 (1) Ireland 24,5 (1) Italy 18,9 Luxembourg 20,3 (1) Netherlands 22,3 Austria 24,3 (1) Portugal 26,9 (1) Finland 19,3 Sweden 16,6 United Kingdom 18,0
Source: Eurostat New Cronos Date of extraction: 25.5.2000. (1) Estimate.
(2001/C 46 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1435/00 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission
(5 May 2000)
Subject: Dual discrimination on grounds of gender and disability
The Commission has recently submitted a package of measures, including three directives, pursuant to the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which cites gender and disability as two of the areas in which the Union intends to take action to combat discrimination. This being so, disabled women face dual discrimination which the Commission should be monitoring.
With this in mind, has the Commission included a proposal of any kind within its package of anti- discrimination measures to combat dual discrimination affecting disabled women?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2000)
Structural inequalities linked to male and female roles often have far more serious repercussions in the event of dual, triple or multiple discrimination on grounds other than sex within the meaning of Article 13 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/193
of the EC Treaty. This is certainly the case as regards disabled women. Although equal treatment of the sexes as such is not covered by the package of measures adopted by the Commission in November 1999 (1), the need for an approach integrating this principle in implementing all the measures contained in this package explicitly follows from Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Treaty.
Hence the Commission will see to it that the situation of disabled women is duly addressed in the context of measures implementing the various instruments which will be adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 13 of the EC Treaty.
(1) COM(1999) 564 final.
(2001/C 46 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1444/00 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission
(10 May 2000)
Subject: Specific directive to combat discrimination against disabled people
The Commission has recently submitted a package of measures, including three directives, pursuant to the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. However, despite the fact that Article 13 cites disability as one of the areas in which discrimination is not to be tolerated, the said package of measures does not contain a specific directive against discrimination based on disability.
How does the Commission view the possibility of introducing a specific directive to combat discrimination on grounds of disability?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2000)
In implementing Article 13 of the EC Treaty the Commission has opted for a gradualist approach, based mainly on the convincing precedent of Community legislation on equal treatment for men and women. Employment and occupation are also the key to social integration and full participation in economic, cultural and social life. This is why protection against discrimination in the field of employment and occupation has been given priority and deemed sufficient, notably in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. However, the Commission will examine the advisability of widening the scope of protection against discrimination linked to disability to other areas.
(2001/C 46 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1450/00 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission
(10 May 2000)
Subject: Leasing of commercial vehicles in the European internal market
The Austrian haulage firm Unitrans has taken over an Italian haulage firm, thereby saving it from bankruptcy.
Unitrans has leased its own ‘Austrian’ vehicles to its Italian subsidiary, in view of the latter’s financial situation, characterised by a shortage of capital.
This cooperation has now been prohibited on the grounds that Unitrans does not have the certificate of vehicle ownership which is issued following incorporation into the Italian automobile register. C 46 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
However, only firms whose headquarters are situated in Italy can be incorporated into this register as vehicle owners, with the result that every foreign leasing firm is excluded.
1. Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs?
2. If so, what measures does it plan to take to deal with this breach of the principle of the free movement of goods and services?
3. What justification would the Commission give for not taking such measures?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2000)
The Honourable Member has raised the question of the extent to which the Commission could take action against Italian legislation which requires a leasing company from Austria to have its headquarters in Italy in order to register its leasing vehicles in that Member State. The company intends to sign a leasing contract with an Italian company which it has bought.
The question must be examined in relation to the free movement of services (Articles 49 et seq. (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty), but not in relation to the free movement of goods (Articles 28 et seq. (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty). In the case in question it seems that a leasing contract involves providing a user with a vehicle which he then, in all cases, returns to the leasing company at the end of the contract. The Court of Justice has already, on several occasions, recognised the applicability of Article 49 of the EC Treaty to cases such as this (1).
Where registration of a vehicle is subject to the condition of the leasing company having its registered office in that Member State, that company is deprived of the right to offer its services in a Member State other than that in which it is based.
A restriction of this kind would be justifiable only if the national measure were based on an express derogation in Community law, such as Article 46 (ex Article 56) of the EC Treaty, or if it were based on a compelling reason in the public interest in accordance with the principle of proportionality. Conditions of registration must therefore be seen in the context of road safety, but also in terms of payment of registration taxes.
With regard to all these questions, the Court of Justice has been called upon to give a verdict on a preliminary ruling by the Vienna Commercial Court of 10 November 1999 (‘Cura Anlagen’ case, C-451/99) concerning the interpretation of Article 49 of the EC Treaty. The case involves the same type of constraints encountered by a German leasing company wishing to offer its leasing services in Austria. Depending on the Court ruling, which will probably not be pronounced before 2001, the Commission may re-examine the possibility of taking initiatives concerning this problem.
(1) ‘Aro Lease’, C-190/95, ruling of 17.7.1997; ‘Lease Plan’, C 390/96, ruling of 7.5.1998.
(2001/C 46 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/00 by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission
(10 May 2000)
Subject: Directive on food supplements announced in the White Paper on food safety
In paragraph 105 of its White Paper on food safety published on 12 January 2000 (COM(1999) 719 final), the Commission announced that it would be submitting to the Council and the Parliament a directive on food supplements. It set itself a deadline of March 2000.
This planned directive forms part of the development of a Community nutritional policy, and nutrition is to be one of the priorities of the French Presidency of the European Union. To date, the directive has not been adopted by the Commission. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/195
Does the Commission intend shortly to adopt this text and submit it to the Community legislative authorities?
Will the Commission be following the advice of the scientific committees concerning maximum levels of nutrients which may be taken daily?
Is the Commission back-pedalling under pressure from pharmaceutical companies opposed to this directive?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 2000)
The Commission has adopted on 8 May 2000 the proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on food supplements (1) and will transmit it to the Parliament and the Council imminently.
The proposal foresees the adoption of maximum levels of nutrients on the basis of a number of criteria. One of those is upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals established by scientific risk assessment based on generally acceptable scientific data. The Commission has asked the scientific committee for food (SCF) for advice on such levels for vitamins and minerals. As always the Commission will give its full attention to the advice of the SCF.
(1) COM(2000) 222 final.
(2001/C 46 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1461/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(10 May 2000)
Subject: Conflicts of interest within the Commission
After the Commission’s refusal to approve the merger between Volvo and Scania, people in Sweden have been asking whether it is proper that the Commissioner concerned had sat on the board of a competitor. Does the Commission consider that the Commissioner responsible could be suspected of bias in such circumstances? Has the Commission a set of principles to govern potential conflicts of interest within its ranks?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2000)
The Code of Conduct for Commissioners lays down rules with which they must comply during their term of office and for one year after they have ceased to hold office. It requires all Commissioners to make a declaration relating to former and current outside activities in which they have engaged, financial interests and assets and, if appropriate, the activities of their spouses.
As regards former activities, the declaration must relate to activities engaged in over the last ten years.
The Commissioner with special responsibility for competition stated in his declaration of former activities that he had sat on the board of various firms, including Fiat from 1988 to 1993.
The declarations were scrutinised under the authority of the President and with due regard for Members’ areas of responsibility and were made public. C 46 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
As the Commissioner with special responsibility for competition ended his involvement with the boards of the firms in question between 1983 and 1994 and his membership of the Fiat board in 1993, i.e. six years before he took up that office (September 1999), he cannot in any way be regarded as having faced a conflict of interest, either when he took up office or when he had to deal with the Volvo-Scania merger.
(2001/C 46 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1475/00 by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission (11 May 2000)
Subject: ‘Nationalisation’ of Leonardo programme
It appears that the hiving-off to national agencies of an important share of the Leonardo programme has resulted in changes to the rules for allocating student-mobility aid.
That aid has in effect been ‘nationalised’ and is no longer available to provide placements for foreign students, but only to assist national students going abroad.
This means that students from countries and universities insufficiently familiar with European procedures, in particular those from countries applying for EU accession, are being denied the opportunity to apply for placements in European Union countries.
If this state of affairs, already widespread in France in particular, is confirmed also in other countries, what action will the European Commission take to rectify it, in accordance with the spirit of the Leonardo programme and its founding objectives?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (26 June 2000)
Council Decision 1999/382/EC of 26 April 1999 establishing the second phase of the Community vocational training action programme ‘Leonardo da Vinci’ (1), provides for an annual global grant to be allocated to each Member State to support the ‘mobility’ measure. This grant is allocated to each Member State on the basis of an operational plan which must set out clearly the arrangements for managing the financial support, the steps to be taken to assist the organisers and appropriate measures to be taken in the interests of sound preparation, organisation and follow-up of placements and exchanges. The Commission must approve this plan in advance. It is then up to the national agencies to launch calls for proposals and to select projects on the basis of specifications drawn up at Community level.
The Commission, having consulted the members of the programme committee, has specified in the various implementation documents for the ‘mobility’ measure (application forms and guides for promoters) that only organisations of origin can promote a mobility project. However, these documents also state that the share of the budget earmarked for project management and follow-up costs can be distributed amongst the various project partners, including the host organisations. The aim of this provision was to provide appropriate support for initiatives to promote the hosting of beneficiaries of Leonardo da Vinci mobility measures.
The Commission is monitoring compliance with the objectives of the programme and the principles of transnationality and life-long learning. If the risk mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question were to arise in practice, the Commission would remind the Leonardo da Vinci monitoring committee of its responsibility for implementing the programme.
Finally, on 24 May the Commission adopted mobility programmes for 2000 from Member States and countries in the European Economic Area (Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland). The programmes from the applicant countries will be formally approved once the decisions of the Association Councils on these countries’ participation in Community programmes in the areas of education, training and youth have come into force.
(1) OJ L 146, 11.6.1999. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/197
(2001/C 46 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1476/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission
(11 May 2000)
Subject: Euro-Mediterranean Partnership revival: Euro-Med Humanities Programme
On the occasion of the debate and adoption of a resolution (Doc B5-0297/2000) on the Barcelona Process in March 2000, the European Parliament forcefully confirmed its commitment to establishing a genuine partnership between the two shores of the Mediterranean.
The emergence of such a partnership has depended crucially on efforts to strengthen understanding and exchanges between the peoples of the Mediterranean basin. That was the purpose underlying the Euro-Med Humanities Programme launched in May 1998 under the third stage of the Barcelona Process. The Euro- Med Committee, meeting on 8 May 1998, had recognised at the time that Perugia University’s ‘Hist-Med’ and the Mediterranean Humanities Institute’s ‘Cultural interaction in the Mediterranean’ projects could be included in the first regional operations to be launched in that connection.
But that same programme has since run into a dead end, as indeed has the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership as a whole.
What are the European Commission’s proposals for reviving the Barcelona Process, in particular its third stage, to which the European Parliament remains strongly committed?
What arrangements does the European Commission expect to implement to enable the Euro-Med Humanities Programme finally to become operational? In particular:
1. Will recourse be had to Article 2.5 of the vademecum on the allocation of subsidies, which stipulates that a limited share of the budget may be used for ‘spontaneous’ proposals?
2. Will the Commission apply the ‘pilot stage’ included in the new MEDA II financial regulation to this programme?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2000)
The social, cultural and human component of the Barcelona process has substantially taken shape since the Euro-Mediterranean partnership was launched in late 1995. For example, three regional programmes worth a considerable amount have been set up and are now operational: Euromed Heritage (a programme to enhance Euro-Mediterranean cultural heritage, at a cost of € 17,1 million for the first phase); Euromed Audio-visual (a programme to promote Euro-Mediterranean audio-visual cooperation, costing € 20 million in its first phase), and Euromed Youth (to enhance youth associations and exchanges at Euro- Mediterranean level, costing € 6 million in its first phase). The Commission is also set to launch the second phase of the Euromed Heritage programme (Euromed Heritage II) in mid-2000, in the form of a call for proposals to be published in the Official Journal and on the Europa server.
As to the future Euromed Humanities programme, it has not yet been possible to launch it for internal procedural reasons, mainly regarding the need to uphold transparency and open competition. The Commission is currently examining the dossier closely in order to find a solution, if possible, at the earliest opportunity. C 46 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1493/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission (11 May 2000)
Subject: Use of ESF for vocational retraining courses in Italy
On 25 May 1999 a trade-union agreement was signed between the Regional Transport Division of the Italian Railways and the National federal trade union secretariats on courses for retraining, technological innovation, company reorganisation and occupational reskilling, co-financed by the European Social Fund and the Ministry of Labour. The programmes under way involve approximately 2 165 employees from all the FGCGs (railway companies for which government trustees have been appointed), at different stages of training. For the purposes of co-funding from the ESF, in selecting the staff that would attend the courses, priority had to be given to the requirements of innovation, reorganisation and vocational retraining and participation had to reflect the various levels of workers in the firms concerned. However, the government trustee for the Circumvesuviana line in the Campania region has applied for and obtained funding exclusively for advanced level courses (management, coordinators, project analysts, supervisory and managerial staff, etc.) neglecting retraining courses for those at a lower level. Participants in the courses have been chosen directly by the company’s management. Eight courses have taken place so far and it is not clear on the basis of what criteria the company applied for funding for the courses concerned.
The Commission: 1. Will it therefore check whether this is the actual position? 2. Will it ascertain whether the criteria applied for selecting participants in the courses are in breach of the rules governing the use of ESF funds? 3. If appropriate, will it establish where responsibility lies for any mismanagement of ESF funds?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2000)
Judging from what the Honourable Member reports, the Commission considers that there have been no irregularities or infringements of Community law. The party who wants to develop certain job skills in a productive sector is the only one responsible for such a choice.
The matter must ultimately be addressed in the context of regional vocational training policy, which lays down criteria for access to Community co-funding.
The Commission has no role to play in this decision-making process, because these areas do not come within the Commission’s remit in managing the structural funds.
That said, the choice of the job categories to be trained seems to be unclear, judging from the information provided by the Honourable Member.
Hence the Commission will request information from the Campania regional authorities.
(2001/C 46 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1508/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(12 May 2000)
Subject: Establishment of Limited Companies in Austria
Does not the Commission believe that the financial and bureaucratic rules governing the establishment of limited companies discriminate against non-Austrians trying to do business in Austria? Will the Com- mission make representations to the Austrian Government seeking the abolition of these barriers to free trade? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/199
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 2000)
The Commission is not currently aware of the precise financial and bureaucratic rules in Austria, mentioned by the Honourable Member, which it is claimed discriminate against non-Austrians trying to do business in Austria.
Consequently, for the time being, there are no grounds for making representations to the Austrian Government.
However, if the Honourable Member is in a position to provide further details of his concerns, the Commission will re-examine the issue.
(2001/C 46 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1517/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission
(12 May 2000)
Subject: Infringements of human rights in Vietnam
On 6 April the Vietnamese Committee on Human Rights informed the Commission of Human rights in Geneva of the measures destructive of human freedoms which had been taken by the Vietnamese Government, for example the prohibition on religious publications, the confiscation and destruction of a book entitled ‘Story of the Year 2000’ by the writer Bui Ngoc Tan describing the detention conditions and the re-education policy in Viet Nam, the passing of a law relating to the press aiming to strengthen State control over some 500 official publications and enabling any person ‘to bring proceedings against newspapers and journalists and have them ordered to pay compensation for the publication of information which might affect them adversely, even if such information is true’. In addition, the Patriarch of the EBUV (Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam), Mr Thich Huyen Quang, has been detained without trial for the last 18 years. Finally, the number of death sentences is on the increase, 194 having been passed in 1999 alone (113 executions in 1996, 150 in 1997 and 170 in 1998). Is the Commission aware of this serious deterioration in the human rights situation in Viet Nam? If so, what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to persuade the Vietnamese authorities to guarantee freedom of opinion and expression in Viet Nam, to release Mr Thich Huyen Quang, to suspend capital punishment and, in general, to begin a genuine democratisation process in Viet Nam?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(9 June 2000)
The Delegation of the Commission in Hanoi, together with the diplomatic missions of the Member States, follows closely matters of concern in the field of human rights and participates fully in all actions to convey the Union concerns to the Vietnamese authorities.
The Commission is aware of the restrictions on publications in Vietnam, although it has not yet been possible to confirm the report on the confiscation and destruction of the book ‘Récit de l’An 2000’. Nor has it been possible to obtain independently verified figures for executions in the year 1999. The maintenance of the Patriarch of the Buddhist Unified Church, Mr Thich Huyen Quang, under ‘house arrest’ is, of course, known to the Commission. It is not all clear, however, that these developments amount to a severe deterioration in the human rights situation in Vietnam.
Observations over the past two years have, in fact, shown some signs of progress. Relations with the Catholic church have improved somewhat. The number of verified political prisoners has been significantly reduced. The Commission will nevertheless continue to monitor developments closely, including the specific issues raised in this question, and will take such action as may be agreed with the Member States to bring these concerns to the attention of the Vietnamese authorities. C 46 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1538/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission
(18 May 2000)
Subject: Nepal
Nepal is a country with a population of over 20 million and rather unstable political institutions, where 600 people already have been killed in the course of an uprising by ‘Maoists’ who have taken control of some regions of the country. Nepal is strongly affected by the presence of its powerful and fundamentally undemocratic neighbour, the People’s Republic of China, and is also one of the poorest countries on Earth.
For these and other reasons, the European Union pays particularly close attention to Nepal. In particular, the Commission supports a large number of projects there, which a Commission representative based in Delhi is responsible for following up.
Could the Commission state the reasons which in this instance do not seem to involve budgetary considerations why the Commission’s representative for Nepal has to be based in New Delhi rather than Katmandu?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(9 June 2000)
The Commission handles its relations with Nepal from its Delegation in New Delhi since that Delegation has regional responsibilities.
The Commission is currently examining its political priorities for the possible opening of new delegations and offices in third countries. Once such priorities are established, it will be a question of allocating the available human and financial resources. A communication will be sent to the Council and Parliament on these matters during the course of this year.
The Commission cannot therefore, at this stage, enter into any undertaking about establishing a presence in Nepal.
(2001/C 46 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1540/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission
(5 May 2000)
Subject: Science and Research Foundation
On 12 November 1999 the Istanbul police arrested 85 members of the Science and Research Foundation. Of these, 35 have been charged by the State Security Court with endangering state security. 28 of them were released after a week in prison in which they were subjected to various forms of torture and forced to sign a confession. Seven persons are still being held: Mr Adnan Oktar, Honorary President of the Foundation, Mr Firat Develioglu, Mr Hasan Basri Guner, Mr Ferhat Terkoglu, Mr Halil Muftuoglu, Mr Timur Ayan and Mr Finre Nil. When they first appeared before the State Security Court on 7 April the President of the Court rejected the State Prosecutor’s plea for them to be released and deferred a decision on this matter until a hearing due to take place on 2 June.
Is the Commission aware of these developments? If so, what initiatives has it taken or does it intend to take to ensure that the persons who have been charged enjoy all the guarantees of a fair trial and are held in acceptable conditions of detention pending trial? Does it intend to be represented at the trial on 2 June? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/201
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(30 May 2000)
The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s Answer to Written Question No E-1020/00 by Mr Manisco (1).
The Commission would add that it intends to follow the trial but does not intend to attend the hearing on 2 June 2000.
(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 144.
(2001/C 46 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1542/00 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission
(10 May 2000)
Subject: Sponsorship for Euro 2000
UEFA has sold the commercial rights for the 2000 European Championship for ca. € 9 million to ISL (International Sports Leisure), a promotional agency, which gives ISL the exclusive right to market Euro 2000. ISL has concluded bilateral agreements with most of the cities in the Netherlands and Belgium which will be hosting matches. This gives the cities the right to use the Euro 2000 logo.
The Dutch Ministry of the Interior estimates that in the Netherlands alone some NGL 59 million additional costs have already been incurred for extra policing, security, public information, extra public transport and judicial measures.
1. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that the cities hosting matches are de facto obliged to deal with ISL for the right to promote their involvement with Euro 2000, while the same cities are making great efforts to take the measures needed to protect public areas, so that the championship can actually take place?
2. Does the Commission believe that the contracts between ISL and the cities in question are in line with European rules on competition?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(6 June 2000)
The sale of sponsorship rights in relation to events such as Euro 2000 is common and does not, in itself, violate European law. Whether it is appropriate for the holder of Euro 2000 sponsorship rights to require payment from Dutch and Belgian city authorities in return for the right to use the Euro 2000 logo, taking into account the latter’s funding of additional security, transport and other initiatives in relation to the event, is a contractual matter to be determined by the parties themselves. As regards the specific terms contained in those agreements, the Commission is unable to take a view as to their compatibility with European competition rules on the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member. C 46 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1560/00 by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(11 May 2000)
Subject: Duty of the Member States to submit reports
Given the entirely unsatisfactory answer to my question concerning the Member States’ current duties to report to the European Union (Written Question P-0222/00 (1)), could the Commission make another attempt at providing an answer, particularly in view of the substantial reporting requirements imposed by the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council?
Otherwise the Commission might create the impression that it has lost track of the reporting requirements imposed on the Member States over the years.
Could the Commission break down the various reporting requirements, indicating the relevant legal provisions, policy fields and legal bases and the frequency with which reports should be submitted?
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 201.
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(13 June 2000)
As the Commission has already indicated in its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-0222/00 (1), the compiling of a list of Member States’ reporting obligations, specifying the legal provision, policy field, legal basis and required frequency, would necessitate lengthy and costly research which the Commission does not intend to carry out at the moment, as it has other priorities. Research of this type should in fact be carried out within all the Directorates-General or departments which are responsible for Community legislation or programmes and monitor the Member States’ reporting obliga- tions in their respective fields. Thus there is no question of the Commission having lost track of these obligations.
(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 201.
(2001/C 46 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(18 May 2000)
Subject: Amendment of the Bosman ruling
Can the Commission suggest, were the Bosman ruling to be amended, how it would propose to deal with the issue of grandfather rights for registered footballers from foreign countries already in the EU? Would the transitional period be longer than 20 years? Or would the Commission attempt to buy out such rights and, if so, what level of compensation would be paid, and what would be the estimated total cost? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/203
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2000)
The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that its position on the Bosman ruling (1) was set out in the Helsinki Report on sport (2). The Commission draws to the attention of the Honourable Member that the Bosman judgement was confirmed recently by the Court in the Lehtonen case on 13 April 2000. It is therefore very unlikely that it will be amended in the foreseeable future.
(1) Case C-415/93 ECR 1995, p. I-4921. (2) Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework COM(1999) 644 final.
(2001/C 46 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1577/00 by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission
(19 May 2000)
Subject: Pensions for part-time lecturers in the UK
More than five years ago, on 28 September 1994, the European Court of Justice ruled that hourly-paid part-time lecturers were entitled to have their service as lecturers after 8 April 1976 regarded as pensionable.
Despite the considerable passage of time since the ruling, successive governments in the United Kingdom have not ensured that eligible persons are being paid their due pensions. Some eligible pensioners even suspect that the Treasury in London is deliberately dragging its feet in order to save money as their numbers dwindle through death.
Will the Commission urge the British Government to comply, albeit belatedly with the law, in order to provide both justice and pensions to its deserving citizens?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(26 June 2000)
According to the case law of the Court of justice (Barber judgement (1) and subsequent judgements (2)), the exclusion of part-time workers from access to such schemes could constitute indirect discrimination, contrary to Article 141 (ex Article 119) of the EC Treaty, if the exclusion affects a much greater number of women than men, unless the employer shows that it might be explained by objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on the grounds of sex.
By its recent judgement of 16 May 2000 in case C-78/98 Preston, Fletcher and others (3), the Court confirms its previous case law, that the right of part-time workers to join an occupational pension scheme does not fall within the time limits of the Barber judgement and Protocol No 2 to Article 141 of the EC Treaty (Barber Protocol). Part-time workers could claim a retroactive affiliation to an occupational pension as of 8 April 1976 (date of direct effect of Article 141 of the EC Treaty). However, this retroactive affiliation is subject to the time limits under domestic law for presentation of a claim and one would have to pay contributions retroactively to the pension scheme in question.
According to settled case-law, in the absence of relevant Community rules, it is for the national legal order of each Member State to designate the competent courts and to lay down the procedural rules for proceedings designed to ensure the protection of the rights which individuals acquire through the direct effect of Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and are not framed in such a way as to render impossible, in practice, the exercise of rights conferred by Community law. C 46 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (4) came into force on 1 July 1997 in order to put Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 (5) in conformity with primary law, i.e. Article 141 of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of justice. Member States should take implementing measures retroactively with effect from 17 May 1990 (date of the Barber judgement) for the above-mentioned right of part-time workers to join an occupational pension scheme as from 8 April 1976. The United Kingdom has already taken implementing measures and has fulfilled its obligations under Article 141 of the EC Treaty and Directive 96/97/EC. Therefore, it is advisable for part- time lecturers to adress any question on this issue to the national authorities.
(1) ECR 1990 I-1889. (2) Cases C-57/93 Vroege ECR 1994 I-4541; C-128/93 Fisscher ECR 1994 I-4583; C-246/96 Magorrian ECR 1997 I-7153. (3) ECR. (4) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997. (5) OJ L 225, 12.8.1986.
(2001/C 46 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1582/00 by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission
(12 May 2000)
Subject: Use of consumer association funds
With reference to the projects submitted by consumer associations in 1998, 1999 and the first quarter of 2000, will the Commission say:
how many projects are receiving funding, what is their purpose, what funds were requested and what funds were allocated?
how many projects were rejected, what funds were requested and why were they rejected?
what are the expenditure margins available to Commission officials, in total and for individual projects?
what measures have been directly funded by Commission officials? What was their purpose and what amounts were allocated?
what measures have been rejected by Commission officials? What was their purpose and what amounts were requested?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(23 June 2000)
Decision 283/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999 establishes the general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers for the period 1 January 1999 to 31 Decem- ber 2003 with a total financial envelope of € 112,5 million. The activities consist of actions taken by the Commission, financial support for the activities of European consumer organisations, as well as individual projects presented by consumer organisations and appropriate independent public bodies.
The conditions for granting financial support are laid down in the Decision. In defining the conditions and criteria for funding and in selecting the activities and projects the Commission is assisted by an advisory committee of representatives of the Member States. Decision 283/1999/EC stipulates that the financial support may not, in principle, exceed 50 % of the expenditure involved in implementing the project(s). 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/205
The themes of the calls for the period 1998, 1999 and 2000 have followed the Commission’s priorities. The theme of the call for 1999 was training. Since the entry into force of Decision 283/1999/EC the consumer policy action programme for 1999 to 2001 supplies the logical reference for themes and targets of the call. The approach of funding fewer but larger projects is in line with the Commission’s overall approach on subsidies.
In 1998, the Commission received 378 applications for financial support amounting to € 34,81 million (including the support requested by European consumer organisations). It was decided to finance 63 projects, of which four were support for the annual activities of European consumer organisations. The support was € 6;06 million for individual projects and € 1,19 million for the activities of European consumer organisations.
In 1999, the Commission received 210 applications for financial support amounting to € 19,82 million. (including the support requested by European consumer organisations). It was decided to finance 53 projects, of which four were support for the annual activities of European consumer organisations. The total amount of support was € 4,54 million for individual projects and € 1,42 million for the activities of European consumer organisations.
In 2000, the Commission received 178 applications for financial support amounting to € 16,24 million. (including the support requested by European consumer organisations). It was decided to finance 41 projects, of which five were support for the annual activities of European consumer organisations. The support was € 4,68 million for individual projects and € 1,60 million for the activities of European consumer organisations.
Further information on consumer protection issues and funding granted for the period 1998-2000 is available on the Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/general_info/budget_en.html.
Due to the sheer volume, the 600 files rejected during the period 1999 to 2000 for not fulfilling the conditions and criteria can not be displayed.
Additional information on financial support for the period 1998, 1999 and 2000 is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
(2001/C 46 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission
(19 May 2000)
Subject: European City of Culture
What criteria are applied in the selection of the European City of Culture for 2008? Is the Commission aware that a number of cities are joining together to form regional bids? Is this permissible under current criteria? If not, why not?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(4 July 2000)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question P-1581/00 (1)
(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 169. C 46 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1601/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(29 May 2000)
Subject: Inaugural meeting of the Interparliamentary Association for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
The Interparliamentary Association for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries held a meeting in South Korea, from 22 to 24 February 2000, at which it examined those areas in relation to the WTO. It appears that the EU was represented only by a Commission expert, and that no MEPs were present, although the nature of the reunion would have made their presence desirable.
Can the Commission state whether:
1. it was invited to take part in this meeting;
2. if so and in view of the meeting’s importance, it does not believe it should have ensured its participation in it at the highest level, with the presence of a Commissioner?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(11 July 2000)
No.
(2001/C 46 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1604/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(16 May 2000)
Subject: Anti-competitive conduct of Motorola
Following the complaints by my constituents Wordsworth Technology Ltd. concerning the anti- competitive conduct of Motorola, would the Commission please confirm that it is actively investigating this case and indicate any conclusions that it has so far reached? Can it give some indication of whether it expects to take action or not and, if so, when?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 2000)
The Commission can confirm that, on 8 January 1999, Wordsworth Technology Ltd lodged a complaint against Motorola Computer Group under Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17/62: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 (ex-Articles 89 and 90) of the EC Treaty (1). The Commission is actively investigating the case.
The Honourable Member will understand that the Commission cannot discuss the application of general rules of competition law in individual cases with anyone apart from the parties involved as long as investigations are under way. The Commission expects to reach its provisional conclusions in the coming weeks.
(1) OJ 13, 21.2.1962. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/207
(2001/C 46 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1613/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission
(29 May 2000)
Subject: Unstable situation of AT3 staff at the JRC in Ispra
Temporary staff on three-year contracts with the JRC in Ispra have organised a trade union campaign designed to persuade the Centre’s management to renew their contracts. The JRC’s new policy for research staff provides for flexibility in the management of short-term projects and staff on three-year contracts account for 25 % of total staff and may not be re-employed on expiry of their contracts, but are replaced by new staff instead.
1. Is this constant three-year turnover of staff a rational policy?
2. Surely the failure to renew the contracts of staff who have proved to be excellent during their term of employment, replacing them with new staff who do not have the work experience acquired by AT3 staff, represents a senseless waste of resources?
3. Is it one of the objectives of the new research staff policy to introduce permanent instability for employees?
4. Would it not be more appropriate, in the interests of research and of the Centre carrying it out, to devise new selection procedures instead of the automatic turnover system, so as on the one hand to ensure continuity in research activities, especially in the case of single projects, and, on the other, end the system where staff are automatically replaced at the end of their contracts?
5. What are the Commission’s views on this matter?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(10 July 2000)
The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answers to Written Questions P-0692/00 from Mr Speroni (1) and P-1734/00 from Mr Di Pietro (2).
(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 206. (2) See page 212.
(2001/C 46 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1622/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission
(16 May 2000)
Subject: Error in authorising medical device
There are two manufacturers on the world market of products which enable cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy to retain their hair, these being the Danish-Swedish firm Dignitana and the UK’s Paxman.
Permission to sell medical equipment within the EU is subject to a special authorisation procedure. The higher the health risk, the more stringent the criteria for tests, documentation and safety measures.
Paxman’s product is registered in the lowest class 1, whereas Dignitana’s product is registered in class 2a. This means that there are significantly fewer criteria for the authorisation of Paxman’s product. The UK’s Medical Devices Agency has acknowledged that Paxman’s product has been wrongly classified but Paxman has, nevertheless, been able to continue producing and selling its product in the EU. C 46 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
What is the Commission’s position on the erroneous classification of medical products? Does the Commission consider that erroneous classification of medical products causes distortion of competition? Should identical products not be placed in the same class? Which consideration weighed more heavily in the balance the free movement of goods or patient safety? Does the Commission believe that the wrongly classified product should be withdrawn from the market until it has undergone a correct authorisation procedure?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(16 June 2000)
Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (1) provides criteria for the classification of medical devices, which have been developed so as to ensure a high level of health protection. However, difficulties of interpretation do arise. The Commission is fully aware of the importance of a correct classification of devices to ensure safety, loyal competition and free movement of goods. Various mechanisms exist to solve problems of classification.
In case of a dispute between the manufacturer and the notified body, the matter will be referred to the national authority. In addition, guidelines for classification have been agreed between the Commission, Member States’ authorities, notified bodies, the industry and other interested parties. These are updated whenever necessary. Notified bodies meet on a regular basis and discuss questions of classification. Furthermore, the Commission organises on a regular basis classification meetings with all interested parties, where common approaches on specific devices are consensually defined. As regards devices that nevertheless have been wrongly classified, the Directive foresees that Member States will oblige the manufacturer (or his representative) to correct the classification (including conformity assessment proce- dures and labelling) or, otherwise, to restrict, prohibit the device and to withdraw it from the market.
With reference to the particular case raised by the Honourable Member, a manufacturer who considers that he suffers from a erroneous classification, should address a request for intervention to the national authority.
(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.
(2001/C 46 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1623/00 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission
(16 May 2000)
Subject: Workforce of Tonno Nostromo in Vibo Valentia
Is the Commission aware of the threat to jobs at the Porto Salvo factory of Tonno Nostromo (Calvo Group), a company which for years has been involved in, and has accounted for, a substantial market share in a region with very high unemployment, and which is now claiming that the returns on processing the same product are higher in Spain than in Italy.
In particular, Tonno Nostromo’s workers have drawn up a conversion plan for setting up a tuna canning centre in Calabria, while the trade unions have stated that they are willing to discuss the flexibility and equipment needed to organise such work more efficiently.
Will the Commission state whether it is considering intervening to help speed up this industrial conversion process? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/209
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2000)
The Commission is not empowered to intervene directly in industrial restructuring plans such as those referred to by the Honourable Member.
The Commission would recall that Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) and the national provisions transpos- ing it into Italian law may be applicable to the case in question.
Besides, in accordance with Article 16(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (2), Member States may grant compensation, part-funded by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), to the fish processing industry for temporary cessation of their activity. It is for the authority responsible for managing the structural programme concerned to decide whether or not to grant the compensation in question, in compliance with the abovementioned rules.
(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998. (2) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
(2001/C 46 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1663/00 by Jas Gawronski (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 May 2000)
Subject: Information campaign on enlargement of the Union
Many official statements by Members of the Commission indicate that one of the most serious threats to enlargement of the Union comes from public opinion in the Member States and candidate countries concerning this change.
If the fear of enlargement is so great, why has the Commission decided to allocate only € 150 million to an information campaign for 28 countries over seven years (€ 765 306 a year per country)?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(9 June 2000)
The Commission is aware that information is crucial to the success of the enlargement process. However, it has no desire to usurp the role of the Member States and candidate countries in informing domestic public opinion. The Commission intends to act as a complementary catalyst, creating synergies on the ground. The Commission’s strategy is to supply information to target groups which can have a multiplier effect.
The total amount provided for, to which the honourable member refers, is an estimate, which the Commission considers sufficient at this stage. The amount is comparable to that spent on similar campaigns, previous and current, such as the campaign in favour of the Euro.
Moreover, because these are decentralised campaigns in the candidate countries, the financial resources take into account the availability of appropriations allocated by the budgetary authority in the ‘Expenditure on administrative management’ part of the relevant budget lines. For expenditure in the Member States and in Brussels, the appropriations available are limited by allocations to specific budget lines, such as the line for the Prince public information programme, approved by the budgetary authority. C 46 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1672/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(29 May 2000)
Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers
Further to Ms Schreyer’s answer to my Written Question No E-0505/00 (1), will the Commission indicate the total amount of money paid out in 1999 to which the proportion paid within the 60-day period refers?
(1) See page 10.
Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(13 July 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2001/C 46 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1712/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(29 May 2000)
Subject: ESF Projects and time-scales
A Gloucester-based project in the UK called ‘Childcare for all’ has been funded by the ESF. During the course of the project, the Childcare Networker raised concerns about the limited time scale imposed by the European Social Fund, stating that, in her opinion, this limit made it almost impossible to carry out the appropriate networking and team building with related projects and organisations that is necessary to ensure the success of the project.
Will the Commission indicate if it is likely to consider allowing the European Social Fund to continue to provide aid over a longer period of time than is the case at present?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(23 June 2000)
The Commission and the national authorities in the United Kingdom are aware that the limited duration of European Social Fund (ESF) co-funded projects may have caused some constraints during the programming period 1994-1999.
The responsibility for fixing the detailed rules for the implementation of the ESF within a Member State lies with the managing authority of the programme. The programming documents adopted by the Commission do not contain information on, for example, the duration of projects. In these circumstances, the Commission cannot intervene in this matter. However, the Commission has encouraged the Depart- ment for education and employment (DfEE) to pursue the objective of adapting current practices.
The DfEE and regional government offices are currently preparing specific implementing provisions as well as guidance and application forms for project promoters. In the course of this process, it has been agreed that for the ESF in England the project duration will be up to two years as a general rule and three years in exceptional cases. These provisions should help to ensure that future ESF co-funded projects are better planned and carried out more effectively. 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/211
(2001/C 46 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1720/00 by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission
(20 May 2000)
Subject: IGC
In his speech at Humboldt University on 12 May, the German Foreign Minister suggested that the European Commission might be replaced by the European Council as the executive of the Union.
He also said that ‘enhanced cooperation means nothing more than increased intergovernmentalisation.’
Does the Commission agree with Mr Fischer on either of these points?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(21 June 2000)
The Commission welcomed in a first reaction the direction in which the speech declared as a private statement by Mr Fischer is oriented. It remains however the Commission’s steady line not to comment on isolated points taken out of their context.
(2001/C 46 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1731/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(31 May 2000)
Subject: Commission linguistic policy and the safeguard and promotion of minority and regional languages
The conference of the Education Ministers from the 15 EU Member States, the three European Economic Area (EEA) countries and the 13 applicant states hosted by the Portuguese presidency in Lisbon on 17 and 18 March marked the launch of the new phases of the Community education, training and youth programmes (Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth) for the period 2000-2006.
Given the enormous success of initiatives under the Lingua programme (a sub-programme of Socrates aimed at promoting language teaching and learning), which were partially included as horizontal measures in the previous phase of the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes (1995-1999), can the Commission confirm whether in the new period 2000-2006, measures connected with language teaching and learning under the Lingua or any other programme will be wholly or partly included as horizontal measures in the EU’s education, training and youth programmes? What is the total amount of funding the Commission plans to set aside for these purposes?
Could the Commission state whether these initiatives in the field of language learning and teaching also apply to minority and regional languages, and, if so, the percentage concerned?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2000)
The Lingua actions of the Socrates programme aimed to promote a qualitative and quantitative improve- ment in the teaching and learning of the official languages of the Community as foreign languages.
(a) Since 1991, almost € 22 million has been invested in multinational projects between teacher-training establishments, which aim to improve the quality of language teacher training by sharing best practice and innovation. C 46 E/212 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(b) Between 1995 and 1999, individual in-service training grants totalling € 39 million have helped 34 600 teachers of a foreign language to improve their skills. This is in addition to the 19 000 teachers who benefited between 1990 and 1994.
(c) Between 1995 and 1999 over 2 800 future foreign language teachers received a bursary enabling them to spend up to eight months teaching their mother tongue in a school abroad, as part of the Lingua assistantship scheme.
(d) Support has been given to the development of innovative language teaching methods and learning tools, and the development of instruments for the assessment of language skills.
(e) Each year, grants have enabled about 30 000 young people to improve their foreign language skills by working with counterparts in a school abroad on a project related to their education and training; they have then travelled abroad to work with them face-to-face, and spend time in their families, thereby making practical use of their new foreign language skills.
The Commission is pleased to confirm that the actions referred to under (a) (b), (c), and (e) above will continue in the second phase of the Socrates programme, within the Comenius action, whose objectives now include the promotion of language teaching and learning. The actions referred to under (d) above will continue under the new Lingua action, which will also contain new measures to raise public awareness about the importance of language learning, improve citizens’ access to language learning opportunities, and share information on best practice and innovation in the field.
The promotion of language teaching and learning in the field of vocational training continues to be a priority in the Leonardo Da Vinci programme.
The Socrates decision lists as target languages the 11 ‘official’ languages of the Community, plus Irish and Letzebuergisch. The national languages of the European economic area (EEA) countries Norwegian and Icelandic and the national languages of the newly participating countries are also eligible. Regional and minority languages are not eligible to be target languages under the Socrates programme.
The Leonardo Da Vinci programme does not identify target languages.
(2001/C 46 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1734/00 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission
(20 May 2000)
Subject: The Ispra Joint Research Centre’s new research staff policy
The new research staff policy, which is also applied at the Ispra JRC, has made it possible to introduce more flexible arrangements for the employment of specialist staff (in those sectors in which the Commission does not have reserve lists) by offering fixed-term contracts to enable temporary staff to occupy permanent posts for a maximum of three years.
As this system applies to 25 % of the entire establishment plan, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the termination of the contracts in question inevitably slows down the progress of ongoing research projects, while the replacement of the staff concerned incurs considerable administrative costs (e.g. in terms of the preparation of notices of competition, the carrying out of recruitment procedures, the training of new temporary staff, and the unemployment benefits payable for two years to staff who are unemployed).
This being so, has the Commission carried out a cost/benefit analysis of the new staff policy? Has it compared the costs involved in replacing the staff concerned with the cost of extending their contracts for an indefinite period? If so, what were its findings? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/213
If the Commission introduced this policy to ensure that its staff management was more rational and more closely tailored to the tasks to be accomplished, why are the fixed-term contracts in question not designed to coincide with the duration of the specific projects involved?
Does the Commission not agree that the new research staff policy limits the application of the principle that the Commission should make the best and most effective use of the scarce personnel resources at its disposal, which lies at the heart of the administrative reforms sought by Mr Prodi?
Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission
(27 June 2000)
The contracts referred to by the Honourable Member cover temporary staff for a maximum fixed term of three years, as provided for by the new staff policy arising from the research budget (NPPR) adopted by the Commission in 1996. Their purpose was to enable a certain amount of flexibility to be achieved in managing specialist human resources, more particularly in the areas in which the Commission does not have any recruitment pool. Their number may not exceed 25 % of the research payroll.
It should be stressed that these contracts are not intended to extend throughout a framework programme nor even a particular project. They constitute an additional form of recruitment to that applying to other research-budget temporary staff which, as stressed by the Honourable Member, meets a management requirement that is more targeted on part of the research staff.
Since these contracts are for a fixed term and restricted to three years the applicant selection procedure is carried out by the departments on the basis of permanent applicant database fed via a call for applications accompanied by extensive publicity in the European, and specialist, press.
The other temporary staff, representing the stable core of the NPPR, receive an initial five-year contract, which can be renewed once for the same duration and, subsequently, for an indeterminate period. These staff members are selected from the recruitment list drawn up in the wake of a selection process containing tests comparable to those used in the Commission’s general competitions.
On the basis of the above and in view of the obligations under the staff rules which the Commission must meet in order to organise competitions, it would seem that there is no basis for carrying out a cost/benefit analysis.
Finally, the three-year fixed-term staff are informed from the outset that the duration of their contract is strictly limited. If they wish to make a career within the Commission they of course have the option of taking competitions or submitting to selection procedures under the same conditions as the other applicants.
The Commission feels that the NPPR, and in particular the three-year contracts enabling staff to be recruited very quickly in highly specialised areas where there are no waiting lists for recruitment is perfectly in line with the implementation of the principles of efficiency and optimum use of resources which is one of the cornerstones of the reform policy.
(2001/C 46 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1788/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(8 June 2000)
Subject: Asturian Rural Accommodation Network
At a meeting recently held by the Spanish Rural Tourism Association, attention was once again drawn to the importance which has been acquired, in the Community tourism sector, by the activities of those who promote this type of tourism in rural areas of the Community. C 46 E/214 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
In this connection the activities pursued by the Asturian Rural Accommodation Network may be highlighted. This body operates in one of the most scenically attractive regions of the Community and the direct technical assistance which it provides to new promoters of rural tourism in Asturias has led to the creation of many direct jobs in the region and approximately half as many indirect jobs.
What Community aid has been provided for the development of the Asturian Rural Accommodation Network and to what extent, and in what way, can the promoters of this type of rural tourism in Asturias gain access to the Community aid available to the sector?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 July 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2001/C 46 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1828/00 by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission (31 May 2000)
Subject: Social security coordination at European level
Two European citizens who are resident in France and, pursuant to Community provisions on social security, respectively in receipt of a Belgian pension from the Belgian Pensions Agency and a pension from the Aquitaine Regional Health Insurance Fund (Caisse Régionale d’Assurance Maladie Aquitaine) on the one hand and of a Spanish pension and a pension from the Aquitaine Regional Health Insurance Fund on the other, had been initially informed that the Aquitaine Regional Health Insurance Fund would assume the cost of a home help.
A ministerial circular of 22 April 1999 stated that the National Old Age Pension Fund (Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Vieillesse) was not liable to pay out unless the greater number of quarterly social security contributions had been paid into the general scheme.
In view of this circular, the Aquitaine Regional Health Insurance Fund said that it would not bear the cost of a home help for the two pensioners.
In the case of the two pensioners in question, the majority of quarterly contributions were made to the Belgian and to the Spanish social security systems respectively, neither of which will bear such costs other than for pensioners resident in their countries.
Is the circular of 22 April 1999 in keeping with current Community law provisions on social security and, consequently, is the refusal to bear the cost referred to above legal in view of such provisions?
What rights do these two people have as regards home help and with regard to which national authorities?
Should it become apparent that there are no Community provisions to deal with such a situation and identify which authority is responsible for the provision of such benefits, does the Commission intend to complement Community legislation as soon as possible in order to guarantee a high level of old age benefits to all Community citizens in such situations no matter where they have chosen to reside within the European Union?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (28 June 2000)
The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that a similar question was posed to the Court of Justice, which had to examine whether the benefits of the new ‘long-term care insurance’ scheme, introduced on 1 January 1995 by the German legislator, constitute sickness benefits within the meaning of 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/215
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). In its judgement of 5 March 1998 in case C-160/96 Molenaar (2), the Court analysed the different types of German long-term care insurance benefits and stated that they could be classified as either benefits in kind or cash benefits from the health insurance scheme within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
In the opinion of the Court ‘the long-term care insurance benefits partly consist of bearing or reimbursing the costs incurred by the state of dependence of the person concerned, particularly as regards medical costs. Such benefits, which are intended to cover the cost of care provided to the insured person either at home or in a special establishment, the cost of equipment and the work carried out, are defined as benefits in kind which are covered within the meaning of the Regulation’ (point 32 of the judgement).
However, the Court considered that the care allowance, which is seen as ‘financial support which enables the overall improvement of the standard of living of the dependent person by reimbursing the extra costs incurred by the state in which the dependent person is residing’, is classified as a ‘cash benefit’ within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (points 35 and 36 of the judgement).
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which coordinates but does not harmonise the different national social security systems, lays down rules which aim to determine the legislation to be applied, particularly with regard to sickness benefits, according to the category of persons (persons in employment, pensioners, unemployed persons).
With this in mind, the Commission called on the national authorities to submit their legislation on home help in order to enable it to examine whether this legislation applies to ‘sickness benefits within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71’ and, if appropriate, to take the necessary measures to ensure conformity with Community law.
(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971 (last consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97 OJ L 28, 30.1.1997. (2) ECR 1998. p. I-843.
(2001/C 46 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1903/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 June 2000)
Subject: The Adnan Oktar case
Science Research Foundation (SRF) is a non-governmental organisation which was established under Laws 743 and 903 and has been active in Istanbul since 1990. Adnan Oktar is the Honorary President of the SRF. With 90 other persons, he was arrested on 12 November 1999, and he is still in prison awaiting the end of the trial. A big police operation was carried out at around 3 a.m. in 48 different houses, as a result of which all these people were taken into custody, including Mr Adnan Oktar. On the basis of our information, there were several human rights violations during this police operation, as well as the use of violence during the arrest and afterwards. The police allege that the NGO is a criminal organisation. In the past, two other accusations had been made against Mr Adnan Oktar, but he had been cleared both times. The trial of Mr Oktar is under way. During the first hearing on 7 April 2000, the public prosecutor called for the detained SRF members to be released by the public prosecutor because not a single shred of evidence was found. The second hearing will be on 2 June 2000.
Given that Turkey is an applicant country, I should like to know if the Commission is aware of this case and, if it considers that this constitutes a human rights violation, what measures it intends taking to prevent the recurrence of such events? C 46 E/216 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
(7 July 2000)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1020/00 by Mr Manisco (1)
(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 144.
(2001/C 46 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1904/00 by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(16 June 2000)
Subject: EC Phare programme tender li 9701.01.04.02
Understanding that bids for contracts under this programme can only be accepted for full lots and that all the equipment must be of EC or Phare programme country of origin, can the Commission please advise who won the contracts under this tender, lot by lot, and what equipment (make and model) was included in the successful bids?
Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission
(3 July 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2001/C 46 E/261) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2011/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(21 June 2000)
Subject: Tax payable on entering Greek waters
According to a report in the 21/2000 edition of the German magazine ‘Der Spiegel’, the Greek Government is introducing a tax on foreigners, including EU citizens, entering Greek waters in private yachts, a tax which does not exist anywhere else in Europe. For example, yachts longer than 7 metres must pay a special tax amounting to the equivalent of DEM 12 per metre. Anyone wanting to cruise Greek waters for longer than 30 days must pay a second levy of the same amount.
The Commission:
does it feel that this new Greek entry tax is in conformity with EU law?
does this [Greek] legislation breach [Community] legislation prohibiting discrimination?
what measures does the Commission intend to take to against this legislation before the summer holiday season starts? 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/217
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (18 July 2000)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1062/00 by Mr von Wogau (1).
(1) OJ C 26 E 26.1.2001, p. 150.
(2001/C 46 E/262) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (21 June 2000)
Subject: Direct aid to the farming sector
José Manuel Silva, the Commissioner Director-General of Agriculture and Rural Development recently took part in the presentation of a university study claiming that Galician agricultural productivity is a mere 16 % of the European average. In statements reported in the Galician press, Mr Silva said that the Galician agricultural sector ‘does not receive large quantities of direct aid, because its basic products, namely milk and meat, are subject to a market system rather than subsidy arrangements’. What perverse mechanism is therefore responsible for the fact that Community subsidies, especially via the EAGGF guarantee, particularly benefit the richest areas and farming communities, to the detriment of others which, like Galicia, are perfectly capable of developing a multi-purpose agriculture really based on the land?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 July 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2001/C 46 E/263) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2193/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission (3 July 2000)
Subject: Revision of the Programme of specific options to the remote and insular nature of the Canary Islands (Poseican) and the drawing up of permanent statute for the ultra-peripheral regions of the European Union
With regard to the Council decision establishing a programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of the Canary Islands (Poseican), what is the current state of affairs as regards the reform of the programme and what measures are being taken in respect of the report adopted by the Commission concerning the application of Article 299 (2) of the EC Treaty with a view to establishing a permanent statute for the ultra-peripheral regions and the budgetary implications thereof?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (11 July 2000)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-0468/00 during question time at Parliament’s May 2000 part-session (1).
(1) Debates of the European Parliament (May 2000). C 46 E/218 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/264) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2237/00 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission
(29 June 2000)
Subject: Banana import fraud
Forged import licences for bananas have been in circulation in the European Union for almost a year. 164 000 tonnes of bananas produced in third countries have entered European territory illegally in this way. The operators involved pay a duty of € 75 instead of the € 750 per tonne that they would have had to pay as importers of non-quota bananas.
The fall in prices registered in recent months, which is extremely damaging to many producers in extremely remote areas, may therefore be due to the unscrupulous attitude of some operators.
What measures does the Commission intend to take, and how soon, to repair the damage suffered by these producers?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(13 July 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2001/C 46 E/265) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2264/00 by Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission
(29 June 2000)
Subject: Right to market table grapes included, and approved for cultivation, in the catalogue of national varieties in Italy in accordance with Community rules
A number of producers of seedless grapes in southern Italy, and particularly producers of the Sugraone variety (which has been duly entered and approved for cultivation in the catalogue of national varieties in Italy) are concerned by the behaviour of certain Community importers who refuse to purchase Sugraone grapes unless the producer can prove he has paid production royalties to an American company that claims to have patent rights to the variety in question (although under a different name) that also apply when the product is marketed.
Could the Commission answer the following questions, with a view to preventing unfair charges and distortions of the internal market:
1. Can producers lawfully and freely market Sugraone grapes, without being subject to any restrictions by potential Community purchasers in terms of proving that they have paid production royalties?
2. Does the obligation to pay royalties at the production and marketing stage (and the requirement for purchasers to check that such royalties have been paid) apply solely to the marketing of varieties of table grapes that have been patented and have registered names and trademarks, or do such 13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/219
obligations also apply to producers marketing named varieties of table grapes, such as Sugraone grapes, which are included, and approved for cultivation, in the catalogue of national varieties in Italy in accordance with Community rules?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(13 July 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(2001/C 46 E/266) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2319/00 by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission
(30 June 2000)
Subject: Civil protection and combatting fires caused by storms
The storms which occurred in December 1999 are continuing to have an impact, as European forests affected by the storms are threatened with the risk of fire. Outbreaks of fires have already been recorded in some forests.
Preventing disasters means improving fire safety.
1. Does the Commission not consider that the prevention of fires resulting from the effects of the storms comes within the scope of the Community programme in the field of civil protection established by the Council decision of 9 December 1999?
2. How does the Commission apply the precautionary principle which is the subject of its communica- tion of 2 February 2000 to the prevention of fires resulting from the storms?
3. Could the Commission say whether an assessment of the risk of fires resulting from the storms has been carried out at Community level?
4. What measures have been co-financed under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 (1) which provides for a Community scheme for the protection of forests against fire aimed at:
identifying the causes of forest fires;
identifying the means of combatting them?
5. What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to improve the system for monitoring forests following natural or technological disasters?
(1) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(13 July 2000)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. C 46 E/220 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.2001
(2001/C 46 E/267) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2321/00 by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission (30 June 2000) Subject: European funding How much money has been paid from European Union funds to the benefit of projects in the County of Hampshire, the City of Southampton, the City of Portsmouth and the County of the Isle of Wight over the last four years giving a breakdown by fund, project, year and area?
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (11 July 2000) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.