Official Journal C 330 E Volume 43 of the European Communities 21 November 2000

Home , Georg Jarzembowski, Joachim Wuermeling, Road signs in Italy

ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 330 E Volume 43 of the European Communities 21 November 2000

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2000/C 330 E/001) E-0466/99 by Georg Jarzembowski to the Commission Subject: Abandoned building project for a further training centre in Agios Dimitrios, Pelion, Greece (Supplementary Answer) ...... 1

(2000/C 330 E/002) E-1482/99 by Lucio Manisco to the Commission Subject: The case of the Commission official Paul van Buitenen ...... 2

(2000/C 330 E/003) P-1890/99 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea to the Commission Subject: Facilities to be built close to Castel del Monte (Supplementary Answer) ...... 3

(2000/C 330 E/004) E-1962/99 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Efficiency of award and monitoring mechanisms for the funding of projects ...... 4

(2000/C 330 E/005) E-2065/99 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Proposal to amend the directive on honey intended for human consumption ...... 5

(2000/C 330 E/006) E-2075/99 by Agnes Schierhuber to the Commission Subject: Liberalisation in the context of the WTO negotiations (Supplementary Answer) ...... 7

(2000/C 330 E/007) E-2136/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Translation of harmonised standards pursuant to the lifts directive into the eleven official languages of the EU ...... 8

(2000/C 330 E/008) E-2361/99 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Council Directive 96/29/Euratom ...... 9

(2000/C 330 E/009) E-2399/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Cleaning up the legacy of asbestos pollution in the European Union ...... 10

(2000/C 330 E/010) P-2451/99 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: Overlapping of meetings of the Commission and of the European Parliament ...... 11 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/011) E-2486/99 by Joachim Wuermeling and Maria Berger to the Commission Subject: Enlargement to the East Günter Verheugen’s announcement of an instrument to promote border regions 12 (2000/C 330 E/012) E-2491/99 by Pere Esteve to the Commission Subject: Diversion of watercourses in Europe ...... 13 (2000/C 330 E/013) E-2503/99 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Minimum standards for the protection of laying hens ...... 14 (2000/C 330 E/014) E-2504/99 by Astrid Thors to the Commission Subject: New toxic substances harmful to the environment discovered in food ...... 15 (2000/C 330 E/015) E-2510/99 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Lack of Community law on efficient, sustainable use of water resources, as highlighted by the case of the Terra Mítica theme park in the Valencia region of Spain ...... 16 (2000/C 330 E/016) E-2531/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Foundation of a centre for the promotion of classical studies and the teaching of ancient Greek and Latin at educational institutions (Supplementary Answer) ...... 17 (2000/C 330 E/017) E-2536/99 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Status of the teaching of Finnish in the EU institutions ...... 18 (2000/C 330 E/018) E-2538/99 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Milk quota exceeded in the Azores Autonomous region of Portugal ...... 19 (2000/C 330 E/019) P-2541/99 by Mario Mantovani to the Commission Subject: Fixing of prices of pharmaceutical products in Italy ...... 20 (2000/C 330 E/020) E-2555/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Rail travel standards ...... 20 (2000/C 330 E/021) E-2557/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Waste recycling ...... 21 (2000/C 330 E/022) E-2558/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Waste recycling incentives ...... 21

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2557/99 and E-2558/99 ...... 21 (2000/C 330 E/023) E-2559/99 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Shipping flags ...... 22 (2000/C 330 E/024) E-2572/99 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: Air fares in the EU ...... 23 (2000/C 330 E/025) E-2585/99 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Data on nuclear pollution of oceans ...... 24 (2000/C 330 E/026) E-2586/99 by Marialiese Flemming to the Commission Subject: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ...... 25 (2000/C 330 E/027) E-2594/99 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Ridham Dock incinerator ...... 25 (2000/C 330 E/028) E-2611/99 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: Use of courier services in the Commission ...... 26 (2000/C 330 E/029) E-2617/99 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Environmental effects of growth in UK sheep numbers ...... 27 (2000/C 330 E/030) E-2623/99 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: The state of the development of the Lyon-Turin-Milan-Verona-Venice-Trieste ...... 27 (2000/C 330 E/031) E-2626/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: New ATAC programme and increased pollution in Rome ...... 28 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/032) E-2636/99 by Hans-Peter Mayer to the Commission Subject: Renewable energy sources the Commission’s intentions ...... 30 (2000/C 330 E/033) E-2639/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Commission proposals on the COM in cotton ...... 31 (2000/C 330 E/034) E-2641/99 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: Health and safety in the buildings of the European Institutions ...... 32 (2000/C 330 E/035) E-2643/99 by Andrew Duff to the Commission Subject: Rules and regulations for inspection of abattoirs in the United Kingdom ...... 33 (2000/C 330 E/036) E-2644/99 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: URBAN programme ...... 34 (2000/C 330 E/037) E-2646/99 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission Subject: Val del Cerfone E78-E45 road link ...... 34 (2000/C 330 E/038) E-2650/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Noise pollution in via Peccioli/via Chiusi ...... 35 (2000/C 330 E/039) E-2651/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Air pollution in Rome ...... 36 (2000/C 330 E/040) E-2652/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Reliability of airbags ...... 37 (2000/C 330 E/041) E-2657/99 by António Campos to the Commission Subject: Common agricultural policy ...... 38 (2000/C 330 E/042) E-2664/99 by Proinsias De Rossa to the Commission Subject: Information on the URBAN Programme ...... 39 (2000/C 330 E/043) E-2672/99 by Jürgen Zimmerling to the Commission Subject: Objective 2 support ...... 40 (2000/C 330 E/044) E-2674/99 by Jillian Evans to the Commission Subject: Possible health effects of waste to energy incinerators ...... 40 (2000/C 330 E/045) E-2700/99 by Alexander de Roo, Torben Lund and Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo to the Commission Subject: Revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC ...... 41 (2000/C 330 E/046) E-2705/99 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission Subject: Fisheries Reallocation of FIFG ...... 42 (2000/C 330 E/047) E-2706/99 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission Subject: Fisheries FIFG and the UK ...... 42

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2705/99 and E-2706/99 ...... 43 (2000/C 330 E/048) E-2721/99 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Poisoning of protected birds in Spain ...... 43 (2000/C 330 E/049) E-2740/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Elf-Atochem chemical plant in Boretto, Reggio Emilia (Emilia-Romagna, Italy) ...... 44 (2000/C 330 E/050) E-2748/99 by Gérard Deprez to the Commission Subject: Common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system ...... 45 (2000/C 330 E/051) E-2761/99 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Subsidies for ferry services to islands (Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to subsidy C/64/99 formerly NN 68/99) ...... 46 (2000/C 330 E/052) E-2768/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Upkeep of European waterways ...... 47 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/053) E-2769/99 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Inclusion of inland navigation projects in the list of TEN priorities ...... 48

(2000/C 330 E/054) P-2771/99 by Mario Mastella to the Commission Subject: Apparent European ban on wood-fired ovens ...... 49

(2000/C 330 E/055) E-2782/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Anti-dumping measures against non-Community steel products ...... 50

(2000/C 330 E/056) E-2804/99 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Concerns felt by the avocado sector as a result of the EU-Mexico agreement ...... 52

(2000/C 330 E/057) E-2807/99 by Jean-Claude Fruteau to the Commission Subject: COM in bananas ...... 53

(2000/C 330 E/058) E-2813/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Administration of calls for tenders in connection with common agricultural policy funding ...... 54

(2000/C 330 E/059) E-2814/99 by Theodorus Bouwman and Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Ijzeren Rijn line trains through the middle of Dutch nature conservancy areas? ...... 55

(2000/C 330 E/060) P-2816/99 by Roy Perry to the Commission Subject: Interreg and maritime border regions ...... 55

(2000/C 330 E/061) E-2820/99 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the Commission Subject: Asbestos ban ...... 56

(2000/C 330 E/062) E-2821/99 by Herbert Bösch to the Commission Subject: Administrative investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office at the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank ...... 57

(2000/C 330 E/063) E-2822/99 by Herbert Bösch to the Commission Subject: Administrative investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office at the European Investment Bank .... 58

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2821/99 and E-2822/99 ...... 58

(2000/C 330 E/064) E-2823/99 by Herbert Bösch to the Commission Subject: Financial assistance for innovative and job-creating SMEs ...... 58

(2000/C 330 E/065) E-2825/99 by Emilia Müller to the Commission Subject: Completion of the Amberg-Waidhaus section of the A6 motorway ...... 60

(2000/C 330 E/066) E-2826/99 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Council Subject: Looting and trafficking in cultural objects of value in Kosovo ...... 61

(2000/C 330 E/067) E-2840/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Total number of applications relating to climate change research received in the first round of Calls for Proposals ...... 62

(2000/C 330 E/068) E-2850/99 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Conversion of driving licences for migrant workers ...... 62

(2000/C 330 E/069) E-2863/99 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact of the ‘southern option’ for the proposed Oropesa-Cabanes road link (Spain) .... 63

(2000/C 330 E/070) E-2865/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Structure of the Spanish electricity market and costs of the transition to competition ...... 64

(2000/C 330 E/071) E-0001/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Implementation of access to the grid under EU Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 transmission conditions for independent power suppliers ...... 65

(2000/C 330 E/072) E-0003/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Excise duties on wine in Ireland ...... 66 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/073) P-0008/00 by Margrietus van den Berg to the Commission Subject: CITES-negotiations 2000 ...... 66 (2000/C 330 E/074) E-0017/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Oil discharges at sea ...... 67 (2000/C 330 E/075) E-0018/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Oil discharged at sea ...... 68 (2000/C 330 E/076) E-0019/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Rejection of food aid funded from Echo’s budget ...... 69 (2000/C 330 E/077) E-0034/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: The effect of glyphosate on the environment and biodiversity ...... 71 (2000/C 330 E/078) E-0035/00 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Rearing of grouse and pheasants ...... 72 (2000/C 330 E/079) E-0042/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of bans on night flights ...... 72 (2000/C 330 E/080) P-0065/00 by Carlo Fatuzzo to the Commission Subject: Milan airport system: Malpensa Linate Orio al Serio ...... 73 (2000/C 330 E/081) E-0068/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Construction of the Itoiz dam ...... 74 (2000/C 330 E/082) P-0071/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Delays in the payment of EU aid to olive growers in Andalusia ...... 75 (2000/C 330 E/083) E-0072/00 by Mathieu Grosch to the Commission Subject: Waste wood in chipboard ...... 76 (2000/C 330 E/084) E-0076/00 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Possible exclusion of the municipalities of Barberino, Tavernelle and S. Casciano from the areas eligible for funding under the Leader+ project ...... 78 (2000/C 330 E/085) E-0085/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Ivory trade ...... 79 (2000/C 330 E/086) E-0086/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Situation in Chechnya ...... 79 (2000/C 330 E/087) E-0088/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Inclusion of Galicia in the trans-European high-speed rail networks during the 2000-2006 period .... 81 (2000/C 330 E/088) E-0092/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: High-speed rail link between northern Portugal and Galicia ...... 81 (2000/C 330 E/089) E-0093/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Investment in Galicia’s railways during the 2000-2006 period ...... 81

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0088/00, E-0092/00 and E-0093/00 ...... 81 (2000/C 330 E/090) E-0091/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Milk production surpluses and quotas allocated to the Member States ...... 82 (2000/C 330 E/091) E-0107/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Revision of TEN guidelines safety in projects of common interest ...... 83 (2000/C 330 E/092) E-0109/00 by Kathalijne Buitenweg and Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Effectiveness of research under the Fifth Framework programme ...... 84 (2000/C 330 E/093) E-0110/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Decentralisation of air communications ...... 85 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/094) E-0111/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Environmental deterioration of the river Tea in Galicia ...... 85 (2000/C 330 E/095) P-0117/00 by Mathieu Grosch to the Commission Subject: Ban on night flights at Zaventem airport in Belgium ...... 86 (2000/C 330 E/096) E-0123/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Computer recycling ...... 87 (2000/C 330 E/097) P-0131/00 by Theodorus Bouwman to the Commission Subject: Employment of ‘third-country’ drivers ...... 88 (2000/C 330 E/098) P-0132/00 by Francesco Speroni to the Commission Subject: Road signs in Italy ...... 89 (2000/C 330 E/099) E-0136/00 by Gerhard Hager to the Council Subject: Setting up of Eurojust ...... 89 (2000/C 330 E/100) E-0142/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Clarification of tender award procedures for road reconstruction in Addis Abeba financed by the European Development Fund ...... 90 (2000/C 330 E/101) E-0146/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Commission report on the veterinary mission carried out in Italy ...... 91 (2000/C 330 E/102) E-0149/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Traffic separation schemes and interpretation of rules to prevent collisions in the German Bight ..... 92 (2000/C 330 E/103) E-0152/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Exceeding of maximum permissible nitrate levels in water for human consumption in the Community of Valencia (Spain) ...... 93 (2000/C 330 E/104) P-0156/00 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Framework directive on water policy COM(1999) 271 ...... 94 (2000/C 330 E/105) E-0165/00 by Rosa Díez González, Fernando Pérez Royo and Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Monitoring of state aid to the Spanish electricity sector ...... 96 (2000/C 330 E/106) E-0167/00 by Rosa Díez González, Fernando Pérez Royo and Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Competition transition costs (CTC) and market variables for the Spanish electricity sector ...... 96 (2000/C 330 E/107) E-0173/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: EU cooperation to help Mexico pay off the bank rescue debt ...... 97 (2000/C 330 E/108) E-0178/00 by Erik Meijer and Helmuth Markov to the Commission Subject: Discontinuing of train services between the Netherlands and Germany after upgrading of the Nieuweschans Weneer section of the TEN (Supplementary Answer) ...... 98 (2000/C 330 E/109) P-0179/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Exploratory drilling in the Biesbosch ...... 99 (2000/C 330 E/110) E-0180/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Olaf’s sphere of activity ...... 100 (2000/C 330 E/111) E-0193/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Road tunnel at the port of Olbia, Sardinia ...... 101 (2000/C 330 E/112) E-0207/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: WTO reform ...... 102 (2000/C 330 E/113) E-0342/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Reform of the WTO ...... 102

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0207/00 and E-0342/00 ...... 102 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/114) E-0215/00 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Waste incineration plant at Battipaglia ...... 103 (2000/C 330 E/115) E-0217/00 by Mario Mantovani to the Commission Subject: Radioactive waste at the JRC in Ispra ...... 104 (2000/C 330 E/116) E-0218/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Financial aid to the European oil industry ...... 104 (2000/C 330 E/117) E-0220/00 by Willy De Clercq to the Commission Subject: Post-clearance recovery of customs duty on textile products imported from Bangladesh ...... 105 (2000/C 330 E/118) P-0223/00 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Road widening works at Glen of the Downs, Co. Wicklow, Ireland ...... 106 (2000/C 330 E/119) P-0226/00 by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra to the Council Subject: Arrest of moderate dissidents in Cuba ...... 107 (2000/C 330 E/120) E-0237/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Enforcement of inspection for ships ...... 108 (2000/C 330 E/121) E-0243/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Building of car parks at Piazza Vescovio and Via Moricone in Rome ...... 108 (2000/C 330 E/122) E-0244/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Removal of the Greek tobacco variety ‘Katerini’ from Italy’s register of Community tobacco varieties . . . 109 (2000/C 330 E/123) E-0249/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Pension liabilities ...... 110 (2000/C 330 E/124) E-0251/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Statement by Commissioner Liikanen ...... 111 (2000/C 330 E/125) E-0259/00 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: EU radon gas levels ...... 112 (2000/C 330 E/126) E-0272/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Legal basis of PPPs ...... 113 (2000/C 330 E/127) E-0273/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Theoretical basis of Eurostat’s PPP data ...... 114 (2000/C 330 E/128) E-0274/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Use of PPPs for the purpose of regional policy ...... 114 (2000/C 330 E/129) P-0282/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Crisis in the olive oil market: proposal to set up a Community olive oil databank ...... 115 (2000/C 330 E/130) E-0287/00 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: EU number plates in Switzerland ...... 117 (2000/C 330 E/131) E-0290/00 by Jan Wiersma to the Council Subject: Phare programme for Croatia ...... 117 (2000/C 330 E/132) P-0309/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: De Zoom Kalmthoutse Heide border park development ...... 118 (2000/C 330 E/133) E-0312/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou to the Commission Subject: Safeguarding citizens’ rights in view of the advent of new forms of telecommunications ...... 119 (2000/C 330 E/134) E-0314/00 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Olive oil imports from third countries ...... 120 (2000/C 330 E/135) E-0318/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Mining and exploitation of gold deposits on the Island of Milos ...... 121 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/136) E-0319/00 by Dana Scallon to the Commission Subject: Environmental pollution and health ...... 123 (2000/C 330 E/137) E-0320/00 by Dana Scallon to the Commission Subject: Biosafety Protocol Conference and the decision-making process ...... 123 (2000/C 330 E/138) E-0321/00 by Dana Scallon to the Commission Subject: Food safety ...... 124 (2000/C 330 E/139) E-0322/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Irregularities at the Las Cárvacas rubbish dump in Madrid ...... 125 (2000/C 330 E/140) E-0323/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact of the planned airport at Castellón (Spain) ...... 126 (2000/C 330 E/141) E-0324/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Construction of the Valencia-Tarragona railway line ...... 127 (2000/C 330 E/142) E-0329/00 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Monopoly of the Italian Register of Shipping (R.I.N.A.) ...... 128 (2000/C 330 E/143) E-0330/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Grant of a licence to conduct test borings for gas in the ‘De Biesbosch’ National Park in the Netherlands 129 (2000/C 330 E/144) E-0332/00 by Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Financing arrangements for combating veterinary disease in the EU ...... 130 (2000/C 330 E/145) E-0334/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Council Subject: Special treatment of a Kurdish national imprisoned in Hamburg ...... 131 (2000/C 330 E/146) E-0338/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Unemployment figures for Greece ...... 131 (2000/C 330 E/147) E-0340/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Transportation of live animals ...... 132 (2000/C 330 E/148) E-0341/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Transportation of live animals ...... 133 (2000/C 330 E/149) E-0425/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Protection of animals during transport ...... 133

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0340/00, E-0341/00 and E-0425/00 ...... 133 (2000/C 330 E/150) E-0343/00 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: Ageism in the aviation industry ...... 134 (2000/C 330 E/151) E-0344/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Reorganisation of the DG for Energy and Transport ...... 134 (2000/C 330 E/152) E-0347/00 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the Commission Subject: Trade ...... 135 (2000/C 330 E/153) E-0350/00 by Rosa Díez González, Fernando Pérez Royo and Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Public aid in the electricity sector in Spain: costs borne by the consumer ...... 136 (2000/C 330 E/154) E-0354/00 by Armando Cossutta and Lucio Manisco to the Commission Subject: Rising cost of motor vehicle liability insurance ...... 136 (2000/C 330 E/155) P-0360/00 by Jean Lambert to the Commission Subject: Construction of a water bottling plant in Taguluche, La Gomera island (Canaries) ...... 137 (2000/C 330 E/156) E-0362/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s attitude towards the problem of the exhaustion of trade mark rights and the admissibility of parallel imports ...... 139 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/157) E-0363/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s attitude towards the problem of the exhaustion of trade mark rights and the admissibility of parallel import ...... 139

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0362/00 and E-0363/00 ...... 140 (2000/C 330 E/158) E-0367/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: Reduced VAT rates for district heating systems’ customers ...... 141 (2000/C 330 E/159) E-0368/00 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the Commission Subject: Transfer of part of the electricity generation capacity of ENEL S.p.A., the former Italian state monopoly in this sector ...... 141 (2000/C 330 E/160) P-0372/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Implementation in the UK of Article 33 of the EC Treaty ...... 143 (2000/C 330 E/161) E-0374/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Higher education in the United Kingdom ...... 143 (2000/C 330 E/162) E-0375/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Higher education tuition fees ...... 143 (2000/C 330 E/163) E-0376/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Higher education tuition fees ...... 144 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0374/00, E-0375/00 and E-0376/00 ...... 144 (2000/C 330 E/164) E-0379/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Measures to provide information on the current denied-boarding compensation system ...... 145 (2000/C 330 E/165) E-0381/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Improving road safety by tackling accident ‘black spots’ and sections of road with high accident rates . . 146 (2000/C 330 E/166) E-0382/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Information and direction signs for international traffic on the trans-European road network (TERN) . . . 147 (2000/C 330 E/167) E-0383/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Adaptation to technical progress of motor vehicles ...... 147 (2000/C 330 E/168) E-0385/00 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Anti-advertising chip in televisions ...... 148 (2000/C 330 E/169) P-0393/00 by Caroline Lucas to the Commission Subject: Council Directive 91/628 (as amended by Council Directive 95/29 of June 1995) on protection of animals during transport ...... 150 (2000/C 330 E/170) P-0395/00 by Dorette Corbey to the Commission Subject: Canadian seal cull quota ...... 150 (2000/C 330 E/171) E-0397/00 by Doris Pack to the Commission Subject: FIBT advertising rights on bobsleighs, helmets and competitors’ clothing ...... 151 (2000/C 330 E/172) E-0401/00 by Mikko Pesälä and Samuli Pohjamo to the Commission Subject: Impartiality of EU food monitoring ...... 152 (2000/C 330 E/173) E-0406/00 by Gerhard Schmid to the Council Subject: Compensation for German shipping and transport firms operating on the Danube following the closing of the Yugoslav section of the Danube ...... 153 (2000/C 330 E/174) E-0409/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Reduction of peat use in horticulture ...... 154 (2000/C 330 E/175) E-0411/00 by Pasqualina Napoletano to the Council Subject: Mission financed by the Commission for customs reform in Albania ...... 154 (2000/C 330 E/176) E-0419/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Eliminating the dangers of using depleted uranium in (civil) aviation ...... 155 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/177) E-0423/00 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Council Subject: Respect for human rights in EU foreign policy ...... 156

(2000/C 330 E/178) E-0432/00 by Giorgos Katiforis to the Commission Subject: Commission dispute with the International Automobile Federation ...... 157

(2000/C 330 E/179) E-0434/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Housing safety standards ...... 158

(2000/C 330 E/180) P-0440/00 by Bernd Lange to the Commission Subject: Procedure for concluding contracts under the Fifth framework programme for research ...... 159

(2000/C 330 E/181) E-0443/00 by Jan Wiersma to the Council Subject: Domestic fuel oil for opposition towns in Serbia ...... 160

(2000/C 330 E/182) P-0448/00 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission Subject: BSE in France ...... 160

(2000/C 330 E/183) P-0449/00 by Harlem Désir to the Council Subject: Political situation in Austria and amendment of the Treaties ...... 161

(2000/C 330 E/184) E-0455/00 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the Commission Subject: Health inspection fees for meat Directive 85/73/EEC ...... 162

(2000/C 330 E/185) E-0459/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Catchment area management ESDP ...... 163

(2000/C 330 E/186) E-0462/00 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Blood alcohol levels for drivers ...... 165

(2000/C 330 E/187) E-0464/00 by Gunilla Carlsson to the Commission Subject: Must-carry rules for cable networks and their impact on the EU’s policy on ‘Television without Frontiers’ 165

(2000/C 330 E/188) E-0466/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Commission policy on implementation of the EU budget for 2000 in respect of the promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages ...... 166

(2000/C 330 E/189) E-0467/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Shortcomings in the transposition of Community legislation on health and safety at work into Spanish law 167

(2000/C 330 E/190) E-0469/00 by Isabelle Caullery to the Commission Subject: European Union measures in the Île-de-France region ...... 168

(2000/C 330 E/191) E-0470/00 by Isabelle Caullery to the Commission Subject: Programmes, Community projects and European initiatives in the Île-de-France region ...... 169

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0469/00 and E-0470/00 ...... 169

(2000/C 330 E/192) E-0472/00 by Béatrice Patrie to the Commission Subject: Access to ‘generic’ pharmaceuticals ...... 169

(2000/C 330 E/193) E-0477/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Sellafield reprocessing plant and Cap de la Hague ...... 170

(2000/C 330 E/194) E-0480/00 by Alejandro Cercas to the Commission Subject: Allocation from the Structural Funds for the region of Estremedura for the period 2000-2006 ...... 171

(2000/C 330 E/195) E-0483/00 by Alejandro Cercas to the Commission Subject: Funding under the EQUAL Community initiative ...... 171

(2000/C 330 E/196) E-0488/00 by Werner Langen to the Commission Subject: Admissibility of parallel imports ...... 172 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/197) E-0489/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Implementation of the ‘Leonardo da Vinci’ vocational training programme ...... 173 (2000/C 330 E/198) E-0492/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster and Fernando Pérez Royo to the Commission Subject: Statements made by Commissioner Monti in Spain concerning state aid granted by the Spanish Govern- ment ...... 174

(2000/C 330 E/199) E-0497/00 by Esko Seppänen to the Commission Subject: Revision of the EWC Directive ...... 175 (2000/C 330 E/200) E-0500/00 by Charles Tannock to the Council Subject: Member State violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community ...... 175

(2000/C 330 E/201) E-0503/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Reassignment of Council staff ...... 176 (2000/C 330 E/202) E-0506/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Use of intelligence services to gather information about commercial activities ...... 177 (2000/C 330 E/203) E-0507/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Measurement of regional living standards ...... 177 (2000/C 330 E/204) E-0509/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Assessment of inflation differentials ...... 178 (2000/C 330 E/205) E-0519/00 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: Transparency ...... 179

(2000/C 330 E/206) E-0522/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Procedure followed by Poste Italiane SpA for the award of contracts for mail delivery services ...... 179 (2000/C 330 E/207) E-0523/00 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission Subject: Investigating and preventing mobbing in Europe ...... 180 (2000/C 330 E/208) E-0529/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Workplace equipment for blind switchboard operators ...... 181 (2000/C 330 E/209) E-0530/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Implementation of the Socrates education programme ...... 182

(2000/C 330 E/210) E-0537/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: European standards for emissions and residues from incinerators ...... 183 (2000/C 330 E/211) P-0541/00 by Minerva Malliori to the Commission Subject: Mental health ...... 184 (2000/C 330 E/212) E-0550/00 by Astrid Lulling to the Commission Subject: Commission proceedings against restrictions imposed by the Evin law (France) on the televised broadcasting in France of sporting events held abroad ...... 185 (2000/C 330 E/213) E-0563/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Public procurement ...... 186 (2000/C 330 E/214) E-0568/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Staff dismissals and wage costs ...... 187 (2000/C 330 E/215) E-0573/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Council staff ...... 188 (2000/C 330 E/216) P-0577/00 by Niall Andrews to the Commission Subject: Spring and MCI WorldCom merger ...... 188

(2000/C 330 E/217) E-0596/00 by Ioannis Marínos and Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Turkish ministers’ disagreements and concerns about Akkuyu European strategy for nuclear safety . . . 189 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/218) E-0606/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: European Day for Tolerance ...... 190 (2000/C 330 E/219) E-0611/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Quarterly calculation of bank interest payable by account-holders ...... 191 (2000/C 330 E/220) E-0613/00 by Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Vaccination against IBR in the European Union ...... 191 (2000/C 330 E/221) E-0616/00 by Joaquim Miranda to the Commission Subject: Suspension of investment incentives in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region ...... 192 (2000/C 330 E/222) E-0620/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Teaching of Greek-language interpreting ...... 193 (2000/C 330 E/223) E-0621/00 by William Newton Dunn to the Commission Subject: Hallmarking ...... 193 (2000/C 330 E/224) E-0634/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Sergio Berlato to the Commission Subject: Eradication of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) ...... 194 (2000/C 330 E/225) E-0635/00 by Ieke van den Burg to the Commission Subject: Plans for a ‘child care cheque’ in Carinthia ...... 195 (2000/C 330 E/226) P-0642/00 by Andre Brie to the Commission Subject: Commission’s position regarding the arrest of Kurdish mayors in Turkey ...... 196 (2000/C 330 E/227) P-0644/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: The behaviour of Belgium and France towards Austria ...... 197 (2000/C 330 E/228) P-0662/00 by Helena Torres Marques to the Commission Subject: Fifth Action Programme on equal opportunities for women and men ...... 198 (2000/C 330 E/229) P-0663/00 by Martin Schulz to the Commission Subject: The Leuna refinery in the Federal Republic of Germany ...... 198 (2000/C 330 E/230) P-0666/00 by Joan Colom i Naval to the Commission Subject: Allegations of ESF fraud in Spain ...... 199 (2000/C 330 E/231) P-0669/00 by Anna Terrón i Cusí to the Commission Subject: Transposition of Directive 92/61/EEC into Spanish legislation ...... 200 (2000/C 330 E/232) E-0672/00 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Protection from asbestos for workers in the air and sea transport sectors ...... 201 (2000/C 330 E/233) P-0675/00 by José Pomés Ruiz to the Commission Subject: The length of time ECHO has had no Director ...... 202 (2000/C 330 E/234) E-0676/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Tourism measures ...... 203 (2000/C 330 E/235) E-0678/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Discrepancies in the levels of heart disease among EU Member States and the need for further preventive action ...... 204 (2000/C 330 E/236) E-0679/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Car prices in Ireland and the future legal framework of car distribution ...... 204 (2000/C 330 E/237) E-0684/00 by Elspeth Attwooll to the Commission Subject: Daytime running lights ...... 205 (2000/C 330 E/238) P-0692/00 by Francesco Speroni to the Commission Subject: Fixed-term contracts for the Fifth Framework programme ...... 206 (2000/C 330 E/239) E-0700/00 by James Nicholson to the Commission Subject: Canary Islands import regulations ...... 207 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 330 E/240) P-0705/00 by Nelly Maes to the Council Subject: Amendments to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act ...... 207 (2000/C 330 E/241) E-0712/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Amending Directives 98/95/EC and 98/96/EC ...... 208 (2000/C 330 E/242) E-0716/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: The compliance of the payment of tuition fees in the UK with EU competition law ...... 209 (2000/C 330 E/243) E-0719/00 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Accidents at work ...... 209 (2000/C 330 E/244) P-0729/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: EU-Korea meeting and the European shipbuilding industry ...... 210 (2000/C 330 E/245) P-0731/00 by Paul Coûteaux to the Commission Subject: FSCs Case before the WTO ...... 211 (2000/C 330 E/246) P-0732/00 by Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Objectivity of information provided by public broadcasters ...... 212 (2000/C 330 E/247) P-0734/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Construction of an underground car park in Piazza Lorenzini in Rome ...... 212 (2000/C 330 E/248) E-0764/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Report by the European Round Table of Industrialists on state pensions ...... 213 (2000/C 330 E/249) E-0795/00 by Stephen Hughes to the Commission Subject: Lucent Technologies ...... 214 (2000/C 330 E/250) P-0809/00 by Harlem Désir to the Commission Subject: Condemnation by the WTO’s body of appeal of the tax treatment of foreign sales corporations (FSCs) in the USA ...... 215 (2000/C 330 E/251) P-0810/00 by Pasqualina Napoletano to the Commission Subject: Situation of dentists in Italy ...... 215 (2000/C 330 E/252) P-0828/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Television set fire safety ...... 216 (2000/C 330 E/253) E-0837/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Mining of iron-nickel at Platani in Aghia Sofia, Euboea ...... 217 (2000/C 330 E/254) E-0839/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Problems in implementing the Operational Programme on Education and Initial Vocational Training as part of the Community Support Framework for Greece ...... 218 (2000/C 330 E/255) E-0840/00 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Unemployment rate in Greece ...... 219 (2000/C 330 E/256) E-0933/00 by Helmuth Markov to the Commission Subject: Commission investigations against the German Land of Thuringia ...... 220 (2000/C 330 E/257) E-0951/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: The Objective 2 region of Hainaut ...... 220 (2000/C 330 E/258) P-1027/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou to the Commission Subject: Programme for combating unemployment and exclusion from the labour market ...... 221 (2000/C 330 E/259) E-1095/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Aboño thermal power station (Asturias) ...... 222

EN 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/1

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2000/C 330 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/99 by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Abandoned building project for a further training centre in Agios Dimitrios, Pelion, Greece

Work began on the construction of a further training centre, the EKTA (WZLS) building, for the local authority in Agios Dimitrios/Pelion, province of Magnesia in 1994. According to the signboards at the site, the ‘Community budget’ is funding the project, to the value of some DM 40 million (GRD 600 000 000). However, once the foundations had been laid, the project was halted in 1995, since when the condition of the site has deteriorated and building materials have been unlawfully removed.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Why was construction of this further training centre halted? Is the Commission contemplating a resumption of the work?

2. How much of the estimate of GRD 600 million has been paid out, and under which budget heading?

3. What form of control is being exercised over the company responsible for planning supervision, ERGODYNAMIKI GmbH?

4. Does the Commission intend to initiate action for recovery against those responsible?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

1. According to information received from the Greek authorities, the project of the ‘Centre for the Continuing Training of Local Authorities’ at Agios Dimitrios/Pelion was planned to be implemented in two phases. The first phase was planned, implemented and co-funded through the Community support framework (CSF) for Greece during the 1989-1993 programming period. The second phase is to be concluded within the CSF for the 1994-1999 period.

2. The first phase was co-funded by the European regional development fund for a total amount of 200 million drachmas, under the budget line B2-1200.

3. The management of projects is decentralised to the Member States and it therefore lies within the responsability of the Greek authorities to exercise the appropriate controls whenever contractual problems arise with companies that have undertaken to execute CSF projects. In this case, the Ministry of the National Economy is the responsible authority. C 330 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

4. The Ministry of the National Economy has already sent a letter to KEDKE, the project’s implementing agency, requesting the immediate completion of the project if it is to be funded through the 1994-1999 CSF or to ensure its completion through the agency’s own resources. Should the project not be completed, the Commission will recuperate the Community funds which had been allocated.

(2000/C 330 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: The case of the Commission official Paul van Buitenen

Mr Paul van Buitenen supplied the budgetary control authority with information concerning dysfunctions and fraudulent activities within the Commission.

The Santer Commission punished him severely by suspending him from his duties, banning him from entering Commission premises and reducing his salary by half. He was subsequently reinstated at the Commission but was assigned to a less important post.

1. Does the new Commission agree that, pursuant to the Treaties, the European Parliament is a budget and budgetary control authority?

2. Does it not therefore think that the official in question acted in accordance with the Treaties by turning to the budgetary authority?

3. Does the Commission not think that Mr van Buitenen should be rewarded for demonstrating such a high sense of civic responsibility and bringing democracy to an institution such as the Commission?

4. What steps does the Commission intend to take so as to enable Mr van Buitenen to return to his former post?

5. What action does the Commission intend to take so as to ensure that those who were Mr van Buitenen’s hierarchical superiors at the time he made his disclosure are at least transferred from their current posts in which they have responsibility for financial control?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

1. Parliament is one of the budgetary authorities of the European Communities and may grant or refuse the Commission a discharge for the budget.

2. and 3. Mr Paul van Buitenen was formally reprimanded because, without authorisation, he broke the rules in force for officials of the European Communities by divulging documents outside the Commission which related to cases that were under examination by the judicial authorities and also the subject of disciplinary proceedings, thus compromising the principle of the presumption of innocence. In coming to its decision, the employing authority took account of the fact that the information had been communicated to a Member of the European Parliament and recognised that a strict application of the relevant rules might not be in accordance with the appropriate standard of openness. It was in the light of these circumstances that the Commission imposed a formal reprimand which is the second most moderate penalty for infringements of the Staff Regulations.

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that, in accordance with the Commission Decision concerning investigations carried out by the Task Force on Coordination of the fight against fraud of 14 July 1998, officials having knowledge of the existence of presumed irregularities were obliged to inform their Directors-general or Head of service or, if they considered it useful, the Task Force directly. Since the entry into force of Commission Decision 1999/396 concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/3

activity detrimental to the Communities’ interests (1), they shall inform their Heads of service or Directors- general or, if they consider it useful, the Secretary-general of the Commission or OLAF directly. Officials who provided or provide such information through those means had and have the guarantee that they shall in no way suffer inequitable or discriminatory tretament as a result of providing it. In the context of its administrative reforms, the Commission is in the process of developing an improved system which will ensure that, in addition to present provisions, officials who fulfil their duty to report evidence of alleged wrongdoing have further equitable and effective means for reporting, and obtaining thorough and active response to, their concerns and evidence.

4. In compliance with provisions of the Staff Regulation, in the interests of the service, Mr van Buitenen was assigned to a different department where the duties correspond to his skills and background. Reassignment in the interests of the service cannot in any way be regarded as a disciplinary measure. The post which he now occupies is at least equivalent to the one which he occupied before.

5. When the documents were divulged in December 1998, Mr van Buitenen’s superiors warned him that he would be violating the Staff Regulations. Mr van Buitenen acted entirely on his own initiative and the Commission does not accept that it would be justifiable for the officials who were his superiors at the time, and acted in good faith, to be moved to other posts for advising him about the requirements of the rules in force and the possible consequences of disclosing the documents in question outside the Institution.

(1) OJ L 149, 16.6.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1890/99

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Facilities to be built close to Castel del Monte

The town Council of Andria in the province of Bari has approved a project which will involve the creation of an area including facilities such as a ticket office, a book shop, a restaurant, various other services and a car park in close proximity to the octagonal castle built for Frederic II of Swabia between 1240 and 1250 known as ‘Castel del Monte’.

Its very definition as an artistic monument indicates that the castle and the hill on which it stands constitute a single cultural asset, which Unesco has included on its list of world heritage sites.

It is quite clear that if the project is executed in its present form it will alter and cause unacceptable damage to the integrity of this historic site and the surrounding landscape.

The project has benefited from EU funding, as it is one of the projects financed to develop and exploit tourism in Objective 1 regions (multi-regional operational plan for the Italian Mezzogiorno).

Can the Commission say whether the project has been the subject of the required opinions from the competent authorities, in particular the Bari Environmental, Architectural and Artistic Heritage Office and the Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities.

Whether it intends to take steps to block the funding earmarked by the European Union, in order to ensure that the execution of the project is suspended in accordance with the relevant Italian conservation law and the European legislation designed to cover such cases?

Can it also say whether it intends to make European funding subject to an appropriate modification of the project, whereby the envisaged facilities and car park would be moved downhill in order to preserve the local landscape and the beauty of this artistic and historic monument? C 330 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

According to information from the Italian authorities, this project was submitted by the ‘Soprintendenza per i beni Ambientali, Architettonici, Artistici e Storici della Puglia’ (Department for the environmental, architectural, artistic and historic assets of Apulia), not by the municipality of Andria (Bari). The project, entitled ‘Castles route’, includes an exhibition area, a restaurant, a ticket office and a bookshop, and the placing of direction signs. The programme does not, however, include the provision of a car park.

The project has been part-financed by the Structural Funds under the Objective 1 programme, specifically measure 5a of sub-programme I ‘Cultural tourism’, which forms part of the tourism multiregional operational programme. Community part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund amounted to ITL 899 million, 50 % of the total cost.

From the information supplied, there is nothing which leads the Commission to call into question the financing of the project by the Structural Funds.

(2000/C 330 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Efficiency of award and monitoring mechanisms for the funding of projects

In December 1998 one of the organisers of a ‘conference’ entitled ‘Zur Sache Schätzchen Die 68er und ihr Einfluß auf die Solidaritäts- und Dritte-Welt-Bewegung’ (‘All is revealed: the 1968 generation and their impact on the solidarity and Third World movement’) was the Vereinigte Sozialistische Partei (VSP: United Socialist Party), known to the Hamburg Office for the Protection of the Constitution as an ‘extreme left- wing organisation’. This event, with a huge presence of left-wing extremists, received funding from the Commission amounting to the equivalent of ATS 35 000.

1. Is it normal practice for events attended by political extremists to receive funding from the Commission?

2. Has funding been given to any other events involving the VSP or other left-wing or right-wing extremist groups?

3. What is the nature of existing award and monitoring mechanisms in respect of examining what groups receive funding?

4. Does the Commission feel that the existing award and monitoring mechanisms are sufficiently efficient to prevent misuse of EU funding?

5. If so, how does the Commission explain the example described above?

6. If not, what progress has been made with reform of such mechanisms?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

1. and 2. The Commission could not determine whether Union financing had been granted on the basis of the information contained in the written question. It has contacted the Honourable Member requesting further information and will then be able to reply to the question.

With regard to the Commission’s normal practice for funding events in the general interest, the criteria it applies are set out below. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/5

3. In July 1998 the Commission approved a ‘Vademecum on grant management’ applicable from 1 January 1999. Chapter 4 deals with the ‘Criteria for accepting applications and awarding grants’. Among the award criteria that selection committees and authorising officers are enjoined to take into account is 4.5.8:

Proposed operations which, directly or indirectly, conflict with the policies of the Union or may be linked with an unsuitable image must be rejected. For example, all grants for projects that may be contrary to the interests of public health (alcohol, tobacco, drugs), respect for human rights, people’s security, freedom of expression, etc, are prohibited.

At present, commitments of appropriations by authorising officers are subject to an ex-ante visa by financial control. Thus, applications for grants are vetted, successively, by the budget line manager, the selection committee, the authorising officers and financial control.

5. To answer this question, the Commission has contacted the Honourable Member to obtain the information referred to in paragraph 1 above.

4. and 6. The new Financial Regulation could include a title covering the award of subsidies, which would define the concept, in particular with respect to contracts, and the conditions of award. For the purposes of openness, the new title would lay down the rules for the award of subsidies (legal basis, programme, ex-ante publication and ex-post information, need for a written contract).

In addition to checks on recipients of subsidies by the Court of Auditors, it will organise checks by the institution which granted the subsidy (the authorising department will be required to monitor the use made of it, make sure the recipient maintained the conditions of eligibility, assess whether the results are in conformity with the objectives, and carry out an overall assessment of results).

These rules are intended to ensure proper and transparent use of Community funds in compliance with procedures.

(2000/C 330 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2065/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Proposal to amend the directive on honey intended for human consumption

For several years now, the Commission has been discussing new Community and extra-Community rules governing the marketing of honey, but has failed to make any meaningful progress on the matter despite the fact that the current legislation contains various shortcomings as regards the product’s commercial description. The basic provisions of the latest proposal to amend the directive on honey are extremely unsatisfactory in that they do not promote quality, do not lay down minimum requirements to be met in order for a product to be given the name ‘honey’, do not protect consumers against possible adulteration, do not lay down stringent rules governing honey derived from genetically modified substances and do not promote Community honeys and typical local honeys. What is more, the proposal does not even consider honey to be a characteristically agricultural product.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

1. whether, given the fact that honey clearly is of agricultural origin, it does not feel it appropriate to make the Directorate-General for Agriculture responsible for this sector;

2. whether it would not agree that honey should be regulated by means of a separate COM laying down clear rules governing its production;

3. whether it would not agree that minimum quality standards should be laid down and that only products which comply with those standards should be entitled to bear the name ‘honey’; C 330 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

4. whether it would not agree that clear criteria should be laid down to enable specific quality indications to be used;

5. whether it would not agree that rules should be introduced to ensure that consumers are given clear information on the origin of honey, its packaging and best-before dates and the presence of any chemical contaminants or GMOs;

6. why Italian producers have not yet been granted the certificate of specific character requested for pure virgin honey (‘miele vergine integrale’)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

Given the sector’s situation in the Community and the present state of knowledge of apiculture it would be inappropriate to create a new market organisation specifically for honey. At present competence for legislation on honey is shared between the Directorate-General for Agriculture, which is responsible for honey production in the same way as for other agricultural products (Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey (1)) and the Directorate-General for Enterprise, which is responsible for management of Council Directive 74/409/EEC on harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to honey (2), in particular the rules on composition, labelling and honey names. This Directive was included in the simplication programme covering a number of Directives on foodstuffs decided on by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992.

In 1996 the Commission presented a proposal (3) for a Directive simplifying and replacing Directive 74/409/EEC. Not yet adopted by the Council, it sets a number of criteria that honey must meet if it is to be marketed under that name. In addition the proposal, like the abovementioned Directive, allows producers to supplement the product name by information on its floral plant and regional territorial topographical origin. Moreover names of honey having a specific character can also be protected under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs or Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs (4).

On labelling, in response to Parliament’s opinion given in May 1999 the Commission decided to amend its proposal in order to make it compulsory for the label to indicate the origin of honey if it comes from a non-Community country. The proposed Directive also makes applicable Council Directive 79/112/EEC (5) on labelling and presentation of foodstuffs, the provisions of which cover indication of minimum durability.

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (6) imposes specific additional labelling requirements designed to ensure that the final consumer is properly informed, in particular of the presence of food ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms.

The application for a certificate of specific character for miele vergine integrale is at present under discussion between the Italian authorities and the Commission. The latest additional information was received in October 1999.

(1) OJ L 173, 1.7.1997. Regulation amended by Regulation (EC) No 2070/98 (OJ L 265, 30.9.1998). (2) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974. Directive amended by the 1985 Act of Accession. (3) COM(95) 722 final. (4) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992. Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 was amended by the 1994 Act of Accession. (5) OJ L 33, 8.3.1979. Directive last amended by Parliament and Council Directive 97/4/EC (OJ L 43, 14.2.1997). (6) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/7

(2000/C 330 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/99

by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Liberalisation in the context of the WTO negotiations

The WTO Millennium Round is scheduled to include negotiations on further liberalisation in the agricultural sector. Further liberalisation is appropriate, however, only if it helps to increase the prosperity of farmers and consumers.

1. Has there already been an official evaluation by the WTO and/or the Commission of the impact that the Agreement on Agriculture reached during the GATT Uruguay Round has had on prices and incomes in the EU, the USA and the rest of the world (evaluations up to and including 1999)?

2. How does the Commission evaluate the impacts of the GATT Uruguay Round? I would appreciate an evaluation not only of the two exceptional years 1995 and 1996 but for the whole period from 1995 until 1999. I would similarly appreciate it if the assessment focused predominantly on quantities and price trends in the markets rather than simply on the development of world trade in value terms.

3. Has liberalisation actually produced benefits for the consumer?

4. Have food prices fallen, and to what extent?

5. Has food safety and quality improved as a result of the opening up of markets and the SPS agreement?

6. What view should be taken in this context of the WTO panel that monitors the prohibition of imports of beef produced with the aid of growth hormones?

7. What is the relationship between the expansion of world trade and the general trend in incomes in the EU and other WTO member countries, and how is any rise in incomes distributed among the population?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

1. Impacts of the agreement on agriculture have been simulated by the Economic research and analysis division (ERAD) of the World trade organisation (WTO), using the global trade analysis project (GTAP) model an applied computable general equilibrium model of the world economy. Welfare changes were expressed in terms of real income and were reported in terms of billions of US$ 1 992. Positive results for economic welfare from the agreement can be expected for the Community, the United States, Japan, and East Asia. Another analysis on the impact of trade liberalisation for goods and services was presented in 1995 by the World Bank. Also in this case the highest gains are expected for Japan and the Community.

2. An exact assessment of the General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) Uruguay Round (UR) impacts on prices and quantities is difficult to make, due to many external factors playing a role. Strong turbulence on the international market (e.g. the crisis in Asia and Russia) makes it difficult to isolate and calculate the particular net effects of the UR agreement. However, it involved for the first time the whole agricultural sector. Indeed, the UR was labelled by some as ‘Bringing agriculture into the GATT’ and it was seen as the most far reaching negotiating effort yet undertaken. The correct implementation of the agreement up to now, suggests that to set clear and transparent rules on agricultural trade helped stop the increasing frictions among trading partners, which in the Eighties were depressing world markets. C 330 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

3. In principle, liberalisation benefits consumers by increasing the competitiveness in the market, and thus allowing a wider choice among products at the best price. For the Community, agricultural trade has not been liberalised completely, but the common agricultural policy reforms have made significant efforts in shifting away from the most trade distortive policies (e.g. from price support to direct payments). This already benefits consumers who no longer have to pay the implicit price of protection when buying agricultural products. However, the input share of agricultural raw products has decreased over time for most final products bought by the consumer.

4. Regarding international prices, because of the many variables involved (see 2) it is difficult to isolate the influence of trade liberalisation on price trends and price variability. For the Community, the reduction in price support has led to lower prices for agricultural products, which partially translate into lower food prices (as the agricultural raw material is only a small part of the final food product).

5. There is no information concerning an improvement or a deterioration in food safety and quality resulting from the opening up of markets and the Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement. In the long term the implementation of the SPS agreement is expected to improve food safety globally by way of cooperation and technical assistance to developing countries (Article 9).

6. The Community position that it has a right to establish higher standards of protection, for instance compared to international Codex Alimentarius standards, has been recognised by the WTO appellate body. It has also recognised that a WTO member could take measures founded in minority scientific views. Any measures should be based on scientific risk assessment.

7. From the economic perspective, trade liberalisation increases incomes through producers’ and consumers’ welfare. Producers enjoy larger markets and the opportunity of specialisation, and consumers enjoy lower prices due to increased competition. Assuming simultaneous and mutual liberalisation at world level and competitive markets, the distribution of these benefits would be proportional to the degree of liberalisation realised by each country and each sector. The distribution of the rise in welfare and incomes, which can be achieved within a country due to trade liberalisation, depends also on the tax regimes the country applies.

(2000/C 330 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2136/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Translation of harmonised standards pursuant to the lifts directive into the eleven official languages of the EU

On 1 July 1999 European directive 95/16/EC (1) of 29 June 1995 became applicable to all new lifts. From 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 this directive was purely indicative. It was transposed into Belgian law through royal decree of 10 August 1998 concerning lifts (Official Gazette of Belgium of 11 September 1998). The royal decree is therefore compulsory for all new lifts in the Belgian federation.

However, translation of the harmonised standards laid down by the European directive into the eleven official languages of the European Union leaves something to be desired. At present the standards exist only in three of the eleven official languages: German, English and French. This is a source of discrimination between lift manufacturers in the 15 Member States. Only those who have a German, English or French version of the harmonised standards can install new lifts trouble-free. Manufacturers speaking other languages (Danish, Finnish, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish) are left in the cold because they do not have the correct translation of the harmonised standards. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/9

1. Does the Commission feel that the principle of equality is jeopardised through the non-availability of the translation of the harmonised standards for lifts into Danish, Finnish, Greek, Italian, Dictum, Portuguese’s, Spanish and Swedish? If so, what action will it take to have the technical standards laid down in the lifts directive translated forthwith into the eleven official languages of the European Union? If not, what principles of European law does the Commission use to justify limited translation (German, English and French) of the standards?

2. Can the lifts directive be implemented properly if the harmonised standards have not been translated into the eleven official languages of the European Union? If so, what arguments would the Commission use in support of this position? If not, is application of the lifts directive impossible until a translation is available for manufacturers who speak a different language (Danish, Finnish, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish)?

(1) OJ L 213, 7.9.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

1. European standards are drawn up by the European standards bodies in their official languages. In the case of the European committee for standardisation (CEN) and the European committee for electrotechnical standardisation (Cenelec), these are English, French and German. The European telecommunications standards institute (ETSI) adopts its European standards in English. Such standards have to be transposed into national standards by the national standards bodies. The internal rules of the European standards bodies allow, but do not require, translation of European standards. The question of translation is a matter entirely for the national standards bodies themselves and for national authorities. In various Member States, translation has been made obligatory.

Given the specific role of harmonized standards, the Commission considers that all parties should have access to such standards. Depending on the specific nature of the sector and the standard, and the perceived needs of the market this may imply that there is a need to make those standards available in the languages of the countries concerned. The Commission provides financial support to national standards bodies that translate harmonized standards into national languages.

2. Just as with all other ‘new approach’ directives, the application of standards is voluntary in the framework of Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts. New approach directives can be implemented without standards or before they become available. Manufacturers have to meet the essential requirements of directives, not to comply with harmonized standards. Standards are a useful tool to facilitate implementation, which explains why in most cases harmonized standards are in fact translated.

(2000/C 330 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2361/99

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Council Directive 96/29/Euratom

1. Regarding Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM (1), allowing the presence of low level radiation in certain products, is there any way in which consumers and/or businesses can ascertain which products are radiation-free and which are not? How does the Commission define which products are radiation-free?

2. Regarding Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM, allowing the presence of low level radiation in certain products, does the Commission anticipate any problems resulting from the varying standards C 330 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

applied by each Member State to regulation of products emitting low level radiation, for example in relation to the import of wastes, component and finished products; discharges into air or cross border waterways; import of meat and livestock from overseas countries whose standards are less strict than the EU’s.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, establishes the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. The Directive must be implemented in national legislation by May 2000. It replaces the previous standards laid down in Council Directive 80/836/Euratom as amended by Directive 84/467/Euratom (1). Since the first standards were introduced in 1959, revisions have regularly been adopted to take account of evolving knowledge of the effects of ionising radiation and operational experience in radiation protection.

The new Directive addresses the issue of very low levels of radioactivity in consumer goods in a more coherent and restrictive way than previously. Exemption values below which sources need not be reported, are in general much lower than before. This guarantees that such goods can circulate freely. The possible exposure of the population as a result of trace amounts of radioactivity is negligible.

The basic safety standards ensure uniform introduction in Member States’ legislation of exemption values. For the release of materials which can be re-used or recycled, the new Directive specifies the basis for setting clearance levels. These are set by Member States, taking Community guidance into account.

With regard to discharges of effluents in air or waterways, it is up to Member States to set the discharge limits, while respecting the dose limit to members of the public. However, under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, Member States submit to the Commission general data on each plan for the disposal of radioactive waste, and the Commission gives an opinion whether this is liable to affect the environment of other Member States.

With regard to foodstuffs, Council Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 of 22 March 1990 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station (2) establishes maximum permitted levels of radioactivity for the import from third countries. Compliance with these levels is ensured by Member States.

(1) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984. (2) OJ L 82, 29.3.1990.

(2000/C 330 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Cleaning up the legacy of asbestos pollution in the European Union

The use of asbestos fibres has been banned since 1997 because of the risk to public health. This legacy of pollution therefore needs to be disposed of as rapidly and as efficiently as possible. A detailed inventory of asbestos and clear directives on disposal are of the utmost importance in this respect.

1. Does the Commission have an accurate and detailed inventory of the ‘historical’ use of asbestos in the 15 EU Member States on the basis of sales figures of the asbestos producers? If not, will the Commission set about creating such an inventory so that disposal can be carried out rapidly and efficiently in the near future? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/11

2. How much asbestos was produced and used in the European Union in 1997?

3. In the Commission’s opinion, in how many factories was asbestos used?

4. In the Commission’s opinion, in how many office buildings was asbestos used?

5. In the Commission’s opinion, in how many homes was asbestos used?

6. In the Commission’s opinion, in how many school buildings was asbestos used?

7. In the Commission’s opinion, which buildings need to be cleaned up as a matter of priority?

8. What directives has the Commission drafted to achieve a rapid and efficient disposal of the legacy of asbestos pollution?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The marketing and use of five of the six different types of asbestos have been banned in the Community since 1991. On 26 July 1999, the Commission adopted Directive 1999/77/EC of 26 July 1999 adapting to technical progress for the sixth time Annex I to Council 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 (asbestos) (1) which extends this ban to all types of asbestos from 1 January 2005 at the latest. There are only very limited exceptions to this ban, and these will be reviewed by the Commission before 1 January 2003. This Directive should prevent any increase in the stock of asbestos in the Community.

The Commission does not have a detailed inventory of the use of asbestos in the Member States.

The Commission does not have the information requested in items 2-7 of the Honourable Member’s questions.

Asbestos waste is subject to general waste legislation, namely Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2) (as modified). Furthermore, asbestos waste constitutes hazardous waste under Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 (3) when it is contained in insulation materials present in construction and demolition waste. Council Directive 87/217/EEC of 19 March 1987 on the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos (4) contains some basic rules as regards the removal and disposal of asbestos waste. Those provisions do not require a rapid and efficient disposal of such asbestos waste.

(1) OJ L 207, 6.8.1999. (2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991. (4) OJ L 85, 28.3.1987.

(2000/C 330 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2451/99 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Overlapping of meetings of the Commission and of the European Parliament

The Commission regularly organises meetings or (press) conferences on dates which coincide with part- sessions of the European Parliament in Strasbourg or Brussels. On Friday 19 November 1999, for example, Commissioner Kinnock held a press conference and working luncheon in The Hague which MEPs were also invited to attend, although the European Parliament was sitting in Strasbourg on that day.

1. Does not the Commission agree that such overlapping of meetings and conferences is undesirable, given that the Commission has to attend meetings of Parliament? C 330 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

2. Is the Commission aware that press coverage of Parliament’s part-sessions suffers as a result of this overlapping because journalists cannot be in two places at once?

3. Does not the Commission share my view that public opinion on Europe in general and on the European Parliament in particular would be more favourable if the institutions took account of each other’s calendar of meetings?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

Commissioners do seek to ensure that such meetings do not conflict with their presence in Parliament. Like all Commissioners, Mr Kinnock is acutely conscious of the fact that during plenary sessions his first obligation is to answer any Parliamentary debate or questions that fall within his responsibility.

The Commission is aware of the calendar of meetings and will endeavour to avoid undesirable overlaps. It agrees entirely with the Honourable Member that it is important that the European institutions take account of each other’s schedules of meetings.

(2000/C 330 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2486/99 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) and Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Enlargement to the East Günter Verheugen’s announcement of an instrument to promote border regions

In an interview on 8 November 1999 (in the magazine Focus) the Commissioner Günter Verheugen called on the Commission to create an instrument to promote regions bordering the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in order to compensate these regions for the disadvantages caused by enlargement to the East.

1. What stage has the Commission reached in the creation of such an instrument?

2. Can the Commission already supply further details of the structure, time-scale and scope of the instrument?

3. Should the promotion of the border regions be assisted with national funding in addition to EU funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

During the next programming period, 2000-06, the Interreg III Community Initiative will pay close attention to activities to assist the regions on the external borders of the Community, in preparation for enlargement. Assistance to these regions will be provided through strand A ‘cross-border cooperation’, the appropriations for which will account for at least 50 % of total funding for this Initiative.

The Commission laid down the conditions of implementation in its proposed guidelines for this Initiative (1), on which the Member States and the other Community institutions are currently being consulted. After Parliament has given its opinion, which is scheduled for February 2000, the guidelines will be adopted definitively by the Commission and communicated to the Member States, who will then have six months to submit their proposals for programmes.

As for all programmes part-financed under the Structural Funds, the Community aid under Interreg will be subject to a national contribution.

(1) COM(1999) 479 final. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/13

(2000/C 330 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2491/99

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Diversion of watercourses in Europe

The continent of Europe exhibits visible imbalances between its regions in the matter of fresh water: some regions show a clear excess while others suffer from a manifest shortage.

Does the Commission have plans to initiate any form of action, in the framework of interregional cooperation policy, to encourage the diversion of watercourses between hydrographic basins in the different EU Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

Due to different geography and climate, but also different human impact and different traditions, Member States and their regions show quite a diverse pattern of water-related problems, as well as different approaches towards solving those problems. This is one of the reasons why the Parliament, the Council, Member States as well as non-governmental organisations support the need for a new European water policy.

The proposed water framework directive (1)(2), presently at second reading in the Parliament, will expand the scope of water protection to all bodies of water, and promote the sustainable use of water as a resource; provide for achieving good status for all waters within a set deadline, following a combined approach of emission limit values and water quality objectives; ensure all the necessary measures are implemented on the basis of a river basin management; ensure coordination of objectives where regions or Member States share river basins; require water quantity issues to be addressed insofar as they support the quality objective, e.g. by setting the objective of a sustainable balance between abstractions and natural recharge; and increase transparency and involvement of all citizens and parties concerned when river basin management plans are established.

The Commission is convinced that water-related problems should be addressed at the source. This is the reason why the proposed water framework directive provides for an obligation for Member States and regions jointly to address their water problems in shared river basins, but not necessarily for a large-scale water transfer between river basins. Committing the Community to encouraging the diversion of watercourses at this stage would not support the principles of sustainable development and of addressing environmental problems at the source, as laid down in the EC Treaty, and taken up as one of the pillars of the proposed water framework directive. Only when the water framework directive is adopted, and comparable objectives are established, will the necessary data be available. The Commission feels supported in this by the first reading opinion of the Parliament of February 1999 (3) on the proposal.

However, where specific projects respect the environmental objectives laid down and a consensus between the parties is established, the water framework directive would not in any way prohibit such solutions. At the same time, the Community’s financial instruments such as the structural funds and the Cohesion fund are required to work, simultaneously and in the long-term interest, towards economic growth, social cohesion and the protection of the environment, in other words, sustainable development. The future C 330 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Community initiative Interreg III foresees amongst the eligible measures actions of cooperation in the field of sustainable water management (floods, droughts) within a spatial planning context.

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998. (2) Common Position adopted by Council on 22.10.1999, not yet published in the Official Journal. (3) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2503/99 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Minimum standards for the protection of laying hens

Having regard to Council Directive 1999/74/EC (1) of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens and to Chapter II of this directive which specifies that the Member States must ensure that, from 1 January 2003, all cage systems referred to in that chapter comply with the minimum standards that are laid down, that rearing in the cages referred to in that chapter is prohibited with effect from 1 January 2012 and that, with effect from 1 January 2003, no cages such as referred to in that chapter may be built or brought into service for the first time;

having regard also to the possibility of the Union partly financing chicken farms in the applicant countries with a view to accession;

will the Commission state whether:

the above provisions and their strict observance are taken into account in connection with such part- financing?

it plans to establish in the near future a supervisory body with specific responsibility for overseeing and monitoring the above provisions?

(1) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 provides for Community support for pre- accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (1). The objectives of the support are to contribute to the implementation of the acquis communautaire concerning the common agricultural policy and related policies and to solve priority and specific problems for the sustainable adaptation of the agricultural sector and rural areas in the applicant countries. Article 2 of the above Regulation provides for investment in agricultural holdings and it is expected that most applicant countries will propose such measures in their plans. According to Article 4 (3) of the same Regulation the applicant countries shall ensure, amongst others, that priority is given to measures improving quality and health standards in compliance with the provisions on the protection of the environment.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 of 22 December 1999 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre- accession period (2), states that investment support shall be granted to agricultural holdings which comply with the national minimum standards regarding environment, hygiene and animal welfare at the time when the decision to grant support is taken. In the same article it is also stated that where acquis-related minimum standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare have been newly introduced at the time the application is received, the decision to grant support will be conditional on the holding meeting these new standards by the end of the realisation of the investment. However, the new investment itself must comply with Community standards, whether or not the holding as a whole complies with these standards. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/15

In order to monitor and evaluate the application of the plans, including the fulfilment of the above provisions, a monitoring committee will be established for each applicant country and rules and procedures for reports are established in the plans.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2504/99 by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: New toxic substances harmful to the environment discovered in food

According to an article in the Swedish newspaper ‘Dagens Nyheter’ of 11 October 1999, Swedish scientists have found a new substance that is harmful to the environment and causes cancer. Brominated flame retardants (TeBDE) from discarded electrical domestic appliances are now found in high concentrations in herring and Baltic herring. The concentrations are still low in meat, butter and cheese, but the discovery is alarming for two reasons; firstly the concentrations will increase as fast as PCBs, and secondly, the toxins from the flame retardants must be added together with other substances that are harmful to the environment, such as PCBs, so that the total health risk can be estimated.

Is the Commission aware of this new discovery, and does it intend to take any action regarding the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers to written questions E-3004/98 by Mr Eisma (1), P-1976/99 by Mrs Schörling (2) and to the oral question H-776/99 by Mrs Schörling during question time at Parliament’s December 1999 part-session (3).

Furthermore, following the submission of a memorandum from Denmark and Sweden, a discussion took place at the Environment Council on 13 December 1999 about the need for urgent Community measures in respect of brominated flame retardants.

In this context the Commission recalled that comprehensive risk assessments on three brominated flame retardants, undertaken in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (4), are currently underway. When the risk assessment reports are finalised they will be presented for independent peer-review to the scientific committee for toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment.

The member of the Commission responsible for the Environment wrote on 15 December 1999 to the ministers of the Member States responsible to urge completion of the risk assessments as soon as possible.

Once the reports have been finalised, the Commission will publish the results in the Official journal and propose further risk reduction measures, if necessary.

Given that increased concentrations of five polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) congeners have been found in the blood of workers at recycling plants and that future Community legislation on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) will increase significantly the recycling of PBDE containing plastics, the substitution of these brominated flame retardants in the production of new electrical and electronic equipment is currently discussed within the Commission.

(1) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999. (2) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 101. (3) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999). (4) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993. C 330 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2510/99

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Lack of Community law on efficient, sustainable use of water resources, as highlighted by the case of the Terra Mítica theme park in the Valencia region of Spain

The recent publication of a study carried out by the Economics Department of the Universitat Jaume I in Castellón has caused alarm amongst the inhabitants of two towns Benidorm and Finestrat within the Valencia region of Spain on account of the amount of water which is expected to be needed for the Terra Mítica theme park which is currently under construction. Such a demand for water, which by the year 2002 will increase the water shortage virtually twofold, will pose a major problem for an area which has been particularly affected by recent droughts.

The theme park, which is being built with funding from the regional government, will require much of the water available in the area in order to support the expansion of tourism which will come about as a result of the new facilities and to maintain and irrigate the golf courses which are to form part of the leisure complex.

At present, no Community directive exists to prevent the misuse of water, particularly in the regions of the Member States which suffer from drought. However, cases such as the construction of the Terra Mítica theme park demonstrate the need for relevant Community legislation which, on the basis of the principle of the sustainable development, lays down criteria designed to ensure that water resources are properly used.

In 1997 the Commission incorporated a number of measures to encourage efficient, sustainable water use into its proposal for a framework directive on water, which is still under discussion. This aspect of the proposal was emphasised by Parliament at first reading and could be one of the points to be negotiated with the Council during the conciliation procedure which is more than likely to take place.

How is the Commission going to ensure that, in response to excessive demand, measures relating to the efficient, sustainable use of water resources are adopted in accordance with the above directive?

Does the Commission know whether or not the recently published data on water shortages were taken into account when the mandatory environmental impact study was carried out in respect of the Terra Mítica theme park?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission fully agrees that present Community water legislation does not ensure sustainable water management of all waters. This is why the Commission, following initiatives by the environment committee of the Parliament, has proposed to Parliament and Council a water framework directive (1). Parliament has given its opinion (1st reading) in February 1999 (2), and Council adopted a common position in October 1999 (3). Progress of negotiations seems to indicate final adoption, following co- decision, in summer 2000.

The water framework directive will set ambitious environmental objectives such as ‘preventing deterioration of groundwater status, restoring bodies of groundwater, and ensuring a balance between abstraction and recharge of groundwater’ (article 4(1)b). It will require water management based on river basins (‘river basin management plans’), ensuring protection of surface waters as well as groundwaters (article 3). It will establish obligations for Member States to ensure legally binding measures to achieve this objective, such as ‘controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater, and impoundment of fresh surface water, including a register or registers of abstraction and impoundment.’ Only water abstractions with insignificant impact may be exempted from these obligations (article 11(3)d). 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/17

The Commission will, once the directive has been adopted, ensure its appropriate transposition and implementation, both the instruments foreseen in the EC Treaty and by information of and consultation with all interested parties. Furthermore, the directive will ensure openness and transparency by an obligation for Member States to inform citizens and interested parties when establishing their river basin management plans.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (4) does not apply since it does not cover theme parks. The amended Environmental impact assessment (EIA) directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/ EEC (5) would cover theme parks in cases where a Member State determines the specific project as being likely to have significant environmental impacts. However the amended Directive does not apply to the current project either since the project application was made before the amended directive was applicable in the Member States.

Given the facts on Community water legislation and environmental impact assessment as described, there is no legal basis for the Commission to intervene.

(1) OJ C 184, 17.6.1997, OJ C 16, 20.1.1998, OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, OJ C 342 E, 30.11.1999. (2) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999. (3) Council Common Position adopted on 22.10.1999; OJ C 343, 30.11.1999. (4) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2531/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Foundation of a centre for the promotion of classical studies and the teaching of ancient Greek and Latin at educational institutions

In 1995 a Memorandum was submitted to the Council of Education Ministers of the European Union on the foundation of a centre of studies for promoting the teaching of Latin and ancient Greek studies at educational institutions in the European Union, especially at secondary level. Representatives of the Italian, French, Greek and Spanish Governments stressed that ‘today more than ever before classics constitute an extremely valuable educational tool with which to educate the young who could acquire through this common intellectual heritage a genuine European outlook alongside their legitimate national feelings’.

However, five years have now elapsed without the European Union having taken any practical measures to achieve this objective. Moreover, classical studies cannot be allowed to disappear from secondary education in the next century: distinguished figures in classical studies such as Jacqueline de Romilly of the French Academy and Jean-Pierre Vernant, both professors at the Collège de France, have expressed their disappointment at the disappearance of classical studies from secondary education (See Le Monde of 12.11.1999). In view of this situation, will the Commission say what initiatives it intends to take to make a positive contribution towards the establishment of such a centre?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

During the Education Council of 31 March 1995, the Greek minister submitted a Memorandum on the foundation of a European centre for classical studies. This led to numerous discussions. C 330 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

The Education Council of 6 May 1996 noted the Greek government’s initiative to establish such a centre. The Commission said it was prepared to examine such an initiative, but has not yet received a request from the Greek authorities.

Moreover the Commission, particularly through the Socrates programme, provides regular support for projects in this area. Thus, under Comenius and Erasmus, several cooperation projects between schools or universities have targeted the teaching of classical languages and cultures. Among adult education activities, a project has been launched which aims to construct a European identity through a return to the roots of this identity, using Greco-Latin mythology as a starting point.

(2000/C 330 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2536/99 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Status of the teaching of Finnish in the EU institutions

At the Commission there are some 60 established teachers providing foreign-language teaching of the languages of the Member States to officials. Under a decision in principle by the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, established teachers are to remain in their posts until they retire. Demand over and above the capacity of the established teachers is filled by invitations to tender.

At present Finnish is the only EU language without an established teacher, and this has given rise to concern among students, teachers and translation services. As a result of economies it was decided not to grant established status to the part-time Finnish teacher. Since then, again to save on costs, the Commission has decided to terminate the contract of the part-time Finnish teacher and to pay a local language school to provide Finnish teaching. This has caused a deterioration in the quality of the teaching and has placed Finnish in an unequal position in relation to the other languages.

Can the Commission explain why the teaching of Finnish was entrusted in the spring term 1999 to a language school which did not have on its payroll any qualified staff knowing Finnish at the date when the course began? On what basis was the language school successful in the competition for this contract? Does the Commission consider that the language school fulfilled the other conditions referred to in the notice of competition, such as a level of pay which reflected the demands of the work and was sufficient to motivate the teacher?

Does the Commission intend to consider altering its decision in principle and opening a post for a Finnish teacher with a view to improving the status of Finnish? In the absence of an established teacher, how does the Commission propose to ensure that the demand for Finnish courses is met? Can the Commission explain what costs were saved by employing an outside language school?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2000)

The decision to outsource language courses that could not be covered by the permanent teaching staff of the Council and the Commission was made in 1996 at the end of the Trilogue (Parliament, Council, Commission) set up to examine how expenditure in this area could be rationalised.

In order to implement this decision, an interinstitutional call for tender was organised, giving rise to the conclusion of three contracts for the provision of language teaching services, at the beginning of 1999. These contracts were awarded after the usual tendering procedures. The choice of language schools was made unanimously by the representatives of the Parliament, Council, Commission, Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions. All the criteria in the call for tender were taken into consideration before the contracts were awarded. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/19

In line with the decision of the Trilogue, the contracts of any non-permanent language teachers were not renewed once the institutions were in a position to outsource these services. All the teachers concerned and their representatives were kept fully informed of developments at all stages.

All courses that have been outsourced are monitored on a regular basis. All evaluations demonstrate a high level of satisfaction on the part of the participants and there is no indication that the quality of any of the outsourced courses is inferior to those provided by the permanent teaching staff. Regular meetings are held between the institutions and the language schools concerned to review performance.

At present, the Commission has no intention of suggesting a modification to the Trilogue arrangements, which would be necessary if it were to recruit a permanent Finnish-language teacher.

The cost of outsourcing language teaching is, on average, about 40 % of that of a permanent teacher.

(2000/C 330 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2538/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Milk quota exceeded in the Azores Autonomous region of Portugal

The dairy sector is of strategic importance to the Azores since it accounts for nearly 80 % of the islands’ gross agricultural product, 25 % of milk delivered and over 13 % (equivalent to over 5 000 producers) of Portugal’s dairy farmers. The sector also acts as a stimulus to economic activities which provide jobs in a region which has to bear the costs of being island-based and which qualifies as an outlying region, even though it accounts for only 0,03 % of European production.

The sector has received a certain amount of investment and has been increasing its annual production, which is the only way for farmers to ensure that they earn at least the minimum income, in view of the fact that production prices have fallen in relative terms over the last ten years. For the current marketing year, all the indications are that the Azores has already exceeded its own internal quota, which means that Portugal’s quota as a whole will also be exceeded. Producers should not, however, be penalised as a result since most of them operate small, family-run farms.

On the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty and taking into account the Azores’ status as an outlying region, what action could be taken at Community level in order to ensure that the above producers are not penalised?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

The Commission knows how important milk production is in the Azores. Because the national quota set for Portugal in 1991 also reflected that importance, milk production in the Azores has been able to increase each year since then (as the Honourable Member acknowledges). The Commission therefore considers that the Council has already taken into account the dairy sector’s strategic importance for the Azores region and that a new proposal in favour of the Azores would not be appropriate, particularly given the Council’s recent decision by Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (1)to continue the milk quota system and to set Member States’ quotas until 2008. It should be borne in mind that this Agenda 2000 decision was reached after lengthy discussion in which a delicate balance was struck within the Council between the legitimate demands of all the Member States, the fall in official prices and their entry into force in 2005. If the national quota is in fact exceeded as forecast, it will be up to Portugal to implement the adjustment measures available under Community legislation in order to ensure fair treatment for the producers affected.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. C 330 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2541/99 by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Fixing of prices of pharmaceutical products in Italy

The Commission has received a series of complaints regarding the economic and social implications deriving from the fixing of the prices of pharmaceutical products allowed by the rules governing the national health service in Italy.

The Commission issued a formal notice to the Italian Government in February 1996, followed by a reasoned opinion in 1998, asking Italy to bring its laws into line with European competition rules, since it considered that the criteria used for fixing the price of pharmaceutical products (in particular, Article 36 of Law No 449/97 and the CIPE decision No 10/98), allowing prices to be adjusted over an excessively long period of six years, were inappropriate.

These provisions run counter to Community law, since they make it impossible under any circumstances for importers to cover the cost of products and, directly or indirectly, serve as an obstacle to imports, with the result that it is difficult to find certain basic pharmaceutical products on the Italian market.

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that Italy complies with European rules on competition?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Since the Commission issued its reasoned opinion in September 1999, under the infringement procedure for the violation of Article 28 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 30) mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Italian authorities have indicated their wish for further discussions on this matter. In this context, the Commission has received a draft amendment to the regulations proposed by the Ministers concerned. The adoption of this amendment, which must be approved by various national authorities, should remove the obstacle in question, whilst maintaining the budgetary requirements behind the disputed measure, which forms an integral part of the social security system. In view of the promises made by the Italian authorities, a decision will be made as to whether this case should be brought before the Court of Justice once the final text has been received.

Given that the proposed amendments have yet to be finalised, the Commission is not in a position to provide more detailed information.

(2000/C 330 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2555/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Rail travel standards

In view of the Commission’s responsibilities for public health within the European Union and in particular the Treaty requirements that the Community shall contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection through specific action which supports and supplements the policy pursued by the Member States to protect public health, is there or should there be any minimum standard applied to the availability of toilet facilities on trains, and what is the current practice in each of the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any legally binding standards regarding the availability of toilets in trains or wagons. However the International union of railways (UIC), via its leaflet 563 (obligatory, though not in 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/21

full, for its members), sets standards on toilets which include a minimum of one toilet per passenger coach, or two in the case of coaches with more than 40 seats, each toilet to be equipped with a washbasin, a minimum room temperature of 20 °, the installation to follow ergonomic and aesthetic principles, a minimum size of 1,20 to 0,90 m2, a minimum distance of 500 mm between the toilet seat and the wall, and other specifications regarding the technical installations (hot water, availability of water and electricity).

Given that all main railway undertakings are members of UIC, and not having heard of any difficulties in respect of the availability of toilets, the Commission does not see the need for legally binding minimum standards on a European level.

(2000/C 330 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2557/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Waste recycling

Would the Commission please give the latest available figures for the percentage of household waste recycled in each of the Member States?

(2000/C 330 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2558/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Waste recycling incentives

Would the Commission please outline the principal causes of the substantial differences which exist in the recycling of household waste, notably the existence (or otherwise) of public policy measures to encourage such recycling, and describe which are the most effective public incentives for recycling?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2557/99 and E-2558/99 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

There are many factors that influence the recycling of household waste, the most important being the efficiency of the collection system, technological know-how and the existence of a market for recyclables or recycled products.

To enhance the recycling of household waste various regulatory instruments have been enacted in the Community, such as Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (1), which sets targets for the recycling of packaging waste, and Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfilling of waste (2), which sets targets for the reduction of the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste.

In addition, the recycling of household waste can be encouraged by other instruments, such as market based instruments, quality standards for recycled products, integration of environmental aspects into public procurement procedures and the improvement of the image of recycled products. C 330 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

To improve the possibilities for recycling in Europe, the Commission adopted a communication on the competitiveness of the recycling industry (3). Following the adoption of this communication a Recycling Forum was set up in 1999. The task of this Forum is to assess the key factors for the competitiveness of the recycling industry and identify the most appropriate mix of actions to be taken. The final report of the Forum will be ready in the beginning of 2000.

On 10 January 2000 the Commission adopted its report to the Council and the Parliament on the implementation of Community waste legislation Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/692/EEC, Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, Directive 75/439/EEC on waste oils, as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC and Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage sludge for the period 1995-1997 (4).

For the data collected under Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (5), the percentage of household waste recycled in relation to the household waste produced per Member State for the period 1995-1997 breaks down as follows: Belgium 39 % Denmark 28 % Germany 30 % Greece 7 % Spain 16 % France 6 % Ireland 8 % Luxembourg 7 % The Netherlands 44 % Austria 43 % Finland 17 % Sweden 16 % United Kingdom 7 % Community average 15 %.

No data are available for Portugal and Italy.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. (2) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999. (3) COM(98) 463 final. (4) COM(1999) 752 final. (5) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2000/C 330 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2559/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Shipping flags

Would the Commission please describe the principal criteria applied by each Member State before it accepts that a vessel is able to sail under its flag? Would the Commission confirm that both Greece and Italy (and maybe other Member States) apply as one criterion the employment of their nationals? Would the Commission please state whether this is consistent with the provisions on non-discrimination and free movement of labour for European Union nationals?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The principal criteria or conditions required by each Member State before it accepts that a vessel is able to fly its flag are those related to the ownership and management of the vessel, to its technical or safety specifications and to the nationality of the captain and the first officer of the vessel. However, such conditions are not harmonised at Community level and differ considerably from Member State to Member State. As far as the ownership and management of the vessel are concerned, most Member States’ regulations on the registration of vessels require that at least a certain share (usually at least 50 %) of the vessel be owned by Community nationals or by Community companies and that the vessel be managed from their territory. Some Member States require that the technical or safety specifications of the vessel be recorded in the registry and others require that vessels fulfil certain requirements such an age limit for certain types of vessels in order to be registered. Finally, most Member States require that the captain and the first officer of a vessel to be registered should be nationals of the Member State of registration. This condition is compatible with Community law since under international law the flag state is obliged to exercise authority over the ships which it registers and to which it grants its flag, and this authority is exercised through the captain or his first officer. The captain also exercises powers of public authority on board the ship which must be carried out necessarily by a national of the flag state of the vessel. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/23

In conformity with the above, the Greek and Italian legislation require the captain and the first officer of a vessel flying their national flag to be Greek or Italian respectively. The Commission can also confirm that both Member States require that the rest of the crew be Community nationals and not Greek or Italian nationals and this condition is also compatible with Community law.

(2000/C 330 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2572/99 by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Air fares in the EU

Air fares within the EU vary alarmingly. Domestic flights are significantly cheaper than comparable flights to neighbouring countries of the Union.

Lufthansa, for instance, quotes the following fares:

Munich-Frankfurt, 1 hour, DM 299,

Munich-Düsseldorf, 1 hour 5 minutes, DM 448,

Munich-Vienna, 1 hour, DM 527,

Munich-Paris, 1 hour 10 minutes, DM 763.

Since these airports are served by various other carriers, it cannot be a case of differing market prices. Airport charges cannot be so very different either.

How can the price differences between domestic flights and comparable flights to other EU countries be explained? What is the European Commission doing to bring about an internal market in air transport?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

Since the entry into force on 1 January 1993 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (1), airfares within the Community have been completely liberalised. Prices are therefore determined by market forces. The differences in price between domestic flights and other intra-Community flights are gradually diminishing with the arrival on the market of new carriers with low operating costs. The remaining differences are mainly due to distance and volume of traffic. Generally, the operating costs of a route per passenger drop as the volume of traffic increases. Routes with heavy traffic also attract more competition. Domestic routes often have more traffic than other intra-Community routes.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 provides for the possibility of withdrawing a basic fare when it is excessively high in relation to the long-term fully allocated relevant costs of the air carrier. It is for the Member States to apply this safeguard clause where necessary. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission is monitoring the implementation by the Member States of the last liberalisation package in the air transport sector which entered into force on 1 January 1993. It has already had to adopt several decisions regarding the granting of Community carrier licenses and, in particular, access to the market. The Commission is also monitoring the application of Community competition rules in the air transport sector, to prevent the creation of anti-competitive structures and to oppose agreements and practices by carriers which could restrict or eliminate competition.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992. C 330 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2585/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Data on nuclear pollution of oceans

1. Where and in what context does the Commission publish the data it receives concerning this problem?

2. Are the requirements of the directive on environmental information satisfied?

3. Is this information available to the questioner?

4. What happens to the data evaluation by independent bodies (e.g. the University of Wales or other universities) and what conclusions does the Commission draw from it?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission periodically publishes data relating to environmental radioactivity and to radioactive effluents from nuclear power stations and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in the Community. The former are based on information on environmental radioactivity levels communicated to the Commission under the terms of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, and the latter have been based on data presented to the Commission in pursuance of Article 8(a) of the Commission’s Recommendation 19/4/Euratom of 7 December 1990 on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty (1). This recommendation has recently been revised by Commission Recommendation 1999/829/Euratom (2).

The Commission thus seeks, at all times, to provide full access to information on environmental radioactivity, in compliance with Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment (3).

The Commission also carries out specific assessments and evaluations, which include consideration of information available from other sources, such as the Marína series relating to radioactivity in Northern European waters (to which the reply to the Honourable Member’s written question P-2524/99 (4) is also relevant), the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

All the documents mentioned above are available from the Commission (5).

In carrying out assessments within the Marína series of studies, the Commission takes account of a wide range of relevant information available and input from a number of expert bodies and individuals.

(1) OJ L 6, 9.1.1991. (2) OJ L 324, 16.12.1999. (3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990. (4) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 63. (5) Radiation Protection 110 in preparation, Radiation Protection 104 (ISBN 92-828-6098-I), Radiation Protection 94 (ISBN 92-828-2140-4), Radiation Protection 69, Radiation Protection 47 (ISBN 92-826-1113-2). 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/25

(2000/C 330 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2586/99 by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

20 November 1999 was the tenth anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. All Member States of the European Union have ratified this agreement. Somalia has neither signed nor ratified the agreement. While the USA has signed the agreement it has not ratified it.

As far as is known, the Commission intends to publish a communication on the rights of children.

Does the Commission intend to draw attention in this communication to the fact that Somalia and the USA are the only countries not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Is the Commission considering taking steps to encourage Somalia and the USA to ratify the agreement as soon as possible?

If so, what measures does the Commission plan to this end?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Commission attaches the highest importance to the support of the rights of children as set out in the United Nations (UN).

The Commission notes that all countries with the exception of Somalia and the United States (US) have ratified the UN Convention. It would welcome its ratification by those two countries.

Although the decision whether to ratify a UN Convention is a matter for the individual state concerned, the Commission will continue using its close bilateral contacts with the US to bring up this issue in an appropriate manner. However, as far as Somalia is concerned, it is evident that this country will not be able to sign any Convention, as long as it has no government.

The UN Convention has attained an unprecedented level of ratification. With 191 States Parties, the Convention is the first legally binding international human rights instrument which is close to universal ratification. The Union has issued frequent appeals to the remaining States, not yet parties to the Convention, to ratify it as a matter of priority.

However, ratification alone is not enough. The Convention also needs to be implemented through the enactment of national legislation. The Union is concerned at the large extent of reservations to the Convention. It continues to make known its objections to reservations which are contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. These reservations raise doubts as to the true commitment of the States concerned to implement the Convention. The Union also urges the States Parties to review regularly other reservations with the aim of withdrawing them.

As regards a communication by the Commission on the rights of the child, no final decision has yet been taken. Specific actions in different fields in favour of children are already in fact in place.

(2000/C 330 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2594/99 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Ridham Dock incinerator

Plans have been drawn up for the construction of a waste incinerator plant at Ridham Dock in the Swale Special Protection Area, Kent. C 330 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Those objecting to this development point to Directive 79/409/EEC (1) and the ECJ Ruling in Commission -v- Germany, 1989/91, Case No 13 ‘Ley Bay’.

Does the Commission consider that the proposed development is in breach of EU law?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2000)

The Commission is not aware that there are currently plans to build a waste incinerator plant at Ridham Dock in the Swale special protection area in Kent.

The Swale site has been classified by the United Kingdom as a special protection area (SPA) pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Member States must take steps to avoid any disturbance of the birds, for which this site has been classified as a SPA, as well as any deterioration of their habitats.

The Honourable Member is invited to submit further details on the nature and extent of the threat to the birds and their habitats so that the Commission will be able to investigate the matter with the United Kingdom authorities. In particular, it would be helpful if the Honourable Member could provide details of the current plans regarding the proposed incinerator and the stage these have reached in the planning process.

(2000/C 330 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2611/99 by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Use of courier services in the Commission

Is it true that on 25 June 1999 the Commission’s DG IX issued internal instructions that all express courier consignments should be despatched by UPS with effect from 1 July 1999?

Was there a call for tenders before this decision was taken?

Who provided these services for the Commission before the date in question?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

1. The Commission can confirm that UPS handles all express mail for Commission departments in Brussels (Lot 1) and Geel (Lot 2). The Commission departments in Luxembourg (Lot 3) use a different contractor, namely DHL.

2. All three lots were published as calls for tender in Official Journal S 248 of 23 December 1998. Advance notice and information was published in OJ S 33 of 17 February 1998.

3. Prior to 1 July 1999, the Commission’s express mail was handled by three contractors: DHL, UPS and Chronopost. The same procedure involving publication in the OJ was applied in selecting them. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/27

(2000/C 330 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2617/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Environmental effects of growth in UK sheep numbers

What is the Commission’s assessment of the growth in UK sheep numbers, and of the consequent effects upon habitats and species diversity, since Britain joined the former European Economic Community and became subject to the common agricultural policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Sheep numbers in the United Kingdom remained fairly stable in the first years following accession to the Community in 1973 but began to rise steadily in the 1980’s after the commencement of the sheepmeat regime. This period saw a significant development in export opportunities due to easier access to the French market. Between 1980 and 1993 sheep numbers rose by 40 % in the United Kingdom. Following the reform of the sheep regime and introduction of individual limits for producers in 1993, numbers stabilized although they have risen again in 1997 and 1998 in the wake of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis and the resulting increase in demand for lamb. Sheep numbers are expected to decline in 1999 and 2000.

Article 5d of Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (1) has provided a mechanism for the United Kingdom to link the payment of direct support to respect for the environment in so far as sheep production is concerned.

The British authorities have indicated that they have made use of this provision in order to avoid problems of overgrazing. This provision has now been greatly strengthened in Article 3 of Regulation 1259/99 in the recent common agricultural policy reform.

Community nature conservation legislation (2) also provides a relevant framework for ensuring that sheep stocking levels do not lead to ecological damage in areas of high nature conservation value, included in the Natura 2000 network of protected areas.

(1) OJ L 296, 14.10.1989. (2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

(2000/C 330 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2623/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: The state of the development of the Lyon-Turin-Milan-Verona-Venice-Trieste

According to forecasts concerning the construction of the TEN Lyon-Trieste route, work on this line should be finished in 2010. In particular, the Turin-Milan section is scheduled to be completed in 2006, the Milan-Verona and Verona-Venice sections in 2008 and the Venice-Trieste section in 2010.

This network, one of the 14 trans-European projects in the transport sector to be cofinanced by the Union, represents one of the most important components of the future development of communications within the Union and should also contribute to greatly strengthening links between Member States and the states of central and south-eastern Europe, tackling the problems posed today by the transport of goods by road, in particular the environmental problems in the Alpine region. C 330 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Does not the Commission believe that in view of the particular importance of this project, it would be appropriate to speed up its completion, with particular regard to the Lyon-Turin link? Can the Commission indicate the reasons why the main parties interested in the project have shown such little desire to hasten its completion?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The Commission has always very clearly expressed its support for the combined-transport Lyon-Trieste high speed train (TGV) project. That support has taken the practical form of Community subsidies (roughly EUR 120 million) granted to studies for the French, Italian and international parts of the ‘Alpetunnel’ European Economic Interest Group (EEIG) since 1993.

Half of the financial support provided by the European budget has been earmarked for the international section, including the geotechnical studies for the tunnel, which has a cross-frontier base, and for the major studies of the interoperability between the French and Italian networks.

At the Franco-Italian Summit held in Nïmes in 1999 the heads of state and government stressed that the timetable required the EEIG studies to be completed in 2000. The intention, on the basis of those studies, was to take a political decision concerning the subsequent stages of the project (including the base tunnel).

It should be noted that, for the Torino-Trieste section, where 460 km of new line are planned, the preparatory work has already begun on the key nodes. Building work on the Torino-Milano and Padova- Mestre sections is to begin in 2000 and these sections should be operational in 2006.

The Commission attaches the greatest importance to reaching a political agreement on the basis of the studies already carried out, which would enable the international link to be provided in accordance with the timetable.

(2000/C 330 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2626/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: New ATAC programme and increased pollution in Rome

Recently the Rome municipal authority and the municipal public transport company (ATAC) have made several adjustments to the transport programme in the 2nd and 4th municipal districts. The new programme has been strongly opposed by users of the public transport system, as it means that several bus routes will be changed; this will lead to a re-routing of traffic onto roads which are unsuitable for such purposes and hence to an upsurge in air and noise pollution levels. Furthermore, the new ATAC programme makes it far more complicated to use public transport and forces passengers to take two or three different buses where previously they would have had to take just one. Journey times have thus been considerably lengthened.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it not believe that the above measures are in breach of Directive 96/61/EC (1) on integrated pollution prevention and control and of Directive 70/220/EEC (2) and subsequent amendments on air pollution by gases from engines of motor vehicles?

2. Does the increase in pollution which has been registered in several areas not run counter to Directive 82/884/EEC on the limit value for lead in the air? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/29

3. Does the increase in noise pollution not run counter to Directive 70/157/EEC?

4. Would it not consider it advisable to call on the Rome municipal authority to pursue with greater diligence a policy encouraging people to use public transport?

5. What is it’s general view on the matter?

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26. (2) OJ L 76, 6.4.1970, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (1) requires standards to be set for a number of pollutants and requires Member States to assess air quality, publicise the results and prepare and implement improvement plans for the worst areas. Such plans may include measures to control motor vehicle traffic that contributes to the breaches of the relevant limit values. The Directive also includes the general aim of maintaining ambient air quality where it is good and improving it in other cases. Council Directive 96/61/CE of 24 September 1996, on the other hand, relates to integrated prevention and control of emissions from fixed installations rather than traffic.

The first of the ‘daughter directives’ Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (2) was finally adopted by the Council in April 1999 setting limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM10) and lead which are to be met in 2005 or 2010. Further daughter directives, setting limit values for carbon monoxide and benzene and long-term objectives and target values for ozone in ambient air have also been proposed by the Commission. Most of these pollutants are found at their highest concentrations in urban areas and have road transport as a major source. Whilst in many cases further reductions in emissions from transport may be required in order to meet the air quality standards, it does not follow that one specific action resulting in an increase in local emissions necessarily conflicts with the air quality directives.

European legislation on vehicles and fuels has substantially reduced emissions from road transport notwithstanding the continued growth in overall traffic. It is calculated, for example, that with the adoption of the recent ‘Auto-Oil’ Directives 98/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/220/EEC (3) and Directive 98/70/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (4) polluting emissions from road transport (but not carbon dioxide) will broadly fall by 70-80 % between 1995 and 2010. Breaches of the air quality standards should be much reduced but it is expected that there will nonetheless be problems of compliance in some European cities and at traffic hot spots. Better management of the traffic system and promotion of cleaner fuels and technologies and more sustainable transport modes should in principle form part of the solution. The banning of leaded petrols in Europe from January 2000 will also contribute significantly to an improvement in urban air quality and the increased protection of population groups at high exposure risk, in particular children of up to 6 years of age. However, the lack of preparedness in several Member States, including Italy, means that the leaded fuels will not be fully banned until 2002 and that the health benefits of the measure will be delayed. This delay is intended to give those Member States more time in which to inform customers of the availability of lead replacement additives and reassure them that older cars need not be scrapped.

With respect to the question about noise, reference is made to the motor vehicle exhaust systems Directive, Council Directive 70/157/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles (5) that C 330 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

concerns vehicle type approval giving access to the single market. It does not, however, apply to environmental noise arising from traffic operations. The Commission’s work programme for the year 2000 foresees the development of a proposal for a framework directive on noise.

(1) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996. (2) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999. (3) OJ L 350, 28.12.1998. (4) OJ L 350, 28.12.1998. (5) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970.

(2000/C 330 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2636/99 by Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Renewable energy sources the Commission’s intentions

In many Member States generating electricity from renewable energy sources attracts national support measures, e.g. under the German Law on feeding electricity from renewable energies into the public grid. At the request of the Council and Parliament the Commission has drafted a proposal for a directive on generating electricity from renewable sources. The draft says that if the share of electricity from renewable sources in a particular Member State amounts to 5 % of total electricity consumption, with effect from 2010 the internal electricity market should also be opened up to imported electricity generated from renewable energies from other Member States.

There are two points to be made:

1. In Germany banks usually make loans for renewable energies for periods of 12 to 15 years. The cut- off point of 2010 would put a stop to these loans and would mean that small and medium-sized businesses specialising in renewable sources of energy would face financial difficulties. This would run entirely counter to the idea of support for renewable energy.

2. At the same time, the EU would be going against its intended reduction in CO2 emissions.

What are the Commission’s views on this?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Any Community action with respect to a proposal for a draft directive on electricity from renewable energy sources must have two aims firstly a significant increase in the level of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in all Member States, which constitutes a fundamental contribution to the achievement of commitments undertaken at Kyoto and the indicative objective of doubling the share of renewable energy from at present 6 % to 12 % of the gross inland energy consumption by 2010 as set out in the white paper on renewable energy sources, and secondly the progressive inclusion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market.

Numerous organisations representing the different renewable energy technologies have stressed the need for regulatory stability as this would reassure the potential investors and the financial institutions on the viability of the long term investments in plants generating electricity from renewable energy sources. A directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources would have to take account of the need to reinforce the regulatory stability concerning the Community legality of the support schemes applied in the Member States.

The Commission will decide shortly on the future steps with respect to a possible proposal for a draft directive. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/31

(2000/C 330 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2639/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Commission proposals on the COM in cotton

For many years cotton production in Greece has been overshooting the guaranteed national quantity of 782 000 tonnes, resulting in large ‘fines’ being imposed and producers’ incomes being drastically reduced.

In the Commission’s new proposals for the modification of the cotton regime, not only do the level of the guaranteed quantity and the total expenditure allocated from the Community budget (EUR 770 million) remain unchanged but a further increase in ‘co-responsibility’ is suggested, supposedly because of overrunning of the annual budget.

Cotton is one of Greece’s chief crops (approximately 450 000 hectares; over 200 000 families employed in primary, secondary and tertiary production; high levels of investment) and, at the same time, there is a significant shortfall in this product in the EU.

In the light of the above:

1. Does the Commission intend to re-examine its proposals with a view to increasing the maximum guaranteed quantity and the corresponding budget allocation, to tie in with actual production levels?

2. Will it refrain from increasing the deductions applied when the reference quantities are exceeded?

3. Will it take steps to ensure that small producers of cotton receive the entire aid amount without any deduction for ‘co-responsibility’?

4. What other additional measures does it intend to take to support small producers, who are affected particularly severely by the high ‘fines’?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

In line with the priorities which, at the time of the agreement on the 1998/99 price package, the Council wished to address when the regime was reviewed, the Commission has proposed a reform of the common organisation of the cotton market.

Whilst making the legislation much simpler, the proposal maintains the status quo as regards the fundamental principle of the aid scheme as constituted by the deficiency payment system and the level of institutional prices and national guaranteed quantities.

Leaving the national guaranteed quantities and, consequently, the maximum guaranteed quantity unchanged is a response to environmental concerns in that it will stabilise the size of the areas cultivated, already limited by the availability of water.

In budgetary terms, current expenditure in the sector, running at more than EUR 900 million, shows that situations may arise which endanger compliance with overall budgetary discipline. Cotton producers, who are at present alone in enjoying total protection against world price fluctuations, must in turn endeavour not to exacerbate the budgetary situation by overshooting their national guaranteed quantities. To this end, the proposed increase in the percentage deduction should help to raise farmers’ awareness of their responsibility as regards the total level of production.

Against this background, it would therefore be inconsistent to exempt small cotton producers from the co- responsibility mechanism, nor does the Commission plan to introduce specific support measures for them. The Honourable Member is reminded that the system of fixed-rate aid per hectare for small cotton producers was abolished during the 1995/96 marketing year to put an end to the ineffective and undesirable use being made of Community funds at the time. However, those funds were incorporated in the overall budget currently allocated to the sector. C 330 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/99

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Health and safety in the buildings of the European Institutions

Would the Commission indicate the legal status of the buildings of the European Institutions, with particular regard to health and safety legislation? Is there a special regime for the European Parliament, or are Members protected by Belgian legislation when in Brussels, French legislation when in Strasbourg, and Luxembourg legislation when in Luxembourg?

What legal protection do MEPs and their employees, not to mention employees of Parliament itself, have against an unsafe and unhealthy working environment?

To what extent has Community health and safety legislation been enforced within the buildings of the European Institutions? Finally, what legal redress is available to those working in the European Institutions against an unhealthy and unsafe working environment?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2000)

According to Article 5.1 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1), every employer is obliged to ensure the health and safety of the employees in all aspects connected with work. Thus the European institutions, as employers and managers of large organisations, have to respect safety requirements and occupational hygiene as set out in a number of legal acts.

The minimum requirements on safety and health at work under Community law are defined in Directive 89/391/EEC and in various subsequent directives (2), all adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal and with the agreement of the Parliament. As regards prevention and protection, Article 7 of Directive 89/391/EEC provides a framework of necessary measures to be taken by employers. The main requirements envisaged by the Directive are: evaluation of the workplaces and prevention of risks; monitoring the plans and work sites for buildings to be used as a work place; analysis and monitoring of the hygiene of the workplaces and of social equipment; development and transmission of instructions concerning safety and hygiene; staff training as regards prevention, safety and health; co-ordination with, and information to, contractors and sub-contractors on safety and health issues; and provision of of advice by the employer and management to workers and their representatives on all questions arising from any of these points.

National health and safety legislation does not apply to European institutions. However, it is clear that European institutions respect Community law in this area.

Furthermore, the Institutions are obviously permitted to establish a higher level of safety and health than that specified in the legislation. The Commission has in fact set a higher standard with regard to the characteristics of its buildings, regulations concerning smokers and non smokers, prevention of fire, procedures to be followed in the event of evacuation or in the event of serious and immediate danger, and food hygiene.

The legal redress available for officials working in the European institutions is the Staff Regulations (Article 90) while for other staff it is as indicated in their contract, depending on its legal status. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/33

Specific regulations are applicable for members of Parliament and their staff. Since the Commission is not responsible for answering this part of the question, the Honourable Member is referred to the General secretariat of the Parliament for further information.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. (2) 89/654/EEC, 89/655/EEC and 89/656/EEC (OJ L 393, 30.12.1989); 90/269/EEC and 90/270/EEC (OJ L 156, 21.6.1990); 92/57/EEC and 92/58/EEC (OJ L 245, 26.8.1992).

(2000/C 330 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2643/99 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Rules and regulations for inspection of abattoirs in the United Kingdom

Is the Commission satisfied with the UK Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulation 1995 which purports to put into effect Directive 93/119/EC (1) on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing?

How many complaints has the Commission received from British farmers about the implementation of this Directive?

In the Commission’s view, why does the slaughter of a lamb cost approximately EUR 17 in the UK and less that EUR 5 in France?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter and killing was transposed into United Kingdom law and the Commission is not aware of any current problems with regard to the implementation and enforcement of the relevant national legislation in that Member State.

The Commission has not received any complaints from United Kingdom farmers or their organisations with regard to this Directive. The Commission is, however, aware of the report of a working group on regulation in the meat sector which was recently presented to the British authorities.

The costs of slaughter include both the normal commercial costs of abattoirs and the fees imposed for official veterinary control. These costs are not identical in the Member States (1). Commercial costs, in particular, may vary even within Member States according to such factors as the ownership of the abattoir (private, municipal or co-operative), local labour costs, taxation and various other factors.

The Commission is unable, therefore, to comment on the particular figures which have been quoted.

If more detailed information about the alleged difference in costs and the basis on which they have been calculated were to be supplied by the Honourable Member, the Commission would be prepared to consider the matter further.

(1) Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/43/EC (OJ L 162, 1.7.1996) makes provisions for the harmonisation of rules on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls. However article 5(3) there of enables Member States to charge fees exceeding the costs of Community fees providing that the total fees charged do not exceed the costs of inspection. C 330 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2644/99 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: URBAN programme

The URBAN programme makes no provision for subsidising specific housing programmes, although housing is a social need of the first order.

Is there any possibility, within the new URBAN programme, of establishing specific programmes on housing? What other alternative approaches could be taken to the problem of housing as a social issue?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

Housing is not eligible for the Structural Funds. Housing programmes do not therefore qualify under the Urban Community initiative, which is financed by these Funds.

However, in Annex I to its communication of 13 October 1999 laying down guidelines for projects under the new Urban Community initiative (1), the Commission acknowledges that housing can play in some instances a major role in any attempts to address urban problems with a view to better social cohesion. The Commission states that the programmes must be seen to have taken housing into account where it makes an important contribution to local regeneration. However, it is for the local, regional or national authorities, depending on the country, to bear the entire cost, without assistance from the Structural Funds.

(1) COM(1999) 477 final.

(2000/C 330 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2646/99 by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Val del Cerfone E78-E45 road link

The Tuscan region road network department of the Italian National Roads Authority (ANAS) plans to build a four-lane road link between the E78 Grosseto-Fano highway and the E45 Cesena-Orte highway, between Le Ville (Monterchi, Arezzo) and Selci Lama (San Giustino, Perugia).

During the preliminary planning phase (final version of study: 5 February 1999) an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was carried out which considered three possible routes, one through the Sovara valley and the other two in the Cerfone valley. The parameters taken into consideration in the environmental impact assessment were land use, the physical system, the natural system, flora and vegetation, the landscape and, lastly, noise, omitting the fauna, air, climate, material assets and cultural heritage factors and the interaction between them, and thus violating the provisions of Article 3 of Directive 85/337/ EEC (1) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2). This is particularly serious in view of the fact that one of the most prestigious works of art in world history, the Madonna del Parto by Piero della Francesca, is found in the Cerfone valley, and the whole area affected by the possible E78 route is characterised by important works of art and historical elements, especially connected with the work of art already mentioned. The municipalities involved in the project disagree over the choice of route.

Does the Commission not consider that the environmental impact assessment should be revised to take into account material assets, cultural heritage and their interaction with other factors, as laid down by the Community directives?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/35

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission considers that the information given by the Honourable Member does not clearly show that all the factors claimed to be missing from the environmental impact assessment carried out in relation to the four lane road project concerned were identifiable in accordance with article 3 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, and, therefore, relevant to the assessment.

In addition, it is not possible to clearly identify the road project concerned. The Honourable Member indicates that it is supposed to link the highway no45 Cesena-Orte and the highway No 78 Grosseto-Fano. However, the second highway does not appear to exist and, on the basis of different details given by the Honourable Member, the project appears to be a road link between S.Giustino (Perugia) on the national road No 45 (S 45 Cesena-Orte) and ‘Le Ville’ (Arezzo) on the nterregional road No 73 (S 73, which connects the national road Siena-Bettolle S 326 to San Sepolcro).

Not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of relevant Community law.

(2000/C 330 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2650/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Noise pollution in via Peccioli/via Chiusi

There is heavy train traffic in Rome near via Peccioli and via Chiusi (Rome Chiusi section between 9 and 10 km and the local train to Fiumicino), which causes high noise levels and, as a result, noise pollution in a densely populated area.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it not consider that this contravenes Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of effects on the environment?

2. Does it not think it advisable to ask the Italian authorities to install the sound barriers needed?

3. What are its general views on the subject?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Directives on noise concern limit values for noise from equipment and cannot be considered relevant to the situation mentioned by the Honourable Member. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to act.

The situation is neither covered by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment nor by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1), amending Directive 85/337/EEC. These directives cover only ‘projects’. Article 1 of both directives state clearly that the regime on environmental impact assessment applies to the assessment of the environmental effects of those projects which are likely to have significant effect on the environment. In particular, Article 1 of Directive 97/11/EC provides: Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and C 330 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

an assessment with regard to their effects. The railway to which the Honourable Member refers is not a project any longer, therefore, the above mentioned directives cannot be considered to apply.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2651/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Air pollution in Rome

At a convention held in Rome by the Higher Institute for Health figures on smog pollution in Rome were released. The data revealed that air poisoning causes 760 hospital admissions per year in Rome, 600 for cardiovascular diseases and 160 for respiratory illnesses. Those most at risk are children aged between 0 and 14. During periods of high ozone pollution an increase of 5,5 % can be seen in admissions of children in this age band.

In the light of the above:

1. Are there any Europe-wide studies on urban pollution?

2. Are there any relevant directives?

3. Are there any studies on the level of ozone pollution found in other European capital cities?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

There are a number of reports and studies giving an overview about the air pollution levels in Europe.

Under Council Directive 92/72/EEC on air pollution by ozone (1) the Commission publishes annual reports about the ozone levels measured in the Community. They include an assessment of the ozone pollution against the thresholds set out in the directive. The latest version, covering the summer of 1999 and the year 1998, is available on the Commission’s website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/ozoner- ep.htm).

Additionally, the Commission produced a consolidated report ‘Tropospheric Ozone in the European Union’ (2) which drew conclusions from several years measurements of ozone in the Community. It also contains a chapter on the effects of ozone exposure on human health, including an estimate of the hospital admissions in Member States attributable to ozone pollution.

Further information on air pollution in Europe can be found in the reports of the European environment agency (EEA) (3) with a chapter on tropospheric ozone and specifically on the urban environment. Very recently the EEA presented its report ‘Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century’ containing an overview on air pollution concentration in a number of large European cities (4). The Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) performed a study comparing the air pollution level in European cities with levels found in cities in the United States and Japan (5).

On risk assessment, a great deal of work has been done in the APHEA project (‘Short-term effects on air pollution on health: a European approach to methodology, dose response assessment and evaluation of public health significance’), funded within the third and fourth framework programme on research and development. Effects from exposure to various pollutants, including ozone and fine particles, were investigated in 15 European cities. The World health organisation (WHO) recently published its report 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/37

‘Overview of the environment and health in Europe in the 1990s’ (6) which contains, among other aspects, a quantification of the links between health status and environmental factors, such as air pollution.

The Framework Directive on Air Quality (96/62/EC) (7) requires Community wide assessment of air quality. Limit values for certain pollutants and target values for ozone are to be set in daughter legislation. Member States have to draw up action plans and programmes so as to attain these limit values within a given period. A first daughter Directive (1999/30/EC) (8) contains a set of limit values for sulphur dioxide, fine particles, nitrogen dioxide and lead. A proposal for a second daughter directive (9) on limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide has achieved first reading in the Parliament and a common position has been politically agreed in the Council. The Commission is currently developing legislation covering several heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

As far as ozone is concerned, a daughter directive for ozone will repeal the current ozone Directive 92/72. The Commission proposal (10), together with a directive setting national emission ceilings for the precursor substances of ozone, forms a Community wide strategy to combat ozone pollution. Its objective is to bring about tangible improvements of the ozone pollution, for example more than 70 % reduction by the year 2010 of the ozone exposure above the guideline level for human health of the WHO.

A large amount of research on photochemical ozone levels in Europe has been supported by the Environment research programme. Worthwhile mentioning as regards acute air pollution problems in those regions are the Medcaphot project (Mediterranean campaign of photochemical tracers transport and chemical evolution) which investigated the air pollution of the Athens area, and a group of projects which performed similar investigations in various cities of the Spanish and Italian coasts.

(1) OJ L 297, 13.10.1992. (2) OPOCE, ISBN 92-828-5672-0. (3) Europe’s Environment: The Second Assessment (OPOCE, ISBN 92-828-3351-8). (4) OPOCE, ISBN 92-9157-202-0, figure 3.12.6. (5) ‘Advanced Air Quality Indicators and Reporting Methodological Study and Assessment’, ENV/EPOC/PPC(99)9/ FINAL available on http://www.oecd.int/env/online-soe.htm). (6) ISBN 92-890-1169-6. (7) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996. (8) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999. (9) OJ C 53, 24.2.1999. (10) COM(1999) 125.

(2000/C 330 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2652/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Reliability of airbags

With regard to road safety and accident prevention, Directives 96/27/EC (1) and 96/79/EC (2) (compulsory as of 1 October 1999) set out the criteria and requirements by which airbag performance must be evaluated.

In the light of this:

1. What is the state of implementation of legislative and non-legislative measures in the EU for the improvement of road safety in the 1997-2001 period?

2. Can the Commission say if the data it has at present on road safety and accident prevention enable it to express a definitive view on the reliability of the airbag systems fitted?

(1) OJ L 169, 8.7.1996, p. 1. (2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 7. C 330 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

In April 1997 the Commission presented a communication on promoting road safety in the Community (1) which contained a detailed action programme for the period 1997-2001.

Following suggestions by the Parliament and the Council the Commission is preparing a further communication which gives a progress report on the action programme and establishes priorities for future action. This is currently the subject of consultations within the Commission, and it is hoped to present the document to the Parliament and the Council in the very near future.

Concerning the reliability of airbags the Honourable Member is referred to the two type approval directives on car crashworthiness, Directive 96/27/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1996 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a side impact and amending Directive 70/156/ EEC, and Directive 96/79/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a frontal impact and amending Directive 70/156/EEC, both of which became compulsory for all new cars from October 1999. In order to pass the test, in particular the frontal impact test into an ‘offset deformable barrier’ at 56 kilometer per hour, air bags for the driver and passenger are effective technologies.

Nevertheless, the directives do not specifically necessitate air bags to be fitted and there are no specific standards on their performance. However, what is done is to measure the deceleration forces produced by the crash on anthropometric dummies and air bags are used to ensure that the impact energy is within survivable limits.

In the future, industry will no doubt develop even better crashworthy structures and that will prompt even more air bag development, perhaps ‘smart’ air bags and restraint systems that actually start to activate prior to the aggressive impact and also systems that take account of the age, and physical stature of the occupant.

(1) COM(97) 131 final.

(2000/C 330 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2657/99 by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Common agricultural policy

Cereals account for 12 % of the Union’s total agricultural production, and absorb 48 % of EAGGF Guarantee Section Spending.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What does each kg. of grain produced cost the Union in subsidies, including the export subsidies, set- aside aids, etc., required by Union policy on cereal production?

2. What was the average world market price for one kg. of grain in 1999?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

Based on the figures used to estimate appropriations for the EAGGF Guarantee Section in the 2000 budget, wheat (common wheat and durum wheat) accounts for EUR 6 595 million of spending against production of 95,5 million tonnes, i.e. a cost of EUR 69 per tonne. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/39

This cost includes direct aid per hectare, export refunds and refunds for the production of wheat starch, as well as degressive special aid for Portuguese production.

This represents approximately 40 % of farmers’ gross income (based on the intervention price (EUR 119,19 per tonne) plus direct aid (EUR 54,34 per tonne)), which corresponds to the average for arable crops as a whole.

The world market price of wheat in 1999 was between USD 105 and USD 90 per tonne for common wheat of a quality comparable with Community quality, and between USD 160 and USD 185 for durum wheat.

(2000/C 330 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2664/99 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Information on the URBAN Programme

The URBAN Programme and URBAN Pilot have constituted a successful attempt by the Union to tackle the deep-seated problems of exclusion which are prevalent in urban areas.

1. Can the Commission outline its future plans in relation to a new URBAN Programme/Urban Pilot?

2. What funds are now available for this Programme/Pilot?

3. What are the guidelines?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

1. The URBAN Community initiative and the URBAN pilot project (UPP) scheme have been essential components of the Commission’s efforts to assist Member States in enhancing the quality of life in depressed urban agglomerations. Taking into account the views of the Parliament during the discussion on the reform of the structural funds, the Commission has decided to launch a new URBAN Community initiative, which will cover about 50 urban areas during the period 2000-2006.

A draft of guidelines for the new URBAN initiative was adopted by the Commission on 13 October 1999 (1). They are at present being discussed with Parliament and Member States. The Commission will therefore adopt the final guidelines in March 2000 or April 2000. Member States will be invited then to present proposals within six months of the publication of the guidelines in the Official journal.

The Commission does not envisage launching a new wave of UPPs for the programming period 2000-2006. However, most of them will continue until the end of 2000.

2. During the 1994-1999 programming period, URBAN funded programmes in 118 urban areas. The total Community contribution amounted to approximately € 900 million at 1999 prices. A further € 164 million between 1989 and 1999 supported 59 UPPs within the framework of the innovative actions under the European regional development fund (ERDF).

The total contribution by the ERDF to the URBAN Community initiative during the period 2000-2006 is fixed at € 700 million at 1999 prices.

3. The guidelines assist Member States in the preparation of their programmes to be funded under URBAN. They set out the objectives and principles of the Community initiative, define the priorities for action and criteria for the selection of eligible urban areas, and lay down the procedures for preparation, approval and implementation of the programmes. They also contain an indicative list of eligible measures that aim at social, economic and environmental regeneration of urban areas.

(1) COM(1999) 477 final. C 330 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2672/99 by Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Objective 2 support

On 24 November 1999 the Commission identified the regions of West Germany to be supported by the EU in the 2000-2006 support period. The new German Objective 2 regions includes parts of the Ruhr district in North Rhine-Westphalia.

1. What objectives has the Federal Government submitted for support in the Ruhr district?

2. What parts of the Ruhr district are to receive support?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

On 15 September 1999 the German Federal Ministry of Economics transmitted an admissible proposal for an objective 2 list for the period 2000-2006. On the basis of this proposal and the rules of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 (1), the Commission took a decision in principle on the German objective 2 list on 24 November 1999. The Commission has subsequently consulted the relevant committees. The final decision on eligibility will be taken by the Commission in the near future.

Regarding the new objective 2 areas of Nordrhein-Westfalen, only one minor change has been introduced into the German proposal of 15 September 1999 upon Commission request: a small isolated area in the city of Bochum of 235 inhabitants which had been originally proposed by the Geman authorities was not considered significant by the Commission. The German authorities thus withdrew the proposal for this area.

The new objective 2 list of Nordrhein-Westfalen will consist of parts of the cities of Duisburg, Krefeld, Oberhausen, Gelsenkirchen, Bottrop, Dortmund, Hamm, Bochum, and Herne as well as parts of the Kreise of Wesel, Reckinghausen, Unna, Warendorf, Ennepe-Ruhr, and Heinsberg. The population eligible for support under objective 2 in Nordrhein-Westfalen will total 2 888 229 inhabitants. The detailed list of areas eligible under objective 2 is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament. Even though the Ruhrgebiet does not correspond to the NUTS classification of the Commission it is appropriate to say that the objective 2 list of Nordrhein-Westfalen will comprise a significant part of the population and of the area of the Ruhrgebiet.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2674/99 by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Possible health effects of waste to energy incinerators

Given the concern of people in communities in Wales about the possible health effects of waste to energy incinerators which are located near housing,

could the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What standards are used to regulate the proximity of a landfill site to housing?

2. What standards are used to regulate the proximity of power generators fuelled by the incineration of waste to housing? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/41

3. What scientific studies have been carried out on the health effects of waste to energy incinerators on communities in the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

There are no specific standards for the distance of a landfill site to housing. However, Annex I to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1) provides that the location of a landfill must take into consideration requirements relating to the distance from the boundary of the site to residential areas.

The approach taken in regulating the co-existence of industry and housing is twofold. On the one hand, Community legislation provides for requirements to limit the impact regardless of the location; and on the other hand it sets quality standards for ambient air or water. There is no specific legislation which regulates the distance between industrial installations and housing areas.

Most studies concerning health effects have been carried out on the basis of specific pollutants rather than specific industrial sources, since the chemistry of pollutants is independent of the source. However, several preparatory studies were carried out to evaluate the costs and benefits of the current proposal for a directive on waste incineration (2). In particular the study ‘Economic evaluation of the draft incineration directive’ (3) gives a good overview of the impact of municipal waste incineration.

Though it has financed a number of projects relating to the health effects of air pollution in general, the Commission has not financed any studies on the specific effects of waste incinerators on human health. However, the work programme of the ‘Environment and health’ key action of the ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’ thematic programme (4) of the 5th framework programme of research and technological development (RTD) is open for proposals on that subject.

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999. (2) OJ C 372, 2.12.1998. (3) ISBN 92-828-0083-0, European Communities 1997. (4) OJ L 64, 12.3.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2700/99 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Torben Lund (PSE) and Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC

Article 6(3)(b) of Directive 94/62/EC (1), adopted in 1994 after lengthy negotiations, reads:

No later than six months before the end of the five-year phase referred to in paragraph 1(a) the Council shall, acting by qualified majority and on a proposal from the Commission, fix targets for the second five-year phase referred to in paragraph 1(c). This process shall be repeated every five years thereafter.

Article 6(1)(c) reads:

No later than 10 years from the date by which this Directive must be implemented in national law, a percentage of packaging waste will be recovered and recycled, which will have to be determined by the Council in accordance with paragraph 3(b) with a view to substantially increasing the targets mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b). C 330 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Given this clear legal commitment by the Council and the EP to increase substantially the targets in a proposal to be published by the end of 1999 or early 2000, when will the Commission present its proposal for a revision of the Directive to the EP and the Council?

With more specific respect to the targets, will the Commission include a common objective for recycling and reuse?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

The obligation to revise substantially the recovery and recycling targets is provided in Article 6.3(b) and Article 6.1(c) of Directive 94/62/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. The compromise reached by the Parliament and the Council, after lengthy discussions in the conciliation committee, consisted of a first range of quantified targets for recovery and recycling, to be achieved by mid-2001 and a commitment by the Community legislator to significantly increase these targets in a second phase to be concluded by mid-2006.

Many people and organisations are involved in the packaging chain including economic operators, consumers, environmental organisations and authorities. They have a wide variety of different interests. This makes it necessary to set up a framework for dialogue in order to ensure a balanced approach. This process is enabling the Commission to evaluate the situation correctly and to develop possible solutions to make the Directive more effective. Several options have been presented to and discussed with interested parties and the Member States, but the measures to be finally proposed by the Commission are still under consideration internally.

The revision process is taking more time than initially foreseen. However the Commission intends to present a formal proposal for the revision of the Directive to the Council and the Parliament, in order to for them to adopt the measures in due time.

(2000/C 330 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2705/99 by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Fisheries Reallocation of FIFG

If a Member State does not use its entire allocation of FIFG funds, can the Commission confirm whether than Member State has the discretion to reallocate the funds under a different programme in sectors other than fisheries? If so, can the Commission provide examples of where this practice has been followed?

(2000/C 330 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2706/99 by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Fisheries FIFG and the UK

Could the Commission provide statistics as to the availability of funds under the FIFG for the United Kingdom in 1998 and 1999 and the extent of their utilisation, specifying in particular any ‘unused’ amounts? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/43

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2705/99 and E-2706/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

A Member State can, within the framework of the regulations on the structural funds, re-allocate Community finance from one programme to another or between funds in a Member State. It can also return the allocation in part or in whole to the Commission for re-distribution to another Member State or for other purposes as appropriate. One or more of these options has been exercised by many Member States.

The total allocation to the Financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) in the United Kingdom for fisheries for the period 1994-1999 was € 128,14 million. In 1999 this amount was reduced by € 25,25 million at the request of the British authorities due mainly to a reduced financial requirement for a measure to decommission fishing vessels. The amount returned by the United Kingdom was not reallocated to another Member State but was used to help balance the Community budget for 1999.

The 1998 and 1999 FIFG allocations for the whole of the United Kingdom (all objective 1 and 5a programmes) totalled € 14,5 million and € 41,2 million respectively. All of these FIFG allocations have been committed.

It is important to note that financial amounts allocated to measures in a programme are indicative only and it is normal for changes to be made from time to time as circumstances dictate.

(2000/C 330 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2721/99 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Poisoning of protected birds in Spain

A total of 961 birds of various protected species have died in Spain through poisoning since 1990, according to figures produced by the Antidote programme, which coordinates the activities of eight environmental organisations, including WWF/Adena, working to combat the illegal use of poisoned feed on small-game reserves. The dead birds included 53 imperial Iberian eagles, of which there remain only 115 breeding pairs, and at least six bearded vultures, of which approximately 75 pairs remain. Both species are in danger of extinction. Among the species at risk of poisoning are two endangered carrion breeds, the black vulture and the Egyptian vulture, and many protected species, including Bonelli’s eagle, the royal kite, the black kite, the Griffon vulture and the royal eagle. Poison is also transferred to other endangered species, such as the wild cat and the pardal lynx.

The use of poisoned feed has been illegal in Spain since 1983. Under the Spanish penal code of 1996 and laws in the autonomous communities, causing the death of endangered species is punishable by fines and imprisonment. However, this rarely happens.

To ensure effective implementation of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds and Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, what measures does the Commission intend to take, together with the Spanish authorities, to step up the fight against the poisoning of protected birds of prey?

For example, could owners of game reserves be made responsible for ensuring that poisoned feed is not used on their land, following the example of the recent law on nature conservation approved by the regional parliament of Castilla-la-Mancha?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. C 330 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission is aware that many bird species, in particular birds of prey, are adversely affected by poisoning. The Commission is also aware that this illegal practice, having ceased for a few years, has since the 1990’s returned.

Both Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, have been transposed correctly into Spanish law.

Furthermore, the Spanish authorities have the powers to take the necessary and appropriate measures to avoid poisoning occurring.

However, the Commission would be interested in obtaining further information on the conclusions of the Antidote programme mentioned by the Honourable Member. If necessary, the Commission will conduct an investigation in order to assess whether the relevant Community environmental legislation has been complied with in this case. The Commission will not hesitate to take all the necessary steps, including recourse to the procedure set out in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, to ensure full compliance with this legislation.

(2000/C 330 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2740/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Elf-Atochem chemical plant in Boretto, Reggio Emilia (Emilia-Romagna, Italy)

The multinational firm Elf-Atochem owns and operates a chemical plant in the district of Boretto, in the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy. In January 1998 a chemical accident occurred in the Elf-Atochem plant and criminal charges have been brought against the lawyers representing the plant. Over recent years, the local residents and workers at factories located near the Elf-Acothem plant have often complained to the local and regional authorities about the discomfort and smells caused by the chemical substances emitted by the plant. The chemicals used by Elf-Acothem and the proximity of the plant to residential areas are said by local residents to cause discomfort and serious damage to health (the problem has also been looked into by the Regional Environmental Protection Agency of the Emilia-Romagna region). On 6 December 1999 further complaints about discomfort in the area around the Elf-Atochem chemical plant were made. Employees at the companies located in the surrounding area reported an obnoxious smell. The previous week there had been similar reports of discomfort which led to the Regional Environmental Agency, the district authorities in Boretto and the local police being alerted. The local fire service was also called to deal with a tanker carrying chemical substances which had been involved in a road accident in the Boretto district.

Does the Commission not consider that it should ask the Italian authorities to check whether or not the Elf-Atochem plant in Boretto complies with the relevant EU legislation on environmental protection, safety in the workplace, public health, and the use and emission of toxic substances?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the situation to which he refers could fall within the scope of Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants (1), if the installation could be considered a chemical plant for the production of olefins, derivatives of olefins, monomers and polymers, or for the manufacture of other organic intermediate products or of basic inorganic chemicals, and of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/45

substances (2), which has annulled Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities (3), if the installation concerned could be considered within the definitions set out in Article 2 and 3 of Directive 96/82/EC.

Article 4 of Directive 84/360/EEC provides that in respect of installations in operation after 1 July 1987 or built or authorized after that date, ‘an authorization may be issued only when the competent authority is satisfied that: (1) all appropriate preventive measures against air pollution have been taken, including the application of the best available technology, provided that the application of such measures does not entail excessive costs; (2) the use of plant will not cause significant air pollution particularly from the emission of substances referred to in Annex II; (3) none of the emission limit values applicable will be exceeded; (4) all the air quality limit values applicable will be taken into account’. Article 12 states: ‘The Member States shall follow developments as regards the best available technology and the environmental situation. In the light of this examination they shall, if necessary, impose appropriate conditions on plants authorized in accordance with this Directive, on the basis both of those developments and of the desirability of avoiding excessive costs for the plants in question, having regard in particular to the economic situation of the plants belonging to the category concerned.’

Article 5 of Directive 96/82/EC, and previously Article 3 of Directive 82/501/EEC, obliges the operator to take all measures necessary to prevent major accidents and to limit their consequences for man and the environment. Article 14 of Directive 96/82/EC, and previously Article 10 of Directive 82/501/EEC,requires the operator, as soon as practicable following a major accident, to inform the authorities and provide them with information on the circumstances of the accident, the dangerous substances involved, the data available for assessing the effects of the accident on man and the environment and the emergency measures taken. In return, the authorities must ensure that any necessary remedial measures are taken by the operator. Furthermore, they must collect all the information necessary for a full analysis of the accident.

Workers exposed to chemicals are covered by the measures provided by the Community legislation on health and safety at work, such as Council Directives 80/1107/EEC (4), 89/391/EEC (5), 89/654/EEC (6), 89/655/EEC (6), 89/656/EEC (6), 90/394/EEC (7) and 98/24/EEC (8). Such directives lay down minimum requirements under Article 137 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 118A) which are to be applied in the workplace in order to ensure that all the necessary steps have been taken to prevent or adequately control workers’ exposure to chemicals.

(1) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984. (2) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997. (3) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982. (4) OJ L 327, 3.12.1980. (5) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. (6) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989. (7) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990. (8) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2748/99

by Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system

Could the Commission provide information on the extent to which the provisions of Council Regulation 295/91 (1), establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport, have been implemented to date? Could it give the following specific information: C 330 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

1. Which air carriers have notified it of the arrangements they have introduced to fulfil their obligations?

2. How much compensation has actually been received by travellers under these arrangements?

3. How much information is actually available in agencies and/or airports for travellers who have been denied boarding?

In addition, knowing that the proposal to amend this regulation is currently blocked in the Council, and given that failure to observe the provisions laid down is clearly very common, does the Commission intend to take legal action or steps of any other kind against airlines which do not observe these provisions, pending the introduction of more effective rules?

(1) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 adopted by the Council in 1991 provides for a system whereby the rules to be applied by air transport companies operating from a Community airport are to be notified where boarding is denied. That notification is sent to the Member State concerned and to the Commission at one and the same time. Fifty eight airlines have notified the Commission in this way (see the list sent to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of Parliament).

The regulation provides for minimum compensation thresholds (EUR 150 for flights up to 3 500 km and EUR 300 for flights of more than 3 500 km) which may be restricted to the price of the ticket to the final destination. Moreover, it stipulates, in general terms, that the rules applying to air carriers shall be made available to the public at the carriers agencies and check in counters. The airlines and their agencies may choose how best to meet that obligation.

At the moment the EC Treaty is not a suitable forum enabling the Commission to prosecute an airline in order to ensure compliance with the compensation rules in individual instances. Since the regulation confers rights that directly favour passengers, these have the option of bringing actions before the national courts in order to secure those rights. The Commission is aware of a relatively restricted number of cases in that area. Moreover, the Member States have the option of applying further penalties where the regulation is infringed.

While awaiting the adoption, by the Council, of a proposal from the Commission amending the current regulation (1) and more particularly following the various developments at technological level (electronic ticketing) and also at operational level (alliances among carriers), the Commission recently launched a detailed examination of the stage reached in implementing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91. That examination should produce an inventory of (a) the practices pursued by the airlines and the national authorities in the Member States in order to ensure that such rules are adopted and that passengers are better protected, and (b) of the impact of the above-mentioned developments on the implementation of the rules by the national courts.

(1) OJ C 351, 18.11.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2761/99 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Subsidies for ferry services to islands (Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to subsidy C/64/99 formerly NN 68/99)

Having regard to the following:

the purpose of the subsidies referred to above is to ensure, in connection with ferry services to islands, territorial continuity between them and the mainland; 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/47

the principle of territorial continuity, which is the object of the above subsidies, is naturally based on the quality and quantity of the aforementioned ferry services;

in Italy, services to and from Sardinia, which are provided by the company Tirrenia, and those to and from the smaller islands, which are provided by Caremar, Toremar and Siremar, have recently been carried out by prototypes of high-speed vessels known as HSCs;

the above ferry companies are recipients of the subsidies in question, in connection with the services that they provide;

the design characteristics of the above HSC prototypes, however, mean that they are not only subject to major constraints on sailing, by comparison with traditional ferries and hydrofoils, in equivalent adverse weather conditions, but are also frequently taken out of service for special maintenance work;

the constraints on sailing and the frequent stoppages of the HSC prototypes owned by the above companies actually breach the principle of territorial continuity, which is essential for the payment of the subsidy referred to above,

can the Commission state whether the above facts are true? In addition, can it take action vis-à-vis the competent authorities, if need be, to ensure that the quality and quantity of ferry services to islands reflect the principle of territorial continuity, the sole criterion for determining the admissibility of the subsidies?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Concerning the principle of territorial continuity, the Commission would stress that the respect of such principle lies within national competence.

Concerning the state aid case No C 64/99 (ex NN 68/99), the Commission is currently examining subsidy payments to ‘Gruppo Tirrenia’. The opening of the investigation procedure was published in the Official journal (1). Since the Commission has not closed the investigation procedure yet, it is not yet possible to take position on the accuracy of the statements made in the Honourable Member’s question, in particular on the aspect of the use of high speed vessels.

Nevertheless, in the framework of the aforementioned procedure the Commission is going to take account of aspects concerning the use of high speed vessels.

(1) OJ C 306, 23.10.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2768/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Upkeep of European waterways

If fully used by inland navigation, Europe’s network of waterways could make a major, environmentally compatible contribution towards solving the problem of mobility. Inland navigation has the potential to divert some goods transport from roads to waterways.

However, transport by water has the disadvantage that a substantial proportion of the European network of waterways, and in particular the minor waterways, are not properly maintained and dredged and they are gradually silting up.

To create a fine network of waterways serving as large an area as possible, governments would have to ensure that all these waterways can permit vessels with a draught of at least 2,5 metres.

Can the Commission state whether it is prepared to take an initiative to support keeping open a large proportion of the (minor) European canals with a minimum navigable depth of 2,5 metres? C 330 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The Commission is convinced that inland navigation can make an important contribution to solve mobility problems by, where appropriate, relieving freight transport from congested road and railway lines. It considers inland navigation to be a cost-effective, safe and environmentally sound mode of transport, which has spare infrastructure and vessel capacity.

At Community level, inland waterways are dealt with in the framework of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). In this context, the Parliament and the Council adopted in 1996 Community guidelines for the development of the TEN-T (1). These guidelines identify the trans-European inland waterway network, as well as the main bottlenecks and missing links within the network. In order to ensure the interconnection and completion of this network, a considerable number of projects of common interest have been financially supported in recent years through the TEN-T budget.

However, Community support is available only for projects within the trans-European inland waterway network, and this network consists only of the main routes within the European transport system. It is not a ‘fine’ network of waterways and does not include the minor waterways. Similarly, the Community will only support the development of new or upgraded infrastructure, and not the maintenance of existing infrastructure. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Member States concerned are responsible for the development of their overall waterway network and for the improvement and maintenance of their inland waterways.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2000/C 330 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2769/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Inclusion of inland navigation projects in the list of TEN priorities

The problem of mobility is increasing all the time. Our roads are becoming clogged. As a result there is a groundswell of opinion in favour of shifting the transport of more and more goods to the railways or waterways.

A glance at the list of priorities for developing the trans-European networks (TENs) shows that transport by waterways, specifically the use of inland waterways vessels, is only the third or fourth priority. This is very strange, particularly as this form of goods transport is very environmentally compatible, relatively cheap and particularly efficient.

However, inland navigation has a considerable number of infrastructure problems, not least the existence of a lot of bottlenecks and the lack of connections between a number of major ports and their hinterlands.

1. Does the Commission agree that better (infrastructure) support for inland navigation could make a major contribution towards resolving the problem of mobility?

2. Is the Commission prepared to assign greater priority in developing the TENs to removing some of the bottlenecks and constructing a number of new waterways?

3. Is the Commission prepared to consult the European Shippers Organisation?

4. Does the Commission have an overview of the main infrastructural problems in inland navigation? If so, can I have a copy? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/49

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The Commission is convinced that inland navigation can make an important contribution to solve mobility problems, where appropriate, by relieving freight transport from congested road and railway lines. It considers inland navigation to be a cost-effective, safe and environmentally sound mode of transport, which has spare infrastructure and vessel capacity.

At Community level, inland waterways are dealt with in the framework of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). In this context the Parliament and the Council adopted in 1996 Community guidelines for the development of the TEN-T which include the inland waterway network at a European scale (Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1)). The guidelines identify also the main bottlenecks and missing links in the inland waterway network. In this respect a considerable number of projects of common interest have been financially assisted over the last years within the framework of the TEN budget. However, it has to be borne in mind that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Member States concerned are responsible for the improvement and maintenance of their inland waterways. In addition, Member States, when applying for funding from the European regional development fund (ERDF), European investment bank (EIB) or Cohesion fund, are required to improve their transport networks and systems by placing emphasis on connections and interconnections with the TEN-T where these need to be completed.

The Commission is in contact on this subject with all interested parties and organisations and also the ‘European Shipping Organisation’.

In 1998 the Commission presented a report on the implementation of the TEN-T guidelines (2). More detailed information concerning the inland waterway network is included in a complementary document by the Commission (SEC(1998) 1993).

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. (2) COM(98) 614 final.

(2000/C 330 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2771/99

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Apparent European ban on wood-fired ovens

Recent reports in the Italian press, subsequently officially denied by a European Commission spokesman, have brought to light the apparent existence of a European Union directive banning the use of wood-fired ovens for food preparation, if they fail to comply with the new European hygiene standards. All this has raised understandable alarm in the gastronomic world in Italy, in particular in the traditional Neapolitan pizza sector, the very symbol of Italian cuisine, which is renowned and appreciated throughout the world, and the preparation of which requires the use of a clay oven.

Press reports also suggest that it was only thanks to a series of Commission communications that Italy managed to secure temporary derogations from the ban although many Italian municipalities have already begun to stop granting any further authorisations or licences to install new wood-fired ovens fearing that sooner or later they may be banned by law definitively.

Can the Commission therefore clarify the state of affairs described above by indicating whether or not such legislation exists, not least to safeguard the consumer’s right to accurate information?

If so, on the basis of what health and safety considerations was the directive issued? C 330 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Does the Commission not consider that the indirect effect of measures of this kind may be to destroy the Neapolitan tradition and inventiveness that has made the region’s pizza the best known and most highly appreciated in the world, and that there will be repercussions in terms of employment given that at this point pizzas and breads produced by hand in the traditional way are at risk of disappearing from the market?

Lastly, does the Commission not consider that it should present new legislation which, rather than penalising, would secure the legality and protect the specific characteristics of traditional quality products from all the Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission is aware of the reports in the Italian press and other Italian media about an alleged European hygiene directive which could lead to a ban on traditional Italian wood fired pizza ovens. The Commission can confirm that these reports are completely inaccurate and in fact there are no existing or proposed hygiene requirements relating to wood burning pizza ovens.

The European hygiene legislation covering the cooking of traditional pizzas is Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1). However there are no provisions in this Directive that would require wood burning pizza ovens to be banned. In fact, neither ovens, nor any other specific food preparation equipment are mentioned. The Directive covers many different types of food businesses using a wide range of preparation and cooking equipment and therefore it establishes very broad principles for food hygiene. It requires food equipment that comes into direct contact with food to be in good order, repair and condition so as to minimise the risk of contamination to food. Equipment must be cleaned, and where necessary disinfected, and the area surrounding should be cleanable.

The Commission is currently considering a proposal for a recast and consolidation into a single text of all 14 food hygiene directives, including Directive 93/43/EEC. This exercise does not include any changes to the current legislation covering the preparation and cooking of pizzas. The measure will focus on addressing risks to health from foodstuffs, their production and preparation at all stages from the farm to the consumer.

Where specific unacceptable risks to health are identified, linked to the production, preparation or cooking of any foodstuffs and these can best be addressed by measures at the European level, the Commission will continue to seek the most effective course of action necessary so as to protect consumer health.

(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993.

(2000/C 330 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2782/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Anti-dumping measures against non-Community steel products

Before his resignation, Commissioner Leon Brittan strangely did not take the decision required of him to impose temporary anti-dumping tariffs on imports of hot rolled coil from Bulgaria, India, Iran, South Africa, Taiwan and Yugoslavia despite the fact that the Commission had found that they were damaging the European steel industry, but referred the final decision to the new Commission to be taken six months 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/51

later. The increase in imports from these countries gave rise to surplus stocks which were constantly sold off to the extent that European steel producers’ earnings fell from 17-18 % in early 1998 to −3 % by the end of the year and to −10 % during the early months of 1999.

Examining 1998 as a whole, the Commissioner drew the conclusion that the damage sustained by the end of the year was slight. Article 6(1) of Decision ECSC 2277/96 (1) states, however, that ‘for the purpose of a representative finding, an investigation period shall be selected which, in the case of dumping shall, normally, cover a period of not less than six months immediately prior to the initiation of the proceeding.’ If this Decision is observed in spirit and to the letter, the conclusion to be drawn is that the damage to the European steel industry was enormous. (European steel producers’ earnings fell from 17-18 % in 1998 to −10 % in the early months of 1999). Anti-dumping measures should, therefore, have been taken immediately as the rules provide that such measures may be imposed no later than nine months after the initiation of the investigation.

Will the Commission, therefore, say:

1. on what grounds this tactic was pursued,

2. whether the provisions of Article 6 of Decision 2277/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel Community were complied with, and

3. whether it will take definitive anti-dumping measures within the prescribed period of six months commencing from 8 October 1999?

(1) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996, p. 11.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission would like to point out that in addition to the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Bulgaria, India, Iran, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, South Africa and Taiwan to which the Honourable Member refers, a parallel anti-subsidy investigation with regard to India, South Africa and Taiwan was also initiated.

In the framework of these proceedings, the Commission, based on the information available in September 1999, provisionally concluded that the results of the analysis were mixed and there would need to be further evidence of material injury before any action could be taken. In these circumstances, an affirmative determination of injury could not be made at that time, namely within the deadline for the imposition of provisional measures. Consequently it was decided to pursue the investigation and to collect further information.

The mixed picture that emerged in September 1999 was that on the one hand prices and profits (on an annual basis) in the period 1997 to 1998 increased, whereas on the other, imports had surged and other factors related to the Commmunity industry’s economic situation had deteriorated.

Article 6(1) and 11(1) of the basic decisions (anti-dumping and anti-subsidy respectively) exclude the possibility to change the length of the investigation period (IP) after the initiation of an investigation. The one-year period (1998) selected by the complaining industry as the IP in its complaint was well known by all interested parties in the above proceedings. This was never the subject of dispute. In these cases, any change in the length of the IP would have suggested a manipulation which would be contrary to proceedings being carried out in an objective manner. Nevertheless, after the deadline for the imposition of provisional measures, the Commission continued and completed its investigation and analysed the additional information received.

This supplementary analysis was carried out in particular on a quarterly basis, per main product categories and per type of sales contract. As a result it was found that the economic situation of the industry C 330 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

deteriorated seriously during the investigation period. Indeed, it was found that profitability, sales volume, sales prices, production, etc, during the second half of the investigation period developed so negatively that it had to be qualified as material injury. In addition, it was found that this bad situation persisted in 1999.

The additional information also provided concrete explanations as to why there has been a time-lag between the surge in dumped and subsidised imports and the beginning of the deterioration of the economic situation of the Community industry during the IP. The Commission concluded that no other factors other than dumped and subsidised imports were the cause of the injury.

The evaluation of all the interests involved on the Community market, the so called Community interest test, showed that no compelling reasons existed against the imposition of measures.

On this basis the Commission decided to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing measures in the framework of the above proceedings (1).

(1) Commission Decision No 283/2000/ECSC of 4 February 2000 (Anti-Dumping) Commission Decision No 284/ 2000/ECSC of 4 February 2000 (Anti-subsidies) (OJ L 31, 5.2.2000).

(2000/C 330 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/99

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Concerns felt by the avocado sector as a result of the EU-Mexico agreement

Farmers in the province of Malaga (Spain), one of the main centres for avocado production in the Community, have expressed their concern at the possible consequences of the recent signing of the trade agreement between the EU and Mexico.

At present the EU import duty on Mexican avocados is 4 % from January to May, 7,5 % from June to November and 5 % in December. Under the free trade agreement these duties will disappear, causing serious damage to the EU avocado sector.

How will the Commission protect the interests of Spanish avocado producers in the face of Mexican imports of this product, given the serious consequences they will suffer as a result of the liberalisation brought about by the entry into force of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Under the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, avocados from that country will indeed benefit from a gradual, linear reduction in ad valorem customs duties on imports into the Community from July 2000 and from the complete abolition of such duties from 2008. This reduction will be applied to basic duties of between 2,7 % and 5,1 % (depending on the months involved). In addition, a 20 000 tonne duty-free quota will apply to Mexican imports during the period from 1 June until 30 September, which is outside the traditional Community production period (October to May).

Community production will, therefore, have a substantial period of time to adapt to the dismantling of duties on Community imports of Mexican avocados. Furthermore, since the ad valorem duties currently in force are already low (between 4 % and 5,6 %, depending on the months involved), it seems unlikely that the entry into force of the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico could have a detrimental effect on Community avocado production, which is characterised by a very high degree of competitiveness. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/53

Adverse effects on Community production are all the less likely in view of the fact that, first, Mexican production is handicapped by rather irregular yields and, second, relatively high demand on the domestic market affects the price and, therefore, the competitiveness of Mexican avocados. Moreover, the progressive lifting, since 1997, of plant-health restrictions on imports of Mexican avocados to the United States should gradually result in Mexican avocado exports being redirected to that market.

If necessary, however, the Commission may consider implementing the safeguard measures enshrined in the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 15 of the Agreement.

(2000/C 330 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/99

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: COM in bananas

On 10 November 1999 the Commission presented a proposal aimed at reforming the common organisation of the market in bananas with a view to complying with WTO rules. The scheme envisaged is organised in two stages, with the tariff quota being retained in the first and an exclusively tariff-based system being automatically introduced as of 1 January 2006.

This scheme makes unacceptable concessions to producers in the Latin American countries, while failing to take genuine account of the interests of Community producers and undertakings made by the Community vis-à-vis its African, Caribbean and Pacific partners.

Furthermore, the Council appears to be very divided on the Commission proposal: France, Spain and Portugal do not regard the tariff approach as a viable basis for negotiation. Tens of thousands of jobs are threatened by it (including 30 000 in the French overseas departments and 35 000 in the Canaries!).

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the interests of Community and ACP-country producers are protected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

The proposal for amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on common organisation of the market in bananas (1) was adopted by the Commission on 10 November 1999 (2). The reasoning behind the proposal is set out at length in the accompanying explanatory memorandum.

In the Commission’s opinion it maintains a balance between the Community’s various obligations.

A substantial tariff preference for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries should enable them to maintain their traditional export levels.

The memorandum also states that additional measures can if necessary be envisaged for the weakest and most banana-dependent ACP countries in particular. C 330 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

No change is proposed to the provisions on Community production. Growers will still be able to benefit fully from the compensatory aid scheme.

The proposal will be thoroughly discussed in the Council and Parliament.

(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993. (2) COM(1999) 582 final.

(2000/C 330 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Administration of calls for tenders in connection with common agricultural policy funding

In order to allocate funding in the context of the common agricultural policy, in particular under budget heading B2-5122, the Commission issued a call for tenders for the financing of projects submitted by operators in the sector.

The deadline for submitting projects was 15 November 1999.

Among the entities taking part in the procedure was the forestry consortium ‘Terra dei Santi e Colline del Po’, which requested a subsidy for the creation of a centre for agriculture and the sustainable development of the hill area concerned.

All the documentation regarding the project was submitted on 13 November 1999 to Unit VI.AII.1 of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture, at 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels.

However, the Commission rejected the project, explaining that the final deadline had been brought forward from 15 November to 31 October 1999, and that the project had therefore been submitted after expiry of the deadline.

Can the Commission say whether it considers it right to decide to bring forward an established deadline to the detriment of participants, making it impossible for them to have access to funding?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

The intention behind budget heading B2-5122 was to enhance public awareness of the common agricultural policy. No call for tenders or proposals was made but a guide for potential applicants was published on the Directorate-General for Agriculture’s internet site.

The guide initially stated that applications could be sent to the Commission up to 15 November 1999. That date was changed to 31 October 1999 to give the Commission more time to process applications before closure of the budgetary procedures in 1999. The change was notified using the same information medium as the guide, i.e. the internet.

The application by the Consorzio Forestale Terra dei Santi e Colline del Po arrived on 13 November but was in fact carefully examined and found to be ineligible under heading B2-5122. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/55

(2000/C 330 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2814/99 by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Ijzeren Rijn line trains through the middle of Dutch nature conservancy areas?

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Minister of Transport, Tineke Netelenbos, intends to allow goods trains to use the Ijzeren Rijn route? They would permanently be allowed to pass through the Weerterbergen and Budelerbergen habitat areas near Weert and Budel, and could also temporarily transit another habitat area, de Meinweg, near Roermond. Statements to this effect were quoted by the Eindhovens Dagblad and De Limburger on 11 December 1999.

Will the Commission call the Netherlands Government to account for its plan to violate European nature conservancy legislation, namely the Habitats Directive, in the Weerterbergen, Budelerbergen and Meinweg areas? If so, when and how?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any decision taken by the Dutch authorities to allow the re-opening of the existing route of the Iron Rhine railway line through the Weerterbergen, Budelerbergen and Meinweg area. The Commission has not seen the articles in the newspapers that are mentioned by the Honourable Members. According to the information that the Commission received so far i.e. statements of the Dutch prime minister the Dutch authorities will make an environmental impact assessment as well as an assessment in line with Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (1) before the decision about the re-opening of the Iron Rhine railway line will be taken. Furthermore, a trilateral working group has been created, with Belgian and German government representatives, to consider the possible redevelopment of the route. The Commission understands that this working group is now considering commissioning further technical studies of the route, which may be supported by Community funds under the Trans-European networks (TENs) framework. The project to redevelop the Iron-Rhine route has already been allocated € 1 million in TENs funding.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Members to its answer to written question P-1875/99 (2) by Mr de Roo, in which it said that it would ask the Dutch authorities for more information about the re- opening of the Iron Rhine railway line and its implications under the relevant directives, and that it would take no other steps for the present, since it had no indication so far that there had been an infringement of any directive. Subsequent contacts between the Commission and the Dutch authorities indicate no reason for the Commission to change the position that it has taken.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ C 170 E, 26.6.2000, p. 113.

(2000/C 330 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2816/99 by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Interreg and maritime border regions

By including certain maritime border regions in the Annex to the Interreg Guidelines, the Commission accepted that there is value in assisting maritime border regions to work closely under strand A. The Commission does not, however, recognise that other maritime border regions can demonstrate solid grounds for inclusion in Interreg IIIA as the list of eligible regions is presently restricted to regions which benefited from Interreg A funds during the last programming period. C 330 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

New maritime borders can show that they are able to develop the close partnerships envisaged under Interreg IIIA as well as produce specific concrete outputs.

They have:

long-standing and developed links across the maritime border, including ferry and commercial links;

support and commitment to cross-border cooperation from multisectoral local partnerships.

Would the Commission consider introducing the necessary flexibility into the Interreg Guidelines so that these additional maritime border regions can benefit from this funding programme?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

Under the draft communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community Initiative (Interreg) for the 2000-06 programming period, approved by the Commission on 13 October 1999 (1), cooperation between maritime regions will be developed under the three strands provided for in the Initiative: cross-border cooperation (strand A), transnational cooperation (strand B) and interregional cooperation (strand C).

The primary aim of strand A is to promote cross-border cooperation between neighbouring local and regional development authorities, i.e. between areas with land borders. As in the past, some maritime regions will be eligible also, as an exception, for this form of cooperation. The indicative list of priorities and measures eligible under strand A indicates clearly that the majority could be applied in border regions separated by a sea or a maritime route only with considerable difficulty.

By contrast, all maritime regions will be eligible under the other two strands. In the case of transnational cooperation, each maritime region will be able to take part in one or two programmes covering a cooperation region such as the North Sea or the Atlantic Area. The list of priorities and measures planned for this strand is exhaustive but includes major possibilities for developing and strengthening cooperation between maritime regions, such as promoting intermodality of more environmentally compatible means of transport, in particular maritime transport, inland waterway transport and rail transport.

In order to meet the requests from the regions concerned, the Commission is planning to introduce greater flexibility in the measures eligible for cooperation between maritime regions into the final guidelines. The Interreg programme will thus cover the various types of cooperation, and in particular offer those regions the possibility of a specific priority within the future Interreg III B programmes.

(1) COM(1999) 479 final.

(2000/C 330 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2820/99

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Asbestos ban

What action has the Commission taken and what action does it intend to take to introduce a ban on the use of asbestos in the EU? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/57

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The Commission adopted Directive 1999/77/EC on 26 July 1999 adapting to technical progress for the sixth time Annex I to Council 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 (asbestos) (1) introducing a ban on the marketing and use of all forms of asbestos from 1 January 2005, at the latest. There are only very limited exceptions and these will be reviewed by the Commission before 1 January 2003.

In the light of the ban, the Commission is reviewing Directive 83/477/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 91/382/EEC of 25 June 1991 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) (2).

(1) OJ L 207, 6.8.1999. (2) OJ L 206, 29.7.1991.

(2000/C 330 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2821/99

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Administrative investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office at the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank

Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requires all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union to adopt decisions setting out the procedures for internal investigations by OLAF for which the regulation does not already provide.

At its meeting of 8 October 1999 the Council of Economics and Finance Ministers regretted that neither the European Central Bank nor the European Investment Bank had adopted such decisions.

The Council called on the Commission to consider, on the basis of Article 211 of the EC Treaty, what legal steps were needed to ensure the full application of the regulation.

In the meantime the European Central Bank has published a decision on fraud prevention (1999/726/ EC) (2), and on 16 November 1999 the European Investment Bank forwarded a decision on cooperation with OLAF.

Does the Commission believe that these decisions satisfy the requirements of Article 4(1) of the regulation?

If not, what steps does it intend to take to ensure that the two Banks comply with the regulation?

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1. (2) OJ L 291, 13.11.1999, p. 36. C 330 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2822/99 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Administrative investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office at the European Investment Bank

Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requires all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union to forward to OLAF without delay any information relating to possible cases of fraud or corruption or any other illegal activity.

The regulation has been in force since 1 July 1999. On 29 June 1999 the newsletter ‘Europa-Journal’, which is published in Brussels, reported under the headline ‘Procurement scandal at the European Investment Bank’ that a member of the Bank staff had enriched himself, but the Bank had not brought charges because the amount concerned was negligible.

When did the Bank inform OLAF of the incident pursuant to Article 7(1)?

Did OLAF investigate the incident, and was it able to satisfy itself that the amount concerned was indeed negligible?

What steps did OLAF recommend to the Bank?

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2821/99 and E-2822/99 given by Mr Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

In the Commission’s view, the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 7 October 1999 concerning fraud prevention and the decision notified by the European Investment Bank (EIB) do not correspond to the legal framework established with the creation of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and particularly the provisions relating to internal investigations contained in Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

By failing to meet these requirements, the decisions also jeopardise the overall cohesion intended by the Community legislator for the protection of the Communities’ financial interests.

For that reason, the Commission has lodged two actions with the Court of Justice. These actions were brought on 13 January 2000 in the case of the ECB and 19 January 2000 in the case of the EIB.

The information provided by the Honourable Member relating to the EIB has been forwarded to the European Anti-Fraud Office.

(2000/C 330 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2823/99 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Financial assistance for innovative and job-creating SMEs

The 1998 European Union budget allocated EUR 150 million to an employment initiative. These funds were primarily intended to support innovative small and medium-sized enterprises. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/59

In accordance with Council Decision 98/347/EC (1), on 24 July 1998 the Commission concluded cooperation agreements with the European Investment Fund on implementing financial assistance for innovative and job-creating SMEs.

1. How was this employment initiative implemented?

2. Who received financial assistance?

3. What is the utilisation rate for this scheme?

(1) OJ L 155, 29.5.1998, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

Following the Luxembourg extraordinary European Council on employment, the budgetary authority created a new heading B5-5 ‘Labour markets and technological innovation’ for the financing of € 450 million over three years (1998-2000). In 1998 € 30 million was allocated for innovative actions and projects in the labour market and € 120 million was allocated to the Growth and employment initiative. To this figure can be added an amount of € 5 million, corresponding to the Joint European venture (JEV) pilot action (B5-512). For the years 1999 and 2000 an amount of € 300 million was allocated to the Growth and employment initiative.

1. Following the above mentioned budget decision, Council Decision 98/347/EC of 19 May 1998 on measures of financial assistance for innovative and job-creating small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) the growth and employment initiative, approved a programme of financial assistance for innovative and job creating SMEs. The programme consists of three complementary facilities: a risk-capital scheme (European technology facility (ETF) Start-up) managed by the European investment fund (EIF), a scheme for financial contributions supporting the creation of trans-national joint ventures by SMEs within the Community (JEV) managed by the Commission and a guarantee scheme (SME guarantee facility) managed by the EIF.

2. ETF Start-up facility

The budget allocation concerning the ETF Start-up facility is paid to the EIF, which invests in selected venture capital funds. After signing agreements with the funds, the EIF successively releases the committed amounts to the venture capital funds. These funds then invest in innovative or early stage SMEs, which are the final beneficiaries of the facility. Latest available figures show 49 Community SMEs received venture capital investments under this facility.

JEV

SMEs can benefit from JEV by channelling their applications through a financial intermediary (FI) member of the JEV FI network. SMEs have direct access to Community funding via the FIs. Latest figures show 84 financial intermediaries are members of the network in all the 15 Member States and Norway. As far as the 53 current investment projects are concerned, 111 SMEs are involved, 90 of which have fewer than 50 employees and 45 fewer than 10 employees. SMEs from nearly all Member States are participating. SMEs from Spain, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom, are the most active so far. Joint ventures to be created are located in 13 Member States and mostly in Belgium, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal.

SME guarantee facility

The budget allocation concerning the SME guarantee facility is paid to the EIF, which signs guarantee agreements with selected financial institutions involved in financing SMEs. The EIF successively releases the amounts committed to these institutions, to cover a part of the SMEs’ loan losses whenever these are incurred. Latest available figures show 7 223 SMEs benefiting from a guarantee under this facility is 3 472 start-up SMEs were created from 1998 to 1999. C 330 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

3. ETF Start-up facility The Commission has approved investment commitments to nine funds selected by the EIF, for a total of up to € 54 million. Altogether, these nine funds are expected to raise a total pool of capital of € 306 million. The EIF signed contracts with seven of these funds for a total amount of € 38 million whereas other investors committed further € 151 million. Latest available figures show these seven funds had invested € 20,2 million.

JEV Latest available figures show 104 applications have been submitted for a global amount of approximately € 8,75 million. The Commission has so far approved 65 applications for a budget of € 5,50 million, of which € 4,55 million come from the pilot action budget.

SME guarantee facility The Commission has approved commitments to 15 financial intermediaries selected by the EIF for a total of up to € 90,2 million. The EIF has signed contracts with all 15 financial intermediaries. According to latest available figures the average utilisation rate of the EIF guarantees was 19,2 % (=actual volume guaranteed by the EIF/maximum contractual volume to be guaranteed by the EIF). The FIs have not claimed any loan defaults of the SMEs from the EIF so far.

(2000/C 330 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2825/99 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Completion of the Amberg-Waidhaus section of the A6 motorway

The A6 motorway is part of the East-West artery of the trans-European transport network, linking Prague and Paris. It is of crucial importance especially in the context of enlargement to the East.

However, according to the German Government’s programme of works, the Amberg-Waidhaus section of the A6 is not due to be completed for the time being. Traffic flows from the East will continue to increase following the integration of the Czech Republic. The existing road network is congested and people living along highways in Germany are suffering from vehicle exhaust and noise pollution.

What does the Commission intend to do to bring forward completion of the A6 motorway?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The new construction of the A6 motorway between Amberg and the German-Czech State border near Waidhaus has been identified in the guidelines for the development of a trans-European transport network (1) as a project of common interest. The Rozvadov Plzen Praha section is furthermore included in the ‘TINA’ outline plan, established by the Member States and the acceding countries, which forms a basis for the future extension of the trans-European transport network (2). The Commission, which is fully aware of the importance of the entire Nürnberg Praha axis for the traffic between current and future Member States, follows closely progress in the implementation of this project and supports it within the limits of its possibilities.

The German section Amberg Waidhaus has already benefited from € 6,51 million financial aid under the trans-European transport network budget line. This contribution, the amount of which is limited by the corresponding Regulation (3), cannot however replace the financing of the project at national level. The German authorities informed the Commission that the project remains in the ‘Bedarfsplan’ (priority programme) for national roads and will be completed according to the planned technical standards. However some sub-sections (in particular in the Pfreimd Woppenhof area) could not be included in the 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/61

national investment plan for the period 1999−2002 where priority was given to those projects for which building permits are already available. The Commission considers that the financial aid granted so far has already contributed to reducing the financial difficulties of the Amberg Waidhaus project.

(1) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. (2) TINA: Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment, initiated in the context of the structured dialogue between the Transport Council of the Community and the Transport Ministers of the associated countries in 1995; final report published in October 1999. (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks, OJ L 228, 23.9.1995 amended by Regulation (EC) No 1655/1999 of the Parliament and the Council of 19 July 1999.

(2000/C 330 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2826/99 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(17 January 2000)

Subject: Looting and trafficking in cultural objects of value in Kosovo

Press reports claim that instances of the looting of monuments in Kosovo and trafficking in valuable objects stolen from them are constantly increasing in number, while no effort at all is being made to protect and save them. Archaeological monuments dating from Hellenic and Roman times, monasteries and churches containing priceless relics handed down through the centuries are now defenceless against marauding looters. No effort has yet been made to track down the perpetrators or to protect monuments from looting and there is, therefore, an immediate risk that priceless cultural objects will be destroyed or disappear.

Has the Council taken any action to protect the monuments of Kosovo, which form part of the European cultural heritage, and what steps does it intend to take in the future to stamp out the trafficking in such objects?

(2 May 2000)

The Council is aware of the threats to the historic heritage of Kosovo. The question of the protection of sites and monuments of great cultural and/or religious value has been raised several times at Council meetings.

Article 151(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community stipulates inter alia that ‘the Commun- ity and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of culture, in particular the Council of Europe.’

Implementation of this provision requires the Commission to submit a proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council.

On 28 June 1999, at the meeting of Ministers for Culture and Audiovisual Matters, the Council invited the Commission to draw up a report on the current situation in the field, and a list of the measures taken until then. The European Commission promised to do so by the beginning of autumn 1999. The Council also stated that it favoured the idea of extending the mandate of the Agency for Reconstruction to culture.

On 23 November 1999, it discussed the issue again on the basis of a report from the Commission on cultural actions implemented by the European Union, in the context of reconstruction aid aimed at Kosovo. This report contained proposals which addressed some of the concerns expressed by the Council. C 330 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2840/99 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Total number of applications relating to climate change research received in the first round of Calls for Proposals

What is the total number of applications received in the first round of Calls for Proposals under the Fifth Framework Programme which were considered relevant to sub-sections of the Fifth Framework Programme relating to understanding climate change? How many of these were selected for funding, and how many applications considered either ‘good or excellent’ in terms of their science and technology have not bee funded or selected for negotiations on the award of a research contract?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The total number of proposals in the first round of calls for proposals of the Fifth framework programme relevant to understanding climate change were approximately 85 out of which 35 were evaluated as eligible for funding. Unfortunately, due to the available budget only 15 could be funded.

(2000/C 330 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2850/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Conversion of driving licences for migrant workers

Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1) of 29 June 1999 on driving licences makes it possible for driving licences issued by the Member States to be converted into driving licences of another Member State. Under certain circumstances, Member States may also extend driving licences issued by other Member States.

1. How do the provisions operate in practice? Does the Commission have any information about this? What problems arise?

2. If the Commission does not have any information about the operation of the directive, will it make inquiries? Complaints about the matter are by no means uncommon, because national authorities are not always aware of the provisions of the directive.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Article 8(1) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licenses (1) provides that a holder of a driving license may request that it be exchanged for an equivalent license in the country where he has taken up normal residence. Article 8(3) describes the procedure to be followed when a license is exchanged. These provisions were correctly transposed into national law by the Member States and there have been no complaints from the public in relation thereto.

However, the Commission deals with many complaints, petitions and enquiries from people who have problems regarding the recognition or renewal of their driving licenses, resulting from the application of provisions governing the period of validity of driving licenses and the frequency of medical checks. Article 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/63

1(3) of Directive 91/439/EEC stipulates that ‘Where the holder of a valid national driving license takes up normal residence in a Member State other than that which issued the license, the host Member State may apply to the holder of the license its national rules on the period of validity of the license, medical checks, …’. The Commission has brought infringement proceedings against several Member States for failing to transpose this provision properly into national law.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2000/C 330 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2863/99

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact of the ‘southern option’ for the proposed Oropesa-Cabanes road link (Spain)

The Ministry of Public Works of the Generalitat Valencia (the regional government of the Valencian Community) is planning to build a road link between Oroposea and La Valld’Alba. However, the route proposed for the Oropesa-Cabanes stretch (‘41 C-1358(3)’) would have an extremely negative environmental impact, especially should the ‘southern option’ be chosen. The proposed road would wreak severe environmental damage, with ground being levelled and huge embankments being created. It would also, by reason of its proximity, have an adverse effect on the protected wilderness area of El Desierto de Las Palmas, as well as affecting some seventy caves of major speleological interest, including the underground lake of l’Ullal de la Rambla de Miravet, in which a new species of crustacean, ‘Typhalatya miravetensis’, has been discovered. Substantial harm would also be caused to a number of species of flora which are of particular interest, such as ‘Eucogum valentinum’, and the survival of five species of fauna which are unique in the world, including the beetle ‘Ildobates neboti’, would be endangered. The road would also affect numerous livestock routes, causing grave problems for farmers and stockbreeders. Complaints against the proposals have been made by the management council of the protected wilderness area of El Desierto de Las Palmas, by the Cabanes municipal council meeting in full session, by farmers’ and stockbreeders’ organisations, by ecological, citizens’ rights, social, cultural, sporting and tourist promotion associations, and by hundreds of intellectuals, artists and private individuals who have signed petitions. The proposals may also be in breach of a number of regional (Valencian) and national (Spanish) laws, not to mention the following EU directives: 97/62/EEC (1) and 92/43/EEC (2) on habitats and wild fauna and flora; 85/337/EEC (3) on environmental impact; and 80/68/EEC on underground waters, as well as Regulation 3528/86 (4) on the protection of forests.

In view of the above, can the Commission, with specific reference to this project, ascertain whether it complies with the directives and the regulation named above, and call on the Spanish authorities to take the precautionary step of immediately suspending all work and all activity on it in the area concerned, especially as regards the ‘southern option’ for the proposed road?

(1) OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 42. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (4) OJ L 326, 21.11.1986, p. 21.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The proposed route mentioned by the Honourable Member would run alongside the natural area of El Desierto de las Palmas, as identified by the Spanish authorities in their national list of areas of Community interest that could be included 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. The species mentioned in this written question are not included in the Annexes to the habitat Directive. C 330 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

The Commission does not know if the project mentioned by the Honourable Member has been made subject to the impact assessment procedure provided for in Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. It must be pointed out, however, that Article 2 of this Directive provides that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before consent is given. This provision applies to the projects listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive. For those projects listed in Annex II, such as the road project under discussion in this written question, Article 4.2 of the Directive provides that such projects must be made subject to this procedure where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. As a result, projects of this class shall be made subject to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive, where the Member State considers that their characteristics so require. It should be noted that Directive 85/337/EEC was amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1). However, under the terms of Article 3.2 of Directive 97/11/EC, if a request for development consent was submitted before 14 March 1999, the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to these amendments continue to apply.

In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is respected in each individual case.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Structure of the Spanish electricity market and costs of the transition to competition

According to reports in the Spanish press (see ‘Expansión’, 7 December 1999), after 22 months of a competitive regime the Spanish electricity companies still have a 98 % share of the market. As the National Commission for the Electricity System has stressed in its reports, competition in the sector in Spain is extremely limited, thanks to the existence of entry barriers (high levels of investment are required) and the fact of Spain’s quasi-insular status. In view of this, the costs of the transition to competition may have a double effect: firstly, that of creating yet further obstacles to the entry of new operators who would be at a disadvantage since they would receive nothing under that heading and, secondly, that of producing the paradoxical circumstance of payments being received for the transition to a non-existent competition.

Does the Commission consider that the existing structure of the Spanish electricity market, as described in the press, has repercussions on the determination of the costs of the transition to competition?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Whilst the measures taken by the Spanish Government implementing the Parliament and the Council Directive No 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1) are widely viewed as likely to lead to the progressive development of effective competition, it is correct that the market presently remains characterised by a limited number of companies holding high collective market shares, and insufficient interconnector capacity.

It is clear that over time this situation will evolve, partly due to the actions presently under examination by the Commission and the appropriate Spanish authorities with respect to interconnector capacity, and partly through market entry by new generators.

Furthermore, practical and beneficial effects can already be seen from liberalisation. Electricity prices have already decreased significantly as indicated in the table sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. In addition, a number of new plants will be constructed in the coming years. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/65

Clearly all these issues are relevant in any consideration by the Commission of a transitional regime, as by definition any state aid examination must take fully into account all relevant legal and factual circumstance.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0001/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Implementation of access to the grid under EU Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 transmission conditions for independent power suppliers

The conditions governing access to the grid in Germany are currently being examined to see whether they are compatible with the internal market rules.

1. Is the objective of Directive 96/92/EC (1), namely to give power suppliers non-discriminatory access to the grid, achieved by agreements on transmission fees between German power corporations and interest groups?

2. What fees are regarded as compatible in a Union context?

3. How does the Commission assess the actual cost structures of the grid operators; does it, for example, require them to disclose these structures?

4. Does the Commission not agree that unjustifiably high fees offer scope for cross-subsidisation and the shifting of costs in integrated electricity undertakings, and thus distortion of competition?

5. Does it not share the view that, through the level of fees they charge, old-established energy supply companies might take advantage of their natural monopoly grid to exclude new competitors as far as possible?

6. What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that new power suppliers have free and transparent access to the market?

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

1. The Commission has made a first analysis of the Verbaendevereinbarung (VV) to which the Honourable Member refers. The Member of the Commission responsible for competition wrote to the German associations describing the findings. The letter contains a number of elements, particularly with respect to the potential discrimination that results and which raises serious issues of compatibility with the competition rules of the EC Treaty. The Director-general for energy and transport wrote to the German authorities outlining the potential non-conformity of some aspects of the VV with Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity.

2. In the framework of the Florence Regulatory Forum where Member States, regulators, the Association of European transmission system operators (ETSO), consumers and industry are represented, agreement has been reached that transmission fees giving access to the interconnected Community network will be independent of the commercial transactions in which the network users may engage. These fees should therefore not be based on individual transactions, but should be based on a calculation of the effective use of the network, the net physical flows. C 330 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

3. Directive 96/92/EC obliges transmission system operators (TSOs) either to publish the tariffs for access to the network, where regulated third party access exists, or to publish indicative tariffs for the use of the network in the case of negotiated third party access.

4. The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member and insists on fees being non-discriminatory. Under Article 7,5 of the Directive TSOs may not discriminate between users of the network, particularly in favour of their shareholders or subsidiaries.

5. The Commission agrees and has pointed out this risk of abuse of dominant position on the part of the incumbent German electricity utilities in the letters that have been sent.

6. As mentioned under 1) the Commission has outlined its doubts as to the conformity of some aspects of the Verbaendevereinbarung with the Electricity Directive, and its doubts as to compatibility with the competition rules of the EC Treaty. It is clear the VV must guarantee a free and transparent market access to all players.

(2000/C 330 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0003/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Excise duties on wine in Ireland

With reference to the answers given by Nino Gemelli, chairman of the Committee on Petitions, and by the Commission on the subject of Petition No 1229/97 submitted by Mr Paris Cugini, an Italian citizen, on excise duties on wine in Ireland, can the Commission say:

1. whether it has questioned the Irish authorities;

2. whether there have been any new developments?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

In response to Petition No 1229/97 submitted by Mr Paris Cugini, raising the possibility that Irish excise duties discriminate against wine and in favour of beer, the Commission contacted the Irish authorities to request clarification of this matter.

Subsequently, in the context of infringement proceedings as defined in article 226 (formerly article 169) of the EC Treaty, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Irish government on 25 August 1999.

In October 1999, the Irish government replied to the Commission’s reasoned opinion. This reply is presently being studied by the Commission, and its contents are confidential, as infringement procedures against a Member State require.

(2000/C 330 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0008/00 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 2000)

Subject: CITES-negotiations 2000

The next Conference of Parties (COP) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) will take place in Nairobi in April 2000.

1. A topic that will most likely be discussed at the COP 10 of CITES concerns elephant poaching related to trade in ivory in Asian and African countries. Contradictory information on this issue exists, and 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/67

different interests are at stake. At the 1997 COP in Harare a decision was taken to allow three southern African countries to export a limited amount of ivory to Japan. Does the Commission have a position on the CITES policy on elephant poaching for COP 10 at this moment, and on what information is this position based?

2. Consultation is an important part of the European decision-making process. How will the Com- mission consult with interested parties, such as NGOs, in drawing up its recommendations? How does the Commission take the specific position of developing countries into account in this respect? How will the Commission harmonise the need for development with the worldwide need to protect endangered species?

3. At the time of COP 10 of CITES in 1997 the EU common position was drawn up at the last minute before the Conference, with no time for consultation. The Commission has repeatedly called for increased transparency in international procedures. In order to be able to study the list of endangered species as well as to react to it, the European Parliament needs the Commission to present its recommendations on the listings proposals for the upcoming Conference in good time. Can the Commission guarantee that the proposals will indeed be presented early next year (2000) at the latest?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

The Commission condemns elephant poaching in both Africa and Asia as this practice undermines international efforts to ensure the sustainable use of wildlife and threatens the conservation of the species. To the extent that this poaching is driven by a demand for international trade, CITES and our own wildlife trade Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1) are important instruments in reducing incentives.

The Commission organised a hearing with European non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on 17 Jan- uary 2000 in order to inform the deliberations leading to Commission recommendations for common positions. The position of developing countries on specific proposals is often presented in the text of proposals to amend the CITES appendices and full account is taken of these views. On other issues, the views of developing countries only manifest themselves at the conference itself. Although the primary goal of CITES relates to the conservation of endangered species, the Commission takes the view that this objective is unlikely to be achieved without the support of local people in developing countries where much of the world’s biodiversity is to be found.

The Commission makes its CITES conference recommendations as early as possible following the receipt of the proposals, and after consultations with experts from the Member States and European NGOs. The determination of the common position will be made in the Council.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Oil discharges at sea

Oil discharges in the Atlantic and the North Sea are a threat to the various biotopes along Europe’s coastline. The large number of birds covered in oil, mainly in December, January and February, illustrates the serious nature of the pollution. Ships usually make use of stormy weather to flush their oil tanks clean without being seen.

The only possible solution, according to the Maríne Ecological Centre in Ostend, would be rules making it compulsory for ships to clean their oil tanks before leaving port. Ships would not be able to leave without a certificate of proof. C 330 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Can the Council agree to a directive making it compulsory for ships to clean their oil tanks before leaving port, given the threat to various biotopes along Europe’s coastline from oil discharges? If not, why does the Council feel that such an obligation is unnecessary and what alternative proposals does it have for effectively tackling the problem of oil discharges?

(2 May 2000)

1. The Council is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. Incorporating environmental-protection requirements is a precondition for defining and implementing Community policies and actions. Following the mandates given by the European Council at its meetings in Cardiff (15 to 16 June 1998), Vienna (11 to 12 December 1998) and Cologne (3 to 4 June 1999), the task of incorporating these requirements has already started within the various sectoral policies. The Council has not, however, yet received any proposals from the Commission specifically concerning the points raised in this question.

2. The Council would refer the Honourable Member to a body of texts which have already been approved or are currently under examination which, on account of the growing quantities of dangerous or polluting goods transported by sea, are designed to avoid and reduce the risks likely to arise from serious accidents at sea.

3. In this respect mention should be made of Directive 93/75/EC concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods. It was amended twice in 1998.

4. On 8 November 1999 the Council adopted a common position with a view to adopting a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. That common position, together with Directive 95/21/EC on Port State control, provides for inspections in Community ports in order to monitor implementation of the international and Community rules on the subject. In a similar vein the Council has just adopted (December 1999) a common position on a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution. One of the aims of that Decision is to supplement Member States’ efforts in cases of oil spillage or threat of oil spillage and to strengthen their clean-up capacity in that field.

5. In addition, at its meeting on 24 January 2000, dealing among other things with oil tanker safety, the Council took note of the initiatives envisaged by the Commission concerning in particular increased security standards for oil tankers to be admitted to European Union ports, intensification of security inspections and identification of those financially responsible in cases of pollution.

6. The Council would stress, furthermore, that the Community provisions on the subject are based on international law, i.e. the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships or the resolutions of the International Maritime Organization.

(2000/C 330 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0018/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Oil discharged at sea

Can the Commission agree to a directive making it compulsory for ships to clean their oil tanks before leaving port, given the threat to various biotopes along Europe’s coastline from oil discharges? If not, why does the Commission feel that such an obligation is unnecessary and what alternative proposals does it have for effectively tackling the problem of oil discharges?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern about operational pollution in Community waters.

Regulations governing the reduction of operational pollution by tankers have been developed by the International maritime organisation (IMO) through the International convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (Marpol 73/78). These regulations have been effective in reducing operational pollution to the extent that modern crude oil tankers are no longer cleaning their tanks with water. The current phasing in of modern designs and operating systems is expected to reduce such pollution further in the next few years.

Much of the operational pollution from all types of ships in Community waters results from their inability in some ports to deliver cargo residues and ship generated wastes to shore facilities. The Commission proposal for a Council directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1) addresses this particular problem and introduces a number of requirements on both ports and ships to ensure that adequate facilities are available in all Community ports and that ships use them. By providing rules, incentives and control procedures for the delivery of ship-generated waste in ports, the need for discharges at sea will be greatly reduced. The Commission is confident that the proposed directive, currently in second reading in the Parliament, will have a strong effect on reducing operational pollution, and in particular oil pollution of all types of ships.

In addition, the Commission presented a proposal for a decision setting up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental marine pollution (2). This proposal, currently under discussion in Council and Parliament, aims at further developing Community initiatives (common training, exchange of experts, exercises, pilot projects, exchange of information) in order to support Member States’ efforts to tackle the problem of oil pollution at sea.

In view of the above, the Commission does not envisage, for the time being, preparing additional proposals requiring ships to clean their tanks before leaving port.

(1) OJ C 271, 31.8.1998. (2) OJ C 25, 30.1.1999 amended by COM(1999) 641 final.

(2000/C 330 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0019/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Rejection of food aid funded from Echo’s budget

Shortly, more than 70 tons of food aid approximately 170 000 tins of beef is to be flown back to the Irish Republic because the Bosnian authorities have refused to authorise its consumption. The failure of this food aid project is a serious financial blow to Médecins sans Frontières and Echo, the Commission’s C 330 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

humanitarian assistance agency. Echo contributed 7,3 million francs to the project, and will not seek to recover this amount because Médecins sans Frontières has complied with all its contractual obligations.

1. When was Echo informed of the refusal by (a) the Croatian customs authorities and (b) the Bosnian customs authorities to admit the food aid?

2. After these refusals, did the Commission take steps to persuade the customs authorities to admit the food after all? If not, why did the Commission not do anything, bearing in mind that the beef complied with quality standards and a serious financial loss was to be anticipated?

3. When was Echo informed of the refusal by the Bosnian authorities to distribute the food aid among Bosnia’s disabled?

4. After this refusal, did the Commission take steps to secure permission for the food aid to be consumed in Bosnia? If not, why did the Commission not do anything, bearing in mind that the beef complied with quality standards and a serious financial loss was to be anticipated?

5. When contracting humanitarian contracts out to third parties, will the Commission and Echo in future conclude enforceable contracts which are conditional on results and include provision for repay- ment if goods and services are not supplied? If not, how will the Commission prevent shortages of funds from occurring in Echo’s budget in future as a result of failure to supply goods and services for humanitarian operations?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Commission contracted (ECHO/YU-/B7-0214/96/0228AB for ECU 2 200 000) with Médecins sans Frontières Belgium (MSF-B) for the provision and delivery, among others, of approximately 99 tons of food aid (cans of beef goulash) in favour of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) refugees and displaced persons, in January 1997. The budget of the beef goulash under the contract was ECU 155 000. This aid was a continuation of the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) operations since the beginning of the war in BiH.

The Commission has been following the events surrounding the shipment and the subsequent refusal of the BiH authorities to allow its release during the whole period of the contract. In addition to operational reports on the implementation of the contract, both ECHO Croatia and ECHO BiH field staff were involved in numerous bilateral and trilateral meetings with MSF and between MSF and the authorities respectively, since 17 February 1997.

Following the final refusal of the BiH Supreme Court to an appeal by MSF-B in BiH for the release of the goods by the authorities, MSF-B officially notified the Commission on 5 October 1998 of the fact that the beef goulash purchased under the contract was not distributed as planned but it was stopped by the authorities of BiH upon its arrival in Sarajevo.

The following circumstances should be noted:

written permission from the Ministry of Agriculture in BiH for the import of the food was obtained by MSF-B (on 12 February 1997) prior to the export of the goods from Ireland,

the goods were certified as being fit for human consumption by two independent laboratories in Europe,

on 28 February 1997, and while the food was in transport, the government of BiH adopted a decree banning the import of beef and all beef products from Ireland, Germany and Switzerland,

Ireland was not subject to Commission Decision (96/239/EC) of 27 March 1996, placing restrictions on beef and beef products exports from the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland),

following the ban imposed by the BiH government on this shipment, it became impossible to re-direct the food to a humanitarian destination other than BiH. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/71

It is certainly regrettable that the Federation government issued a ban on the import of Irish beef products. The Commission, however, has no means to rescind the order of a government it was committed to supporting.

According to the framework partnership agreement the Commission is not under an obligation to reimburse the undistributed goulash. However, after careful consideration of the facts and the exceptional circumstances under which the project was implemented, the Commission has accepted MSF-B invocation of ‘force majeure’ clause under the general conditions of the CCP (1) related to the contract. This acceptance is seen only in the context of this individual situation and does not prejudge future situations of similar kind.

(1) CCP: Article 5.3 in the General Conditions of the Contract Partnership agreement states ‘The Partner shall have the right to suspend or terminate, in writing, with immediate effect, the implementation of the operations for reasons of force majeure. The amounts committed and spent by the Partner up until that time will be charged to the budget of the operation’.

(2000/C 330 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0034/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: The effect of glyphosate on the environment and biodiversity

Will the Commission outline the research which has been carried out to date concerning the effects of the chemical glyphosate on the environment and on biodiversity?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Glyphosate is a plant protection product currently being evaluated in the framework of the first review programme of existing active substances undertaken under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1). The objective of the evaluation is to determine whether it can be included in a positive list of active substances (Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 on the placing of plant protection products on the market (2)) that can be used in plant protection products in the Community. The Regulation provided that the notifiers should submit all the information required by the Directive. This includes information on effects on the environment. The information had to be submitted before 30 April 1995, to the rapporteur Member State (RMS) (for glyphosate, the RMS is Germany). Any interested party could also submit by that date technical or scientific information with regard to the potentially dangerous effects of the substance or its residues on human and animal health and on the environment. The rapporteur Member State reviewed all information submitted for glyphosate and prepared a draft assessment report (monograph) on it. This was submitted on 1 February 1999 to the Commission and the other Member States.

According to the usual procedures provided in the Regulation, the monograph was immediately forwarded for an expert consultation (peer-review) with specialised experts from five Member States to examine in detail all areas of human health and environmental safety. Data gaps were identified and new data was requested, supplied and reviewed. The process also allowed that any other relevant new information be taken into consideration or be considered during further discussions with all Member States in the framework of the standing committee on plant health and its working groups. The monograph and the results of the peer-review for glyphosate will be discussed by all Member States in the evaluation working group of the standing committee on plant health. Depending on the outcome of the discussions the Commission will submit a draft decision to the standing committee on plant health after consultation of the scientific committee on plants. C 330 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Moreover, when a decision is taken, a review report with the most important information (overall conclusion, particular use or risk management conditions, major endpoints on identity, physico-chemistry, toxicology and environment) is made publicly available.

The Commission has also co-financed under the second and third framework programmes for research and technical development (RTD) two projects dealing with glyphosate. In one project the interaction of humic acids and glyphosate was examined in three field sites under long term monocultures (hops, vineyard, citrus). Another project aimed to assess the soil and water quality as affected by glyphosate under three different tillage systems. The results of these projects are available at the Research Directorate general.

(1) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992. (2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2000/C 330 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0035/00 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Rearing of grouse and pheasants

Would the Commission inform me whether regulations governing the welfare of farmed animals also apply to the rearing of grouse and pheasants when they are farmed for the purpose of being shot for sport?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The minimum requirements concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes are provided by Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 (1).

In Article 1 paragraph 2 of the above mentioned Directive it is stated that it shall not apply to ‘(…) animals intended for use in competitions, shows, cultural or sporting events or activities’. Furthermore the Directive does not apply to animals living in the wild.

In conclusion pheasants and grouse farmed for subsequent release into the wild for the purpose of the sport or activity of shooting are not covered by the Directive.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0042/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of bans on night flights

1. The Belgian transport minister, Mrs Isabelle Durant, recently announced that, as from the middle of 2003, night flights will no longer be permitted at Zaventem national airport between the hours of 1 and 5 a.m.

2. Could the Commission give an overview of the current situation regarding bans on commercial flights (both passenger and freight flights) at the main airports in the 15 EU Member States?

3. Would the Commission be willing to propose a directive with a view to harmonising bans on night flights, in order to create a level playing field and to improve the situation with regard to the effects of noise pollution at night and in the morning on the health of citizens? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/73

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The information currently available to the Commission indicates that there is a total ban on night flights at Paris Orly, and a ban on night flights with an exemption for postal cargo flights at Munich and Berlin Tegel. There is a limitation on the number of movements during the night at Munich (outside curfew hours), London Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted, Manchester, and Stockholm. In addition, noisy aircraft are banned during the night at a significant number of airports including Frankfurt, Düsseldorf, London Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted, Manchester, Madrid-Barajas, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Amsterdam.

In its recently adopted communication on air transport and environment Towards meeting the challenges of sustainable development (1) the Commission launched a debate on the appropriateness of establishing a Community framework for decision-making procedures in the field of environmental operating restrictions at Community airports.

As set out in this communication, the Commission is not convinced that uniform and binding rules on operating restrictions, such as a ban on night flights, applicable at all Community airports would provide the best-balanced solution for the noise problems at a particular airport. Such decisions should continue to be taken at local level. However, the Commission is of the opinion that there should be a common framework for the procedures leading to these decisions. Such a framework could include obligatory consultation of all concerned including people living around airports, sufficient time for operators to adapt to new restrictions, and a common basis for assessing the environmental effectiveness of the operational restrictions.

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.

(2000/C 330 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0065/00

by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Milan airport system: Malpensa Linate Orio al Serio

The European Community has included the Milan airport system in its list of category 1 airports and has specified that the system comprises the airports of Milan Linate, Milan Malpensa and Bergamo Orio al Serio (shown in the destinations table under the official name ‘Milan-Orio International Airport’).

Malpensa airport is one of the priority projects that have been established at European level and financed by 500 billion lire in EIB assistance.

In addition, the development plan for the Milan airport system, which was approved at government level and authorised by the Community some time ago, gave the airport of Bergamo Orio al Serio a prominent role as the east Lombardy pole, and significant sums have been invested in it (100 billion lire by the operating company alone over the last three years).

The ban on the transfer of flights from Linate to Malpensa, which was imposed a few hours before the planned deadline of 15 December 1999, has made the future of the air traffic system in northern Italy totally uncertain, with consequences for the progress of operations for both European border links and the development of connections with the Mediterranean area.

In the light of the above, what measures does the Community intend to take to ensure that the programmes that have been set up are adhered to and to avoid a loss of efficiency and competitiveness in the airport system caused by unsustainable competition between the airports of Malpensa, Linate and Bergamo Orio al Serio, in breach of the rules set for operating limits on the airport of Linate, which is only supposed to remain open for the Milan Rome Fiumicino shuttle service? C 330 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The Community has no direct competence as regards the adoption of measures to remedy a loss of efficiency and competitiveness in an airport system. This question, the purpose of which amounts to laying down rules for the distribution of traffic between the airports within an airport system, falls within the authority of the Member States under their national transport policies, as expressly provided under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1). The Commission’s role is confined to verifying whether such rules are consistent with Community law, in particular with the principles of non-discrimination and propor- tionality.

The Italian authorities decided to suspend the transfers of flights from Linate to Malpensa airport which were originally planned for 15 December 1999 and 15 January 2000 respectively. This decision was taken because of the uncertainty caused by measures introduced at Malpensa airport to reduce its environmental impact. Accordingly it now falls to the Italian authorities to lay down new rules for the distribution of traffic in the Milan airport system (Malpensa, Linate and Orio al Serio) in compliance with Community law.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0068/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Construction of the Itoiz dam

Construction of a new dam the Itoiz dam to create a reservoir on the rivers Irai and Urrobi in Navarre (Basque country) has been under way since 1993. The total cost of the project is in the order of EUR 1,78 billion. According to the promoters, the reservoir will be used to irrigate 57 000 ha of farmland in the south of Navarre, to supply water to Irunea and to generate electricity.

The local population and environmental groups are wary of the construction of the dam because fifteen villages will disappear, either wholly or partially, together with three designated nature conservation areas (Txintxurrenea, Gaztelu and Inarbe). Two areas under threat enjoy special European protection status.

On 29 September 1995 the technical project for a reservoir on the rivers Irai and Urrobia was annulled by the national court of justice. The supreme court later upheld this ruling. Nevertheless, construction of the dam went ahead unimpeded. In late 1998 it was announced that the Commission had wrongly dismissed a complaint against the start-up of the project.

1. (a) Which EU institutions have been and/or are involved in the construction of the Itoiz dam?

(b) Why were/are these EU institutions involved?

2. In view of the fact that fifteen villages will disappear, either partially or wholly, along with three designated nature conservation areas, two of which enjoy special European protection status, is EU financing subject to any environmental and/or other conditions?

(a) If not, why not?

(b) If so, does the Commission believe that the conditions are satisfied by the construction firm? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/75

3. Is the construction of the Itoiz dam in line with Community legislation on environmental protection and nature conservation and agriculture, given that fifteen villages will disappear, either partially or wholly, along with three designated nature conservation areas, two of which enjoy special European protection status?

(a) If not, why not, and what action has the Commission taken to ensure that Community legislation is complied with in full?

(b) If so, does the Commission believe that Community legislation is fully complied with in the case of the Itoiz dam, despite the disappearance of fifteen villages, either partially or wholly, along with three designated nature conservation areas, two of which enjoy special European protection status?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

It must be noted that the Community has not granted any Community financing for the construction of the Itoiz dam in the Navarre region of Spain.

The Commission received a complaint concerning the construction of the Itoiz dam and conducted an investigation on this issue. 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.

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.

(2000/C 330 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0071/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Delays in the payment of EU aid to olive growers in Andalusia

Thousands of olive growers in Andalusia have still not received the aid which the European Union allocates each year to the olive sector and which in many cases accounts for 40 % of those producers’ income. Representatives of the sector report that the delay in payment is causing them serious hardship since they were relying on the aid as a means of offsetting the costs they incur during the marketing year.

They also maintain that the situation is attributable to the shortcomings of the Andalusia Regional Government, which is responsible for administering the aid. Thousands of producers are still waiting for their money, both for the most recent financial year and for previous years.

Is the Commission aware of this serious problem affecting olive growers in Andalusia?

What is the reason for the delays in the payment of the aid?

In addition to the delays relating to the 1998-1999 financial year, are there any payments outstanding from previous years? If so, what are the amounts involved?

Does the Commission intend to take any action to solve this serious problem, which is jeopardising the financial well-being of thousands of olive growers in Andalusia? C 330 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission is aware of management problems affecting Community agricultural aids in certain regions such as Andalusia. The main reason for the payment delays is deficiency of the financial administration arrangements of the organisation responsible for the actual payment to aid recipients.

Under the decentralised system in place for financial management of the common agricultural policy, paying agencies accredited by the Member States administer payments and guarantee compliance with the Community rules (including payment dates). In Spain the Autonomous Province of Andalusia is an accredited paying agency for Community agricultural aids.

To secure compliance with the time limits set in the agricultural legislation for aid payments to farmers, the Commission has for several years been applying the penalty system specified in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (1) to non-compliant Member States. Penalties are imposed only on the paying agencies, i.e. farmers remain entitled to receive in full the aid applied for.

By way of example, and disregarding any further decisions that may be taken as part of the accounts clearance exercise, in the 1999 EAGGF financial year corrections of PTA 521 million (€ 3,3 million) were imposed on Spain for delays in paying olive oil sector aids.

It must be remembered in connection with aid applications for which payment is said to be outstanding that the Community rules set payment periods and it is only once the period is over that the Commission can consider payments as delayed and apply the financial penalties mentioned above.

The Honourable Member refers in this case to olive-oil production aid applications for the 1998/99 marketing year. The relevant payment period began on 16 October 1999 and ends on the ninetieth day following publication of the Regulation determining actual olive oil production for 1998/99. This must be adopted by the Commission at the latest eight months after the end of the marketing year. Consequently it is only around 16 October 2000 that the Commission will be able to consider the expenditure in question as delayed and apply penalties on the basis of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 296/96.

In the case of payments relating to previous marketing years, the Commission can already detect delays when the EAGGF monthly expenditure statements are made and where appropriate apply the regulatory penalties.

Lastly, it must be remembered that this same check will be made as part of the accounts clearance exercises. This is a further constraint on Member States to meet their regulatory obligations on the dates of payments to farmers.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on data to be transmitted by 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. OJ L 39, 17.2.1996; OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/00

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Waste wood in chipboard

A letter from Department DGM/A/GA of the Directorate-General for Conservation of the Netherlands Ministry of Public Health, Regional planning and the Environment ref No NL 94141 clearly states 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/77

that 1 500 tonnes of waste wood have been delivered by the Netherlands firm Van der Galiën to the Belgian firm Unilin N.V. for the manufacture of chipboard. (The original text states: ‘the order concerns the export from the Netherlands of 1 500 000 kg of shredded treated wood to Unilin N.V. in Belgium with a view to using this waste in chipboard production’).

The Netherlands Ministry registered this waste, pursuant to the requirements and criteria laid down in Regulation 259/93 (1) on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as non-hazardous waste (‘was not considered to be hazardous waste within the meaning of the Decision on hazardous waste’). In doing so, the Ministry refers to a study which the firm Galiën asked the laboratory Kock Bodemtechniek Eurolab in Deventer to carry out on its behalf. This study, which consisted of two tests on one kilogram of waste wood, did not test for substances such as cadmium, barium, chrome, copper, cobalt or nickel. Furthermore, the test also found excessive levels of PACs (polycyclical aromatic hydrocarbons), i.e. 72 and 146 mg/kg (limit value: 40 mg/kg) and penta- chlorophenol, 0,73 mg/kg (limit value: 0,002 mg/kg), which indicate the presence of impregnated (preserved) wood (= special category waste) in the waste.

1. Can the Commission assure any buyers of chipboard produced with this waste that there is absolutely no health hazard involved within the meaning of Regulation 259/93 (through the ingestion of carcinogenic wood preservatives in the waste)?

2. If the Commission is unable to give that assurance, will it carry out comprehensive tests to dispel any misgivings that consumers may have?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 regulates the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community. The procedure applicable to shipments of wastes for recovery within the Community is determined by the classification of the wastes according to Annexes II IV to the Regulation. Untreated wood waste falls under entry GL 010 of Annex II to Regulation 259/93. Treated wood waste is classified as entry AC 170 in Annex III to the Regulation. According to a common understanding among the experts in the framework of the correspondents’ group established pursuant to Article 37 of Regulation 259/93, wood waste is to be considered as treated if the wood has undergone any treatment other than a purely mechanical treatment. Conversely, wood waste is to be considered as untreated only to the extent that the wood has not been treated at all, with the exception of purely mechanical treatments.

The Commission understands from the information provided by the Honourable Member that the wood wastes in question were indeed wastes of treated wood. According to Regulation 259/93, their shipment is subject to a notification procedure. This procedure allows for the shipment of the wastes in question for recovery within the Community, subject to the prior consent of the authorities of dispatch, destination and transit.

Regulation 259/93 sets out the regime applicable for the control and supervision of cross-border shipments of wastes. Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended, sets out the principles for waste management in the Community. Article 4 of that Directive sets the obligation for Member States to ensure that wastes are recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.

However, neither Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 nor Directive 75/442/EEC establish standards for the products derived from a waste recovery operation. Recycled products need to comply with the general standards in place for the type of product in question. In the absence of specific standards at Community level for chipboards, Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (2) would apply. C 330 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether or not chipboards produced with the waste in question would involve a health hazard. Nor is it in a position to determine whether or not the requirements of Directive 92/59 are met in the case in question.

The Honourable Member is welcome to submit further information.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Possible exclusion of the municipalities of Barberino, Tavernelle and S. Casciano from the areas eligible for funding under the Leader+ project

In October the eight municipalities of the Chianti area around Florence and Siena opened a ‘planning conference for the development of Chianti’, with a view to forming a ‘rural district’ whose main purpose would be to attract Community funding available under the Leader+ project, with the help of the Eurochianti local action group, with which cooperation was established several years ago.

Despite an enthusiastic response on the part of economic operators and trade associations in the area, the policy pursued by the Tuscany Regional Council may well lead to the exclusion of the municipalities of Barberino, Tavernelle and S. Casciano from the area eligible for funding under the Leader+ project.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the above municipalities are not excluded for political reasons?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Under the draft guidelines for the Community Initiative for Rural Development (Leader+) approved by the Commission on 13 October 1999 all rural areas are eligible for consideration or inclusion. However, only a limited number of areas will in fact benefit from Community support, following a transparent, objective and rigorous selection procedure designed to concentrate many Community resources on the most promising pilot proposals and derive maximum lever effect from them.

It will be up to the Member States’ authorities in the case of Italy and the regions to propose the most appropriate procedures and criteria for defining classification requirements for interested local groups. The draft Commission guidelines set out minimum criteria? to be supplemented by more specific ones due to the particular needs of the region and the objectives to be obtained. These criteria will be an integral part of the programme and subject to Commission approval. Member States will be able to restrict the application of Leader+ to particular rural areas if this can be justified using criteria based on their rural development policy objectives.

The Commission will on approving Leader+ programmes verify that the abovementioned requirements are strictly complied with. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/79

(2000/C 330 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0085/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Ivory trade

Could the Commission confirm that there are far-reaching proposals by southern African countries to argue during the forthcoming CITES negotiations in favour of allowing trade in ivory?

Is the Commission aware that allowing such trade would give a huge boost to the (illegal) hunting of elephants?

What position does the EU intend to adopt in the forthcoming CITES negotiations in Nairobi, and where do the individual Member States stand on the possibility of allowing trade in ivory?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

A number of proposals concerning trade in African elephant ivory have been tabled for discussion at the forthcoming 11th conference of the parties to Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). Some are in favour of allowing trade in ivory, others against.

The Commission is aware that unless properly regulated, international trade in ivory can encourage the illegal hunting of elephants.

Member States will vote at the conference on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. The determination of the common position will be made in the Council. The Commission is still considering the proposal it will make to the Council to prepare the Community for the conference of the parties.

(2000/C 330 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0086/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Situation in Chechnya

What is the state of play as regards the EU’s initiatives relating to the war in Chechnya, given that the Russian Government and its army are still causing horrendous loss of life and damage to property in a situation which cannot reasonably be resolved other than through the acceptance of democratic self- determination for the Chechan nation, which for historical reasons is quite distinct from the Russian nation and which is demonstrating a clear political will?

(2 May 2000)

The Helsinki European Council adopted a declaration on the conflict in Chechnya, condemning the position adopted by Russia toward that Republic.

In that declaration, the following consequences were drawn from the Russian attitude:

review of the implementation of the Common Strategy on Russia;

suspension of certain provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and strict application of the trade provisions; C 330 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

transfer of funds from TACIS to humanitarian assistance;

limitation of finance in the budget for 2000 to priority areas, including human rights, the rule of law, support for civil society and nuclear safety.

In addition, an appeal was made to the OSCE and the Council of Europe to review, in their field of competence, their cooperation with Russia.

The Portuguese Presidency’s work plan for implementation of the Common Strategy on Russia was presented this January. It was reviewed in the light of the Helsinki declaration and the conclusions of the General Affairs Council on 24 January 2000.

At its meetings on 24 January and 14 and 15 February 2000, the General Affairs Council discussed the situation in North Caucasus. Russia was immediately called upon to comply with the principles recognised by the European Union, in particular the rule of law, respect for human rights, and freedom of information and of the media. While recognising the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, the Council reiterated the concern caused to the European Union by the continued violence in Chechnya. It condemned the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by Russia in the territory, which had led to a worsening of the humanitarian situation and had worrying effects on the civilian population.

Among the conclusions adopted, the following should also be noted:

the appeal made for a peaceful settlement of the conflict and the opening of dialogue between the Russian Government and the Chechen representatives;

the importance of avoiding any spread of the conflict;

the need to permit the OSCE to resume fieldwork in the area;

support for the efforts of the Council of Europe and the OSCE for a peaceful settlement of the conflict;

concern about the fate of Russian journalist Andrei Babitski, who disappeared on 16 January 2000.

The Troika of the European Union made a démarche in Moscow on 11 February 2000, in the course of which they questioned the Kremlin coordinator for media in North Caucasus, Mr Sergei Yastrzhembski, about the fate of Andrei Babitski. At that time, Russia promised to provide, within two days, an unofficial document on the legal bases for the detention of the journalist Andrei Babitski by the Russian forces and the events which followed. The document was supplied on 21 February 2000. On 25 February, Babitski reappeared in Daghestan.

On 25 February the Presidency made a démarche in Moscow to Mr Gusarov and Mr Ivanov, respectively Deputy Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, and to the Director of European Affairs at the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Mr Chizhov, during which it raised, among other things, the question of human rights in North Caucasus.

The Presidency has been maintaining close contact for some time with Mr Kalamanov, recently appointed by Russia as the President’s emissary for human rights in Chechnya. On 24 February, the Troika made a démarche to Mr Kalamanov, in the course of which it called for all those who are known to be involved in human rights violations to be investigated and held criminally responsible for their actions. In the addition, the need for an international presence in North Caucasus was stressed, together with the urgent need to ensure respect for human rights in Chechnya and neighbouring territories.

At the same time, political dialogue between the European Union and Russia is being maintained, given the importance of overall strategic partnership with Moscow. This dialogue has been used to advance the European Union’s position on Chechnya and to insist on a speedy settlement of the problem through political dialogue. In addition, the Council is supporting in a coordinated manner the efforts toward the same end on the part of the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE and the Council of Europe. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/81

(2000/C 330 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0088/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Inclusion of Galicia in the trans-European high-speed rail networks during the 2000-2006 period

Is it true that the Spanish Government has submitted to the Commission a proposal for Galicia to be included in the trans-European high-speed rail networks as part of the reform which is due to take place in the current year (2000) and which has been announced by the Commissioner responsible for relations with the European Parliament, transport and tourism as being scheduled for the current month of January?

(2000/C 330 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0092/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: High-speed rail link between northern Portugal and Galicia

There have been repeated reports in the Galician media that moves are under way to investigate the possibility of setting up a high-speed railway, following the decision taken by the Northern Portuguese Regional Coordinating Committee and the Galician Government. The Union is providing 50 % of the funding to cover the cost of the necessary study. However, according to the answer given by the Spanish Government in the Congress of Deputies to the BNG (Galician Nationalist Bloc) spokesman, the plans appear to be modest, since the intention is merely to build lines capable of carrying traffic moving no faster than 160 km/h. This information is consistent with other statements by Portuguese government spokesmen to the effect that the latter Government is proposing to relegate the La Coruña to Setúbal high- speed line to a marginal role, focusing exclusively instead on the Oporto to Lisbon line, which links up to Madrid.

Can the Commission confirm the above points and, should they be correct, say why traffic between Galicia and Portugal is to be restricted to such a slow speed? How soon might the work be completed, and when is the railway so vital for the development of both frontier regions likely to come into operation?

(2000/C 330 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0093/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Investment in Galicia’s railways during the 2000-2006 period

The Spanish Government Minister Mariano Rajoy and the Galician Government Economics Adviser Xosé Antón Orza have publicly stated that the Spanish Government is to invest 150 000 million pesetas (901,4 million euros) in Galicia’s railways during the 2000-2006 period. Can the Commission confirm this figure and state categorically that, as a result of such investment, Galicia will definitely be linked to the trans-European high-speed rail network and that its internal network will also be modernised?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0088/00, E-0092/00 and E-0093/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

At the current stage of the thought being given to the revision of the Community approach towards the trans-European transport network Parliament and Council Decision No 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 (1), the Commission has not been aware of any specific new high-speed projects in Spain. The amounts mentioned by the Honourable Member have, in the main, been set aside for upgrading the conventional C 330 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

railway lines to Galicia in order to achieve speeds of roughly 200 kilometres per hour (km/h) between Madrid and Monforte de Lemos, and upgrading the conventional lines to Orense and Santiago and towards La Coruna, Vigo et Oporto (Portugal).

As regards the development study of the Vigo-Oporto Atlantic corridor referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission would confirm that 50 % of the total cost of that study was co-financed in 1999. Its basic aim covered the following two areas: launching transport infrastructure projects in the areas being examined (Galicia and Northern Portugal) while seeking practical joint public/private funding options, and gradually helping to integrate the ground, sea and air transport infrastructure networks, thus guaranteeing the lasting mobility of persons and goods. The results of the study are expected in 2001.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2000/C 330 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0091/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Milk production surpluses and quotas allocated to the Member States

Does the Commission consider it reasonable and in accordance with what the European Union needs in order to be able to develop evenly (particularly in view of the increasing openness of its markets to outside economies) for there to be continued discrimination in the allocation of milk quotas to the Member States? The quotas allocated bear no relation to domestic consumption, as demonstrated by the fact that, in recent years, countries such as the Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark have had surpluses for export of 6 746, 4 301 and 2 507 tonnes per year whilst Spain had a shortage of 1 004 tonnes, a quantity which it could perfectly easily have produced itself, especially in regions with the appropriate skills and capacity and, in particular, in Objective 1 regions such as Galicia.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Milk quotas were allocated on the basis not of consumption in geographical zones but of each farmer’s production over a reference period. This was the only efficient way of acting. If the production quota in each Member State had been restricted to its probable consumption the farmers concerned would have been seriously wronged, it would have been impossible to allocate quotas fairly and a substantial section of European agriculture would have been destroyed. In addition a full milk supply for the Community would no longer have been certain.

It is likewise for reasons of efficiency that farmers’ individual quotas are established and administered at Member State level. Community-level management would require a large staff and have numerous drawbacks, with cumulated errors and delays in the Member States eventually paralysing the system.

Moreover, the free circulation of goods means that any regional imbalance between production and consumption can easily be remedied and is in line with the single market principle that ensures best distribution of the factors of production.

In Spain in 1999 there were 1 150 tonnes of skimmed milk powder in intervention storage and 12 631 tonnes of butter were bought in by intervention. Thus even before entry into force of the Spanish quota increase decided on under Agenda 2000 the Spanish market was in surplus for these products. By comparison for the same period in Denmark, to which the Honourable Member refers, there were no intervention stocks and no milk products were bought in. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/83

Lastly, it should remembered that since introduction of the quota system the reference quantities allocated to the Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member have been either left unchanged (Ireland) or reduced (Denmark, Netherlands). By contrast those assigned to Spain have been substantially increased, by 17 % between 1986 and 1999 and 29 % between 1986 and 2001. For these periods the European average fell by 4 % and 2 %. Distribution of the quota between regions and farmers is in each Member State a national responsibility using impartial criteria.

(2000/C 330 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0107/00

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

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Revision of TEN guidelines safety in projects of common interest

Under the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network adopted in 1996, the Commission is to provide a report indicating whether or not those guidelines should be revised.

Bearing in mind the unacceptably high rate of fatal accidents linked to transport operations (above all road transport), it appears paradoxical to say the least that those guidelines should not attach the same importance to transport safety as to environmental protection (which merits a specific article).

Given that the above guidelines form the basis for drawing up infrastructure projects of common European interest which will receive financial support from the European institutions, will the Commission introduce a specific article in its proposal for new guidelines with a view to requiring a safety impact study for all projects to be funded by the Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view that the number of fatal accidents involving transport, and in particular road transport, is intolerable.

Ensuring the lasting mobility of goods and persons under the best possible safety conditions is one of the aims of the trans-European transport network. In order to update the Community’s approach towards expanding that network, the Commission is currently examining how to achieve that aim as effectively as possible. In the medium term, the part played by traffic management systems with regard to safety could be given greater recognition. These include traffic monitoring and accident-detection systems, and also the harmonisation of signs and of railway telecommunication systems. In the longer term expansion of the network should be based on a detailed assessment of network quality, and more particularly of its safety level.

The Community-funded projects have already been subjected to a cost/benefit study which, in general terms, includes safety. However, those projects only cover a limited number of network sections.

The Commission thus intends to encourage a broader approach in its communication on road safety (1). For that purpose decisions on investment in transport infrastructure should take account of the costs and benefits to society of the various options in terms of road safety.

(1) COM(97) 131 final. C 330 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0109/00 by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) and Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Effectiveness of research under the Fifth Framework programme

The effectiveness of predecessors of the Fifth Framework programme has never been examined in depth. Input data have been analysed and an overview of successful projects has been given. However, there has been no study of the benefits to society.

The Netherlands Central Planning Office (CPB) recently proposed a simple method of research (in working document 111 of July 1999). This involves examining to what extent research proposals which did not qualify for cofinancing under the Fifth Framework programme have nevertheless been implemented. The objective of the Fifth Framework programme is to promote research which economic operators would not carry out entirely on their own. If the projects rejected have in fact been fully implemented, that would indicate that the Fifth Framework programme is missing the mark.

1. Is the Commission aware of the research method developed by the CPB?

2. Does it consider that this method can provide an indication of the effectiveness of the Fifth Framework programme?

3. If not, why not?, If so, does it intend to apply this method?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

1. The Commission is aware of the methodology proposed by the Nederlandse Centraal Planbureau (NCP).

2. In the light of its own series of studies on the issue, the Commission is of the view that the evaluation of the effectiveness of the framework programme is a complex task and that there is no single measure of its global impact. The method proposed by NCP is but one of many which might be considered in this regard. It has the drawback of being based only on rejected projects and of taking the view that the role of the framework programme is simply to support research which would otherwise not take place.

The value of Community support to projects should be explored by assessing not only whether the project would have been carried out in the absence of funding, but also by whether public support improved the way in which the project is done, for example making it better, larger, faster or more collaborative. Moreover, the reasons for financing a project should be judged against its European added value (EAV), a concept that derives from the application of the subsidiarity principle. Criteria used to evaluate programmes are also related to this ‘Community added value’ that covers notably the establishment of a ‘critical mass’ through the combination of resources available at national level, the contribution to the implementation of Community policies and the solving of problems arising at Community level. In order to assess the effectiveness of the framework programme it is therefore important not only to consider isolated projects but also to assess, as a whole, the projects financed under a programme. This takes into account the fact that the impact of programmes is more than the sum of the projects’ impact.

For these reasons, the effectiveness of the framework and specific programmes cannot fully rely on the analysis of rejected projects that by definition are not supposed to comply with Community research and technological development (RTD) programmes objectives.

3. The importance of putting a strong emphasis on European added value has been confirmed by the group of outstanding experts in the field of research programme evaluation assembled by the Commission last year to examine the issue of measurement of RTD results and impact. The report of the group 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/85

‘Options and limits for assessing the socio-economic impact of European RTD programmes’ is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. The recommendations of the experts group are currently being considered in the context of the monitoring and evaluation of the framework programme.

(2000/C 330 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0110/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Decentralisation of air communications

As part of the plans announced by the Member of the Commission responsible for transport in relation to the Europeanisation of European air space, and in the light of the chaotic experience of recent years, will the Commission encourage the decentralisation of air communications through the development of alternative international airports such as that at Santiago de Compostela in Galicia, Spain, thus avoiding the congestion caused by the irrational concentration of flights in Madrid, where the central government intends to focus yet more airport investment on the construction of new runways and even a new airport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

Existing Community legislation on intra-Community air transport implies that air carriers take the decisions on their network structure including frequency of flights and localisation of connecting points on the basis of their own commercial considerations taking into account factors such as airport charges, availability of slots and size of the markets to be served. In relation to flights to and from third country destinations, however, most of the bilateral air services agreements concluded individually by Member States include rules which restrict the capacity of regional airports to attract additional traffic.

The Commission is of the opinion that direct public intervention in the commercial decisionmaking of air carriers on the location of operations should be limited to specific situations such as safeguarding public service operations or distribution of traffic within an airport system on the basis of specific rules established by Community legislation. More general interventions aimed at steering traffic from one airport to another are incompatible with the rules and the goals of air transport liberalisation.

Notwithstanding these general principles the Commission is currently examining whether increasing concentration of air transport operations towards few hub airports could be eased by appropriate support measures for enhancing the role of regional airports (secondary hubs) in the overall airport system. It intends to present the outcome of this examination in 2001. In addition, the Commission will continue and strengthen its efforts to conclude air transport agreements for the Community as a whole with third countries that would improve the possibility of regional airports to attract additional traffic.

(2000/C 330 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0111/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Environmental deterioration of the river Tea in Galicia

Ecological organisations have complained that the river Tea, which flows through south-western Galicia and joins the river Miño, is suffering serious environmental damage due to work linked to land C 330 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

consolidation in the municipality of Covelo, which has not been subject to any kind of environmental assessment. The regional government of Galicia, which is responsible for the works, itself proposed the river Tea for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. Given that the consolidation works are being financed from the EAGGF, will the Commission carry out an investigation into those responsible for the ecological damage caused?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The site ‘Río Tea’, of 88 hectares, has been proposed by Spain as a site of Community importance (SIC) to 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 (1).

In response to the Honourable Member’s Written Question and a petition to the committee of petitions of the Parliament (2), the Commission is conducting an investigation in order to assess whether the relevant Community environmental legislation has been complied with in this case. As further information is required, the Commission has sent a letter requesting the observations of the Spanish authorities on this issue.

The Commission will not hesitate to take all the necessary steps, including recourse to the procedure set out in Article 226 (ex article 169) of the EC Treaty, to ensure full compliance with this legislation.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) 365/99.

(2000/C 330 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0117/00

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Ban on night flights at Zaventem airport in Belgium

On 31 December 1999 the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Transport submitted a draft ministerial decree, which was withdrawn on 12 January 2000 for wider consultations. The purpose of the draft decree was to set noise quotas by introducing a system of maximum noise levels. However, it also stipulated that, starting in the summer of 2003, commercial flights would be banned between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.

The draft decree is based inter alia on Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (1), which states that ‘where serious congestion and/or environmental problems exist the Member State responsible may (…) impose conditions on, limit or refuse the exercise of traffic rights’.

1. What action has the Belgian Transport Minister taken to comply with the requirement laid down in Article 9(3) of the above Regulation that ‘at least three months before the entry into force of the action’, he ‘inform the other Member States and the Commission’?

2. Given the lack of European legislation governing the prohibition of night flights, does the ban on such flights at Zaventem airport only provided for in the draft decree not constitute a distortion of competition between Belgian and other European air carriers within the meaning of Article 9(2), fourth indent?

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/87

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

The Commission has taken note that the draft ministerial decree introducing a ban on nightflights at Zaventem airport has never been published in the ‘Moniteur Belge’ and has been withdrawn on 12 January 2000, as indicated by the Honourable Member. Since the Belgian legislation banning nightflights at Zaventem has been withdrawn before its entry into force, the question is no more of practical application.

The Commission understands that the Belgian authorities are now preparing in replacement of the abovementioned ministerial decree a comprehensive set of rules addressing the noise problems at night around Zaventem.

Finally, the Commission intends to address the issue of operational restrictions at airports through a Community framework for operational restrictions and dissemination of best practices, as set out in its recent Communication on Air Transport and Environment (1).

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.

(2000/C 330 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0123/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Computer recycling

Because of the pace at which technology is advancing, many developed countries, companies, universities and even ordinary citizens replace their PCs frequently because they are no longer of any use for their new specialised requirements, while at the same time there is a new generation of ‘electronic illiterates’ growing up who could put them to good use. At the recent Medi@terra Mediterranean and Balkan symposium at Athens, held under the patronage of the Council of Europe and the Ministry of Culture, a proposal was put forward to set up a scheme for recycling old computers, which would aim to channel them, after collection, valuation and any necessary modifications, to countries in need of computers, together with the provision of the necessary training and technical support.

Since, in the context of the Information Society, the European Union’s interest in the dissemination of information and technology to as many sections of the public as possible can be taken as read, can the Commission say:

1. whether it agrees with the above suggestion,

2. from which EU programmes an endeavour such as this could be funded, and

3. what legal problems would be likely to arise in connection with the donation of computers and, particularly, software?

4. Could the Commission provide information on whether similar activities exist in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

1. and 2. The Commission agrees that re-cycling old computers is in general economically and environmentally appropriate. It is in favour of improving information technology in developing countries, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have the possibility under cofinanced projects to include a computer recycling element. C 330 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Following a call for tenders, the Commission has signed a contract with an NGO for the removal of its own old computers. This enables this NGO to recycle these computers inside and outside the Community in the course of its activities. Further the Commission cooperates on request with this NGO in the preparation of computers for schools and associations in the community and for projects in third countries.

3. and 4. In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested.

(2000/C 330 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0131/00 by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Employment of ‘third-country’ drivers

The Belgian/Netherlands Transport Newsletter (NT) for 4 January 2000 carries a detailed report revealing that illegal employment within the EU of drivers from non-EU countries in particular Eastern Europe is increasing sharply. The activity is ‘illegal’ in the sense that work permits are not applied for and employment contracts are not issued. The situation amounts to an inadmissible distortion of competition and evasion of collective labour agreements.

1. Is the Commission alert to this phenomenon, and if so how widespread is it? Can the Commission provide an overview?

2. Major companies like Willy Betz operate a scam posing negligible risk of detection. They arrange, for example, for East European drivers to drive in all EU Member States except the one in which the goods vehicle concerned is registered. That, after all, is the only country in which any checks are likely to be made on work permits. Is the Commission aware of this and other scams, and if so what action is it taking to extend and harmonise the necessary checks?

3. Can the Commission provide an overview of its activities in this connection in arranging consultations with Member States and drawing up directives and other relevant measures?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

1. The Commission is aware of the increasing number of drivers from outside the Community who are employed by haulage firms in the Community. It is likely that in many cases the employment conditions of these drivers are contrary to the national rules of the Member States where the haulier is established. The Commission is concerned about the distorting effects of this practice on road haulage competition within the Community but has no data about the exact size of the problem.

2. The Commission considers the difficult control of the ‘legal’ employment status of drivers to be a very pressing problem within the national and international road haulage industry. Indeed, for this reason the Commission has already written to the Member States in order to raise awareness of the problem.

3. In order to grasp the extent of the problem of the often illegal use of third country drivers, the Commission has asked the Member States to provide an overview of the diverse social, labour and transport rules they apply in this area. A meeting with government experts will be organised shortly in order to explore possible ways to address this issue. Industry will also be consulted.

Once it has gained an overview of the relevant rules and details determining current practice and has explored possible measures, the Commission will consider what precise action must be taken. The Commission intends to adopt a communication on this matter in the course of this year. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/89

(2000/C 330 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0132/00 by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Road signs in Italy

Italian motorways are full of fifty kph speed-limit signs underneath which is attached another sign indicating that this limit applies only in case of fog. Since this stipulation appears in Italian only, drivers unfamiliar with that language are likely to be confused by the signs.

Would the Commission not agree that, in the interests of road safety, action should be taken t make those signs readily understandable to all?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

Road safety is a key issue within the European transport policy and the Commission fully understands the Honourable Member’s concerns about road signs.

Their characteristics, for example their size, shape and colour, are governed by an international agreement administered by the United Nations economic commission for Europe and these signs usually take the form of a pictogram to avoid difficulties of understanding as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

However, where it is not the case, it is up to the individual Member State which is a signatory to the Convention to propose a modification to replace text messages with pictograms.

(2000/C 330 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0136/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Setting up of Eurojust

At the Tampere Summit, the European Council decided to set up an agency to provide a more vigorous response to the most serious forms of organised crime (Eurojust). The Council was asked to adopt the necessary legislation by the end of the year 2001.

1. What progress has been made concerning specific plans to set up Eurojust?

2. In so far as it is possible to say at present, how will the agency be structured in organisational terms?

3. What are the Council’s estimates concerning the future staffing levels of Eurojust?

4. What are the Council’s estimates regarding costs?

(2 May 2000)

The Portuguese Presidency submitted to the Council a discussion paper examining all the possible options regarding setting up Eurojust. A first discussion of this document has already been held within the competent Council bodies. The Presidency also submitted the question of setting up Eurojust to the Justice and Home Affairs ministers at the informal meeting in Lisbon at the beginning of March 2000. C 330 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

It is not yet possible to provide any information on the future organisation of Eurojust or estimates of its future resources.

As soon as the Council has been presented with an initiative regarding a legal instrument, the European Parliament will be duly consulted, in accordance with the Treaty on European Union.

(2000/C 330 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0142/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Clarification of tender award procedures for road reconstruction in Addis Abeba financed by the European Development Fund

Salini Costruttori SpA, an Italian construction firm which operates in Ethiopia for the World Bank and the European Development Fund (EDF), building major road links and dams, took part in the tender procedure for the repair of the Addis Abeba-Dessie Woldiya road link, a project financed by the EDF (ET/7020/000- ABA-Tender 4342) and on 6 November 1998 submitted bids for lots 1 and 2. The bid by Salini Costruttori SpA was the lowest received (EUR 6 822 572 lower than the next lowest),

The firm provided full information under the assessment procedure for the bid on how it would carry out the work and what materials would be used, in line with the tender specifications. This infomration was forwarded to the Commission services (DG VIII) responsible for deciding on the award of the tender.

However, on 22 November 1999, Mr Karl Harbo, the Commission delegate, informed the services of the Ethiopian Government that the only bid which fully met the tender requirements was the second one on the list and this was awarded the contract for the works covered by lot 2, while lot 1 was left pending. The note also stipulated that the companies undertaking the work should not use inert material from rivers and warned the offices of the client and the international consultant paid by the Commission not to request clarification from the companies, since this would breach provisions actually running counter to what was claimed in the note, which in addition set short deadlines for concluding the contract, leaving little time available for Salini Costruttori SpA to challenge the award procedure.

In the light of the above:

1. Why did the Commission not award the tender to the lowest bidder?

2. Why were the specifications changed after the completion of the tender procedure, with the second- placed bidder being required to restrict its use of inert matter from rivers, when this request was never previously made to Salini Costruttori SpA, despite the willingness the company had expressed to meet any technical requirements?

3. Why was the tender awarded only for lot 2, with the result that the Commission did not derive the benefits to be obtained from awarding lots jointly?

4. What action will it take to check that the tender procedure was carried out in accordance with the rules?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Under Articles 36 and 37 of Decision No 3/90 of the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers of 29 March 1990 adopting the general regulations, general conditions and procedural rules on conciliation and arbitration for works, supply and service contracts financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) and concerning 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/91

their application (1), the contracting authority/national authorising officer is responsible for taking the final decision on the award of contracts in agreement with the Commission in accordance with Articles 313 and 317 of the fourth Lomé Convention. The Commission checks that the results of the evaluation of the tenders sent by national authorising officers comply with the relevant provisions in both administrative and technical respects.

The Commission can provide certain details about the invitation to tender and lots concerned without derogating from the abovementioned general regulations or Convention. According to the Commission’s information, the evaluation procedure relating to lot 1 is still in progress and the contracting authority has taken no decision on the award of the contract. In accordance with Article 33.7 of the general regulations, therefore, no information relating thereto may be disclosed. The Commission has checked that the procedure was carried out in accordance with the rules and approved the award of lot 2. As soon as the national authorising officer has given official notification of the award of the lot, any request for further information, in accordance with the provisions referred to above and Articles 37.2 and 37.3 of the general regulations, must be sent to the contracting authority, as the sole body authorised to provide information in that connection.

(1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1990.

(2000/C 330 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0146/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Commission report on the veterinary mission carried out in Italy

On 13 October 1999 the Commission published a report on a veterinary mission to Italy. The report revealed serious breaches in Italy of Council Directive 91/628 (1) on the protection of animals during transport including incomplete route plans for animals imported from third countries and the failure to require animals which have travelled long distances from third countries to be rested for 24 hours on arrival in Italy. Moreover, the requirements for vehicles carrying animals for longer than 8 hours were often not complied with, either by Italian or by third country vehicles.

In its previous mission to Italy, the Commission found serious shortcomings at the Italian border inspection posts near the Slovenian border. In its new report, the Commission concluded that, since its previous mission in 1997, no substantial progress has been achieved.

What steps is the Commission taking to require the Italian authorities to ensure that the requirements of Council Directive 91/628 are properly complied with?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The welfare of animals transported by road from Eastern European and Baltic third countries to Italy via the border crossings of Gorizia and Fernetti-Prosecco continues to be a matter of concern to the Commission. In addition to the adverse reports of the Commission veterinary inspectors mentioned by the Honourable Member, the matter has been the subject of complaints from animal welfare organisations.

The Commission has intervened with the Italian authorities on a number of occasions concerning the inadequate enforcement of the national legislation transposing the requirements of Council Directive 91/ 628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport (1). Although some short-term improvements were noted in respect of earlier interventions, it nevertheless appears that transport of the animals concerned is still frequently being carried out with inadequate respect of animal welfare requirements. C 330 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

When horses are imported from Central and Eastern European third countries to Italy, the greater part of the journey has taken place before reaching the Community border. The enforceability of Community legislation regarding the protection of animals during transport taking place before the Community’s frontier is still under examination. Irrespective of this question, it is clear that once the animals have reached the Community’s frontiers there can be no doubt that the relevant rules are fully applicable.

There have been various contacts with the principal Central and Eastern European countries involved in the transport of livestock to the Community in relation to animal welfare, and the relevant legislation of those third countries has been obtained. The Commission will consider making more formal approaches to the third countries concerned in due course.

In this framework, and given the priority of the subject, the issue of long distance transport of animals and in particular horses will be discussed and analysed in the second meeting of chiefs of veterinary services of the associated countries on 28/29th March 2000.

The Commission will also in due course take a decision as to whether to open infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC Treaty in respect of Italy’s failure to adequately enforce the rules of the animal transport directives.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(2000/C 330 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0149/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Traffic separation schemes and interpretation of rules to prevent collisions in the German Bight

Concerning the interpretation of rules to prevent collisions in the German Bight, the frequency with which fines are imposed for infringement of these regulations are a source of irritation, in particular for German sailing federations.

1. To what extent are rules to prevent collisions in the relevant areas of the German Bight internationally recognised?

2. Is compliance of these rules monitored by international organisations?

3. Is the Commission aware that these rules are interpreted differently in the various Member States?

4. What possibilities does the Commission see of harmonising at European level the interpretation and implementation of measures to prevent collisions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

The navigation of all vessels (including small boats and yachts) is regulated by the Convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea (Colregs).

1. The Commission is aware of some legal discussions over the precise powers of the coastal state over navigation in areas of the German Bight which lie outside the territorial sea area. However, it is unaware of any special rules in the German Bight which conflict with the requirements of the Colregs. It would be expected that the Colregs would be applied and enforced in the German Bight area. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/93

2. Implementation of the Colregs is not supervised by any international organisation. It is the responsibility of the flag state of the vessel to ensure that its vessels comply with the rules. Coastal states may monitor compliance and prosecute an offending vessel’s master under their national laws if the vessel enters port.

3. The Commission is not aware of any differences in interpretation of the Colregs in Member States as the rules have evolved over a long time and their interpretation has been discussed and agreed by International maritime organisation (IMO) Member States.

4. The Commission therefore has no evidence of any need for harmonisation of the application of the Colregs in the Community.

(2000/C 330 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0152/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Exceeding of maximum permissible nitrate levels in water for human consumption in the Community of Valencia (Spain)

At the end of last year a report by the water control unit of the government of the Community of Valencia was published showing that the water intended for human consumption in 46 municipal districts in the Community of Valencia contained more than the permitted amount of nitrates laid down by the European Union and the World Health Organisation. This means that more than 375 000 persons (10 % of Valencians) are exposed to the health risks posed by nitrates (notably, cancer in adults and anaemia in children).

The main source of this kind of water pollution is the excessive and improper use of nitrogenous fertilising for farming in the area. The Government of Valencia has responded to this serious situation merely by declaring 193 municipal districts to be at risk from nitrate pollution, without doing anything else to remedy the situation. In so doing, the government has merely applied Community legislation incorrectly by complying with formal requirements without attempting to remedy the problem.

Bearing in mind the provisions of Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1) and Directive 91/676/EC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (2) as well as the requirements to be laid down in the future framework directive on water, is the Commission aware of the breaches of Community legislation involving the exceeding of maximum permitted nitrate levels affecting the people of Valencia. If so, what measures has it taken or will it take to safeguard the health of these citizens?

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32. (2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problem the Honourable Member has raised regarding the pollution of water intended for human consumption due to exceedance of the maximum authorised level of nitrates.

The Court of Justice has already condemned Spain for failing to comply with Council Directive 91/676/ EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. The failings noted by the Court included failure to designate vulnerable zones and failure to adopt codes of good agricultural practice (1). C 330 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

In addition, the Commission has brought a further action (2) against Spain before the Court of Justice for failure to communicate the vulnerable zone action programmes required by Directive 91/676/EEC.

Regarding the drinking water problem, the Commission has recently instituted infringement proceedings in respect of the poor quality of drinking water in several municipalities of the Autonomous Community of Valencia, invoking improper application of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (3).

The Commission hopes these proceedings will help resolve the problem raised by the Honourable Member. It will, in addition, take all useful steps to ensure that Spain makes a full designation of vulnerable zones in all provinces in which nitrates from agricultural sources are threatening the quality of fresh or sea water, and that it introduces action programmes rapidly.

The Commission would point out that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (4), good farming practice is now a precondition for payment of compensatory allowances (Chapter V of the Regulation) and in the implementation of agri- environmental measures (Chapter VI of the Regulation).

(1) Case C-71/97. Judgment of 1.10.1998. (2) Case C-274/98. (3) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, amended by OJ L 224, 3.9.1993. (4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0156/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Framework directive on water policy COM(1999) 271

The Commission proposal for a directive establishing a directive for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(1999) 271) is initially a compilation of a number of directives regulating surface and ground water. Is the framework directive intended to tighten up the environmental objectives laid down in the current directives?

The proposal would introduce a precautionary principle, not defined in greater detail, and phase out hazardous substances. What is meant by the term precautionary principle and what hazardous substances are to be phased out?

On the matter of phasing out hazardous substances, the intention is to reduce discharges close to zero by 2002 on the basis of the 1995 figures. How is this phasing out to be achieved?

It also appears that the intention is both to phase out emissions and discharges of hazardous substances and achieve the ultimate aim of concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances. What are naturally occurring substances and how are these ‘background values’ to be determined? Do values ‘close to zero’ mean what can be measured with currently available technology so over time absolute zero when the minutest traces of substances will be measurable?

The proposal also speaks of ‘reversing any significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of any pollutant in ground water’. Does this mean that levels of nitrates for example in ground water will not be allowed to rise to the limit values that have been set? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/95

The directive allows individual Member States depart from the objectives in ‘exceptional circumstances’. What is meant by ‘exceptional circumstances’?

The directive’s principal environmental objective is to achieve good surface water status and good ground water status. What is meant by good status?

Will the directive generally amend the levels of protection in the EU?

Has the Commission made any calculations of the implications of implementing this directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

At its 14-18 February 2000 plenary session Parliament gave a second reading of the common position of 22 October 1999 (1) on the proposed water framework directive from 1997 (2). The Parliament in its first reading strongly welcomed the proposal and adopted 133 amendments, generally strengthening the objectives and implementation timetable. The environment committee on 25 January 2000 adopted 86 of a proposed total of 243 amendments.

The proposal lays down a general principle for water management based on the geographical extension of the full river basin with associated groundwater, and in this context incorporates a number of older water directives addressing certain specific types of particular waters with various specific environmental objectives. The principle is that all protection and use of water must integrate groundwater and surface water objectives in an integrated planning. In addition to the existing predominantly physico-chemical quality objectives and standards, the proposal lays down a number of ecological objectives. The general objective for this water quality is called ‘good status’. Good status covers both the classical physico- chemical and the ecological parameters. Annex V of the proposal lays down detailed definitions and application of the concept ‘good status’. The proposal does not in itself define the ‘precautionary principle’. However, the proposal is based on Article 175,1 (ex Article 130s) of the EC Treaty and thus follows the principles of Community environment policy, including the precautionary principle laid down in Article 174 (ex Article 130r) of the Treaty. The Commission on 2 February 2000 adopted a communication on the precautionary principle (3).

In relation to ‘phasing out’ emissions of hazardous substances, the first reading of Parliament of 11 February 1999 and the Commission’s amended proposal (4) aimed at incorporation of the commitment made by Member States in the framework of the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention for protection of the marine environment. Member States agreed on an essentially political commitment to progressively phase out the emission of hazardous substances, moving towards the aim of background concentrations of natural substances and close to zero for synthetic substances by 2020. No attempt was made to specify this objective or methods for verification.

The proposal does not generally lay down detailed measures for achieving the objective. This is essentially left to Member States. However, the proposal specifies that a specific proposal addressing so-called priority substances will be adopted inter alia in pursuance of this objective.

For groundwater, the proposal introduces a principle of trend reversal of significant and sustained upward trends in concentrations of pollutants. The Parliament’s environment committee on 25 January 2000 adopted amendments, which further request a state of insignificant anthropogenic pollution as an end target for trend reversal. The common position in itself implies an obligation to adopt measures for reversal of an upward trend before the concentration of substances reach the level laid down in existing legislation. However, this is an aspirational objective, which is not covered by the proposal’s definition of good groundwater status, and thus will not in itself constitute a criterion for compliance. C 330 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

The common position lays down criteria following which Member States may extend the implementation period, and in certain cases set lower environmental objectives. These are, among others, unforeseen and extraordinary droughts, and flooding or regeneration of groundwater, which often for natural reasons will exceed the period laid down by the proposal. The first reading of Parliament and the recently adopted amendments of the environment committee suggest a strengthening of the criteria.

The Commission’s evaluation of the consequences of implementation were presented in the explanatory memorandum to the original proposal. Council and Parliament have not commented on this evaluation in their respective readings of the proposal.

(1) OJ C 343, 30.11.1999. (2) OJ C 184, 17.6.1997. (3) COM(2000) 1 final. (4) OJ C 342 E, 30.11.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0165/00 by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Monitoring of state aid to the Spanish electricity sector

With reference to the state aid for competition transition costs given to the Spanish electricity sector, and bearing in mind that Commissioner Monti has recognised that the sixth transitional provision of Law 54/97 on the Spanish electricity sector is a state aid which was granted without prior notification of the Commission, what view will the Commission take of the amounts already received by Spanish electricity companies when it comes to take a decision on this matter pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

In accordance with the Court’s case law, the unlawful nature of a state aid measure, i.e. the fact that the aid was granted without prior notification to the Commission, does not prejudge its compatibility with the common market. The amounts already received will, therefore, be examined on the basis of the EC Treaty articles to determine whether they are compatible with the common market and whether they will have to be repaid.

(2000/C 330 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0167/00 by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Competition transition costs (CTC) and market variables for the Spanish electricity sector

Bearing in mind the funding system introduced by the sixth transitional provision of Law 54/97 on the Spanish electricity sector enabling electricity companies to receive aid to cover competition transition costs, has the Commission urged the Spanish government to amend this provision and link the granting of CTC to market variables (demand, price, interest rates, etc.), as the Commission advocated in its analysis methodology for state aid linked to CTC? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/97

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The Spanish authorities promised the Commission that they would not authorise electricity companies to transfer to third parties the right to receive aid to cover the ‘costs of transition to competition’ (CTC) as referred to in the sixth transitional provision of Act No 54/1997 before the Commission adopted a final decision on the matter. So far no such transfer has been authorised by the Spanish authorities. Even if any transfer had taken place, mechanisms exist in Spanish law to adjust the amounts of CTC to genuine past costs arising from market variables. The Commission will adopt its decision on the CTC in accordance with the principles laid down in its draft methodology, and in particular it will make sure that arrangements for the payment of aid take account of future trends in competition. Such trends will have to be measurable by quantifiable factors i.e. prices, market shares and other relevant factors.

(2000/C 330 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0173/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: EU cooperation to help Mexico pay off the bank rescue debt

The Mexican authorities will shortly be investing some 840 million dollars in bonds to begin covering the liabilities from the bank rescue programme. The aim is to meet the commitments given to banking institutions under the bank bailout scheme.

After the 1995 financial crisis, the Mexican Government pumped funds into banks to prevent a collapse of the financial system, mainly by purchasing overdue loan portfolios in exchange for debt bonds.

What part has the Commission played in this process, by which Mexico is seeking to pay off its bank rescue debt, and what other Community measures have been devised to help one of the EU’s most important partners to overcome once and for all the long-standing financial crisis going back to 1995?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

The Community did not contribute to the package of emergency financial assistance put together by the international financial community in 1995 in response to the financial crisis experienced by Mexico at the end of 1994. This package comprised mainly contributions from the United States, the International monetary fund (IMF) and Canada, although other international financial institutions (the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, in particular) also reinforced their lending operations for Mexico in the aftermath of the crisis.

Since 1995, the Mexican economy has made substantial progress in addressing the macroeconomic, financial and structural problems that contributed to the 1995 crisis and economic growth has resumed. Mexico has also managed to reduce inflation markedly, increase domestic saving, rebuild its foreign exchange reserves, and maintain the budget deficit at moderate levels. As for the banking system, although it remains fragile, its position has been considerably strengthened over the last five years. Regulation and supervision arrangements have been enhanced and various support programmes for banks and debtors have been implemented.

In this context, there does not seem to be an obvious justification for considering at this stage a further round of financial support for Mexico from the international community. The intended issuance by the Savings Protection Institute (IPAB) of floating rate notes to replace bank claims on the institute stemming from the 1995 bank bail-out should strengthen the asset side of banks’ balance sheet without a significant C 330 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

impact on Mexico’s budget. This will be a market-based operation not requiring in principle international support. In any case, Mexico can continue to draw until the end of the year on its stand-by arrangement with the IMF.

The best way to help Mexico in the current circumstances is not by providing further financial support but by facilitating its integration into the world economy. The provisions of the economic partnership, political coordination, and cooperation agreement with Mexico, and in particular those on trade and financial services, should provide a suitable framework in this respect. They should contribute to foster trade and investment flows between the Community and Mexico.

(2000/C 330 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Discontinuing of train services between the Netherlands and Germany after upgrading of the Nieuweschans Weneer section of the TEN

1. Is the Commission aware that passenger rail services between Groningen in the Netherlands and Bremen in Germany have so far been restricted to three trains a day in each direction and that there has even been talk of cancelling the service, which would mean that there would no longer be any public transport between the northern regions of the two countries.

2. Is the Commission also aware that for years the main argument put forward in support of this restricted service was that the section of the line between the border localities of Nieuweschans (Nether- lands) and Weener (Germany, Lower Saxony) was dilapidated and single-track, as a result of which the speed had to be restricted to 30 km an hour in some places, and that the necessary repairs were not regarded as viable?

3. Can the Commission confirm that as from 1 April 2000 rail traffic on the border section of the track will be suspended for six months (and replaced by a bus service) so that this neglected line can at last be upgraded at a cost of at least EUR 16,5 million and the train speed increased to 120 km per hour, except on the swing bridge over the Ems between Papenburg and Leer, which is needed because of shipbuilding, and that the cost of the German section of the work is being funded partly with monies allocated to the trans-European networks?

4. Does the Commission realise that the Netherlandse Spoorwegen (NS) have cancelled the Deutsche Bahn VT624 train used hitherto so that the new regional rail company NordNed can take over the service but that NooordNed has not has not yet come to any agreement on a subsidy with the Netherlands Province of Groningen and the German Land of Lower Saxony and that no application for a timetable for the winter period 2000-2001 has been submitted to the rail authorities?

5. What steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent a situation in which, as a result of the withdrawal of the two national railway companies involved and insufficient regional subsidies, passenger services on this railway line do not resume on completion of the repair work in October 2000, which would mean that upgrading the TEN link had been pointless?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The Commission is aware that the state of the rail infrastructure along the 17 kilometer (km) long cross- border section Nieuweschans Weener Ihrhove, which forms part of the line Groningen (Netherlands) Leer (Germany), is currently insufficient, and that this situation has a negative impact on the quality of railway services (speed limitation in particular). 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/99

The Commission can confirm that it is planned to upgrade the Nieuweschans Weener Ihrhove railway line this year, and that the total cost of this upgrading work has been estimated at € 16,5 million. The authorities informed the Commission that works on the Dutch side have already begun, and that on the German side they are foreseen to be undertaken between April 2000 and October 2000. Community financial aid, both in the framework of the trans-European transport network and the Interreg programme, has been granted to support the upgrading works on both sides of the border.

The Dutch and German authorities informed the Commission that the Dutch company Noordnet and the German DB Regio will provide rail services, once the infrastructure upgrading works are completed. Negotiations on this matter between the Province of Groningen and NoordNet on the one hand, and Landesnahverkehrsgesellschaft Niedersachsen and DB Regio on the other, are at an advanced stage. Negotiations are furthermore in course between NoordNet and DB Regio regarding their co-operation on the provision of cross-border services.

(2000/C 330 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0179/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Exploratory drilling in the Biesbosch

The Dutch Minister for Economic Affairs, A. Jorritsma, has given approval to NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij) to carry out exploratory drilling in the Biesbosch, where the company is expecting to find gas.

The Biesbosch is a national park covered by the European directive on birds. Moreover, the Dutch Government is proposing that it should be made a Special Protection Area under Community law. The Dutch Parliament will be taking a decision on this in the middle of February.

1. Does the Commission agree that a nature reserve covered by the European directive on birds should be spared industrial activity of this kind?

2. Does the Commission agree that, in this case, ecological concerns should prevail over (short-term) economic interests?

3. Does the Commission intend to get the Dutch Government and Minister Jorritsma not to go ahead with this exploratory drilling?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the issue that is raised by the Honourable Member.

‘De Biesbosch’ is one of the most important sites designated under national legislation (Natuurbescher- mingswet).

‘De Biesbosch’ also merits designation as a special protection area (SPA) as specified in Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). The Dutch authorities intend to designate the site but have not yet done so.

According to caselaw of the Court of justice a site that has to be designated as a SPA must be protected in conformity with Articles 6(3), 6(4) and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (2). C 330 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Article 6(3) implies that an assessment is required in the case of a plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on a SPA. The authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications and in the absence of alternative solutions, the plan or project must nevertheless be carried out, the Member State has to comply with all the specific requirements that are mentioned in Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the environmental legislation of the Community is fully complied with in this case.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Olaf’s sphere of activity

At the last minute, Olaf, the Community’s anti-fraud agency, has objected to Articles 66 and 73 of Doc XXI/1402/97-rev.8 and demanded that sensitive goods be excluded from the institute of the authorised consignor or recipient, otherwise the aim of combating fraud would be undermined.

After this was announced, the European industrial confederations intervened and stated that the simplified procedure should be based on the reliability of the principal, contending that this was one of the main reasons for the reform. The customs authorities in most Member States are also opposed to the action taken by Olaf in this regard.

This shows the power of the anti-fraud agency, which is going against the Commission and against most Member States.

What action is the Commission taking in this connection to make sure that Olaf’s power lies in the executive rather than the legislative sphere?

How will the Commission try to confine Olaf’s sphere of activity to executive areas only?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

First of all, the Commission would point out that it acts in accordance with the principle of collective responsibility. It would stress that the fight against fraud is one of its constant political concerns.

On the matter of the reform of the Community transit procedure (1) (and of the common transit procedure, which is being conducted in parallel), some of the Commission’s proposals which are being discussed within the Transit Section of the Customs Code Committee were designed to exclude cigarettes and alcohol above 40o from some of the simplified procedures (authorised consignor and recipient). It will be recalled that some particularly serious cases of fraud involving these products prompted the creation of a committee of inquiry in Parliament in December 1995.

The Commission does not wish to prejudge the outcome of the current discussions. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/101

As far as the European Anti-Fraud Office’s (OLAF) powers are concerned, the Commission would stress that the instruments adopted in 1999 (2) confirm that the Office’s mission is not merely one of investigation and operational support. The Office also has a role to play in formulating policy for the fight against fraud, and in preparing Commission initiatives for legislative instruments and regulations in its fields of activity (including instruments which come under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union). The Office also represents the Commission in the forums concerned with the fight against fraud.

(1) Draft Regulation amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 253, 11.10.1993. (2) See Commission Decision of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and in particular Article 2; OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Road tunnel at the port of Olbia, Sardinia

In reply to my Written Question E-2039/99 (1) about the Olbia tunnel, the Commission stated that the Italian authorities must carry out a preliminary assessment to determine whether this project which falls within category 12 of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC (2) should be subjected to an environmental impact assessment. Construction work in the tunnel is already in progress.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that this preliminary assessment is carried out as quickly as possible? Would it not agree that infringement proceedings should be brought against Italy for violation of the above directive, given that a preliminary assessment is obligatory for projects listed in the annexes to that directive, in respect of which the Member State has discretionary powers, as confirmed by the Court of Justice (3).

As I also stressed in Written Question 2039/99, responsibility for constructing the tunnel was, in breach of the 1980 port master plan, assigned by ANAS (the Italian highways authority) to the Roman firm Tor di Valle without any call for bids.

Does the Commission therefore not consider that the fact that the contract to build the tunnel was awarded without an open invitation to tender constitutes a breach of European public procurement legislation (4)?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 73. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (3) The Court of Justice judgment of 2 May 1996 in Case 133/94. (4) Council Directives 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 and 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The Commission has opened a file on the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member and has requested detailed information. The situation will be assessed on the basis of the response of the Italian authorities.

As for the possible action by the Commission in order to ensure the correct application of Community law, the Commission powers are limited to those conferred by the EC Treaty. The Commission, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, will not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law relevant to the specific case. C 330 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0207/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: WTO reform

What is the Commission doing to contribute to the essential work to be done on the root and branch reform of the WTO? Will the Commission set a deadline of one year in order to ensure that attention is given to the need to build credibility for the organisation?

(2000/C 330 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0342/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Reform of the WTO

What is the Commission doing to contribute to the essential work to be done on the root and branch reform of the WTO?

Will the Commission set a deadline of one year in order to ensure that urgent attention is given to the need to build credibility for the organisation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0207/00 and E-0342/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission made extensive proposals before the Seattle Ministerial Conference for more transparent procedures in the World trade organisation (WTO). Following the Seattle Ministerial Conference, the member responsable for trade outlined the Commission’s views on this subject to the committee for industry, external trade, research and technology during his intervention on 25 January 2000. Whilst acknowledging that clear deficiencies of processes became visible during the Seattle Conference, the Commission nonetheless also believes that it would be counterproductive to launch a complete overhaul of the WTO at least until we have launched a new Round. Many of the problems that surfaced in Seattle were clearly attributable to differences on substance and punctual problems such as insufficient preparation of the Conference.

The Commission therefore favours a two-stage approach, in which a first step could lead to improvements in the preparation and organisation of ministerial conferences, improved participation particularly of developing countries, and increased transparency for the broader public interest.

More in-depth reforms, such as for instance the reform of structures and decision-making systems would need to be explored in a second stage (perhaps by a group of eminent people entrusted with this task by the General Affairs Council) to examine what might be feasible before launching any concrete proposals.

It should need no mention that all short term and long term reform measures will have to be discussed and agreed with the partners in the WTO. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/103

(2000/C 330 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0215/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Waste incineration plant at Battipaglia

With reference to the previous question on this subject (P-2423/99) (1) and the answer given by Mrs Wallstrom on behalf of the Commission, and bearing in mind that it would be desirable for the Commission to be able to carry out preventive checks on possible breaches of the rules governing existing waste incineration plants which might occur once a planned project is completed,

Will the Commission say:

whether it considers that the waste incineration plant in question, once it has been built in accordance with the plans, is likely to infringe Community rules on the prevention of air pollution from waste incineration plants?

what measures it intends to take to ensure compliance with existing Community rules on waste disposal, in particular Council Directive 97/11/EC (2) of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/37/ EEC (3) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 158. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The prevention of air pollution from a plant which is still at the project stage is to be considered in the framework of the Community environmental impact assessment (EIA) legislation: Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/337/EEC. In particular, Article 1 of Directive 97/11/EC provides: Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Air pollution is among the impacts assessed.

The project to which the Honourable Member refers appears to be one of the classes listed under Annex II of Directive. Article 4, paragraph 2, of Directive 97/11/EC states: Subject to Article 2 (3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. The Commission has requested detailed information on this specific case. It will ensure the observance of relevant Community law.

As for the possible action of the Commission in order to ensure the correct application of Community law, the Commission would stress that its powers are limited to those conferred by the EC Treaty. The Commission, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, will not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law relevant to the specific case. C 330 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0217/00 by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Radioactive waste at the JRC in Ispra

Although it is now 16 years since the closure of the last working reactor at the JRC in Ispra, Italian newspapers have recently raised the issue of radioactive waste at the JRC.

In fact, there are 2500 cubic metres of radioactive waste stored in bituminous or cemented casks which have been kept at the Ispra Centre rather than being disposed of, probably because of the high costs of the disposal of and management of waste products from nuclear installations.

Needless to say, the presence of such dangerous materials is causing alarm and concern in the region.

Does the Commission have any information available on this question?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to its communication to Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Historical liabilities resulting from nuclear activities carried out at the JRC under the Euratom Treaty decommissioning of obsolete nuclear installations and waste management’ (1).

The waste referred to by the Honourable Member is stored on appropriate premises, where it is monitored by instruments.

Nevertheless the Commission has undertaken to review its encapsulation in agreement with the Italian authorities.

As stated in the communication, that waste will be stored in a perfectly safe manner at the Ispra site while awaiting a final storage centre in Italy.

(1) COM(1999) 114 final.

(2000/C 330 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0218/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Financial aid to the European oil industry

In answer to question E-2126/99 (1) Mrs de Palacio has stated that the Commission has provided approximately EUR 750 million to the hydrocarbons sector since 1975.

Please provide an annual breakdown of this figure, specifying the amounts allocated to (a) oil, (b) gas and (c) coal, together with a breakdown per Member State.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 145.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

After the first oil crisis in 1973 the Community started programmes to give financial support to technology for production exploration and transport of hydrocarbons. The main concern at that time was security of supply. Financial support was therefore focused on technology to develop indigenous resources in the North Sea. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/105

During the following years however the programme enlarged its objectives to competitiveness and protection of the environment. Priority was given to projects reducing the environmental impact of hydrocarbon exploitation and promoting the competitiveness of European technology.

In the period from 1975 to 1998, nearly € 750 million of support was granted to projects for the research development and demonstration of innovative hydrocarbons technology. The € 750 million of financial support already mentioned in the Commission’s previous reply to Written Question E-2126/99 by Mrs Maes refers only to oil and gas technology (it did not include the support for coal technology projects). The following table indicates the split by year and by country for the period 1990-1998, which related to the Thermie programme. In addition the total support for the period 1975-1989 has been included in the first column.

Support to hydrocarbons technology 1975-1998

(in million euros)

1975-1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Denmark 12,17 0,53 1,55 0,45 14,70 Germany 66,30 3,03 5,48 2,67 1,10 3,33 1,09 4,40 87,40 Greece 3,19 1,02 0,21 0,40 1,39 1,13 7,34 Spain 0,59 0,21 0,22 0,30 1,12 2,44 France 195,64 5,36 8,02 4,79 10,61 14,78 4,79 11,42 7,39 7,69 270,49 Ireland 6,65 0,49 7,14 Italy 80,54 1,03 4,50 6,56 5,43 8,32 1,85 5,68 5,45 119,36 The Netherlands 28,07 0,41 0,60 2,58 0,69 0,43 0,11 0,63 2,61 36,13 Portugal 1,03 0,14 1,17 Sweden 0,74 1,84 2,58 United Kingdom 132,28 2,03 6,60 5,55 6,90 11,72 10,44 3,58 4,68 5,27 189,05 Norway Kingdom 2,87 1,18 3,37 2,50 9,92 Total 526,46 9,85 23,42 26,72 26,30 37,23 24,92 18,33 25,44 29,05 747,72

The relatively high amount of support allocated to the United Kingdom, Italy and France, derives from the support to the United Kingdom and Italy related to projects for the production of hydrocarbon in the Mediterranean and in the North Sea and the French strong network of service and supply industry.

As far as the split between oil and gas is concerned, this is somewhat more complex. Innovative drilling equipment or a new seismic acquisition system can be used both for oil and gas applications. In such cases it is not possible to classify a technology as a gas or as an oil technology. However, there are some techniques whose application is limited to gas, mainly in relation to gas conversion and transport issues. The number of projects dealing exclusively with gas technology is fairly limited and the related financial support can be estimated at less than 10 % of the total budget.

(2000/C 330 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0220/00

by Willy De Clercq (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Post-clearance recovery of customs duty on textile products imported from Bangladesh

Following a visit to Bangladesh by a Community delegation towards the end of 1996 with the aim of checking 15 000 certificates of origin, form A, issued between the end of 1993 and mid-1996, the C 330 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

customs authorities of each Member State were asked to undertake post-clearance recovery of duty for those certificates which (1) had clearly been falsified or related to goods not produced in Bangladesh and (2) had been obtained on the basis of false declarations to the Export Promotion Bureau by the manufacturers.

Bangladesh recognised the problems arising with the issue of certificates of origin (form A) and inadequate checking of them. Moreover, the importers in the European Union were apparently only informed of the problems with the Bangladeshi authorities at a very late stage.

Is it true that the Commission is currently considering a proposal to exonerate the importers from payment of certain customs duties on grounds of ‘exceptional circumstances’? If so, what measures will be taken, and to what period will these measures relate? If not, will the Commission take measures in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

It is true that customs duties relating to goods imported under cover of 15 000 certificates of origin issued by the Bangladeshi authorities between 1994 and mid-1996 have been declared payable, following the decision by the Bangladeshi authorities to withdraw (cancel) the certificates in question a decision taken in circumstances described in the Honourable Member’s question. The demand for such payment is entirely in line with the provisions of EEC Regulation No 2454/93 (1).

A Community delegation visited Bangladesh in December 1996 on an administrative cooperation and investigation mission. There, they were able to confirm that the suspected irregularities had in fact taken place. On the basis of the evidence they gathered, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal in April 1997 (2).

Between June and August 1998, Bangladesh was struck by a natural catastrophe (floods) which had a substantial and damaging impact on both the economic life of the country and the work of its administrative authorities. The Commission is presently considering whether these events might be held to constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’, within the meaning of the regulation cited above.

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993. (2) OJ C 107, 5.4.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0223/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Road widening works at Glen of the Downs, Co. Wicklow, Ireland

Has the Commission ascertained the significance of the new evidence that has come to light in relation to the Glen of the Downs, County Wicklow, Ireland, designated a proposed SAC on 12 August 1999? Is the Commission of the opinion that the information provided so far by the Irish authorities enable it to assess with precision the level of damage to be incurred by the proposed SAC?

Is the Commission likely to put a stay on proposed road works pending replies to its queries by the Irish Government? Is the Commission going to issue legal proceedings against Ireland on this matter? What further steps if any is the Commission going to take to fully assess the impact of the road works at the Glen of the Downs? Is the Commission likely to withdraw part or all of its funding should the results of enquiries prove unsatisfactory? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/107

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Commission assumes that the new evidence cited by the Honourable Member consists of a hydro- geological report which she submitted to the Commission on 21 January 2000. This concerns the possible effects on groundwater and ash-hazel woodland of the design of the road drainage system. The Commission has forwarded this to the Irish authorities for comments, and proposes to defer comment until the Irish authorities have responded.

The Commission does not have the power to put a stay on road works. It has no current plans to start legal proceedings in relation to the project or to withdraw funding.

(2000/C 330 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0226/00 by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE) to the Council

(28 January 2000)

Subject: Arrest of moderate dissidents in Cuba

Osvaldo Paya Sardiñas and Héctor Palacios, two moderate dissidents, were recently arrested in Cuba, and taken away to an unknown destination. According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, more than 300 dissidents and human rights activists have been arrested since November 1999.

Is the Council aware of these circumstances?

What is its position on these arrests?

Does it intend to take any action on the matter?

(2 May 2000)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, the Council pays close attention to the situation of human rights in Cuba in general and the situation of dissidents in particular.

On the specific question of the arrest of Mr Osvaldo Paya Sardiñas of the ‘Movimiento Cristiano de Liberación’ and Héctor Palacios, founder member of the ‘Partido de Solidaridad Democrática’, who were detained on 25 January, the Council was kept informed of their situation and was pleased to hear that they had been released the day after their arrest.

In the field of human rights, the EU has always made its position clear whenever necessary through both public declarations and representations to the Cuban authorities. Moreover, the EU missions in Havana consult one another regularly on human rights issues and maintain a useful dialogue with Cuban dissidents and other groups of Cuban society. In March 1999 the Council issued a statement expressing the EU’s regrets concerning the outcome of the trial of four members of the ‘Internal Dissidence Working Group’ and repeating its calls for the prompt release of the four.

The EU’s objective with regard to Cuba, as stated in the Common Position on Cuba adopted by the Council on 2 December 1996, continues to be to encourage a process of transition towards a pluralistic democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as sustainable economic recovery and improved living standards for the Cuban people. The EU considers that result-oriented dialogue and humanitarian aid are the best instruments for attaining that objective.

When carrying out its sixth evaluation of the Common Position in November 1999, the Council concluded that there had been no changes in the situation in Cuba that would justify a change in the EU’s approach.

The Council will continue to raise these and other issues relating to human rights with the Cuban authorities at every opportunity. C 330 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0237/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Enforcement of inspection for ships

What measures have been taken to ensure that all Member States are meeting their commitments under Article 5 of Council Directive 95/21/EC (1) of 19 June 1995 to ensure that at least 25 % of the ships entering their ports are inspected, and are there any plans to increase the number of structural inspections of ships, especially of those registered under a flag state with a poor record in meeting its international obligations in this area?

(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

The Commission is monitoring Member States’ efforts to meet their commitments regarding the inspection of ships. Compliance with the requirement of at least 25 % laid down in Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port state control) (1), cannot be assessed until the Directive has been transposed into national law and been in force for at least a year. Delays in the transposition of the Directive have also held up the assessment.

The provisions of Directive 95/21/EC have now been tranposed into national law by all the Member States except Italy. The Court of Justice ruled against Italy on 24 November 1999. Fresh infringement proceedings have been brought against this Member State for failing to comply with the Court’s judgment.

The Commission has noted that, on the whole, the requirement of at least 25 % is being met in the Community. However, it also noted that in 1999 some Member States were significantly below this figure. If this continues in 2000, it intends to bring infringement proceedings against those Member States whose competent authority does not carry out a total number of inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of the number of individual ships which enter their ports during a representative calendar year under the conditions laid down in Article 5 of Directive 95/21/EC.

Generally, the Commission takes the view that the Erika disaster has drawn attention to the need for more thorough inspections in Community ports. It is preparing a draft communication on the safety of oil tankers, which includes inter alia a proposal amending Directive 95/21/EC on port state control. The measures planned will take account of the flag States’ safety record and the need to pay greater attention to structural aspects.

(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.

(2000/C 330 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Building of car parks at Piazza Vescovio and Via Moricone in Rome

The Rome local authorities have started building two large car parks, one in Piazza Vescovio, with 92 spaces, and another in Via Moricone, with around 100 spaces. The areas concerned are geologically unstable because of the existence of caves, catacombs, old pozzolana pits and underground waters and therefore pose a potential danger to residents and to many buildings in the area. In addition, Piazza Vescovio has recently been undergoing renovation work. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/109

The nature of the work, which is likely to last at least 16 months, will make living conditions difficult in the whole district. The scale of the work and the possible consequences deriving from the nature of the terrain would suggest that the project ought to be subject to a detailed environment impact assessment, as provided for in Directive 85/337/EEC (1).

This would seem to be confirmed by the letter of 25 March 1997 from Commissioner Enthoven to Ambassador Cavalchini, stressing the need for an environmental impact assessment for a project similar to this one. The permission to use public land granted solely to the purchasers of the parking spaces also suggests that there may be an infringement of the rights of citizens, who will not be entitled to use the land for the 90-year period laid down and will thus be deprived of their right to make use of a public asset.

In the light of the above: 1. Does the Commission think that this project should be subject to an environmental impact assessment? 2. Does it think that the work should be allowed to go ahead only after consultation of local residents, as provided for in Directive 85/337/EEC? 3. Are there any directives governing the possible abuse represented by these car parks, which restrict public use of a public asset? 4. What are its general views on the matter?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (13 March 2000)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the Commission’s answer to her Written Question E-2858/99 (1).

1. Consultation of local residents is only required if the works are subject to an environmental impact procedure.

2. The Commission is not aware of any Community directive concerning the restriction of public use of a public asset.

3. Not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of Community law.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 120.

(2000/C 330 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0244/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (7 February 2000)

Subject: Removal of the Greek tobacco variety ‘Katerini’ from Italy’s register of Community tobacco varieties

Regulation 660/99 (1) permitted the transfer to Italy of a quota of the Greek tobacco variety ‘Katerini’ (500 tonnes for 1999, 1500 tonnes for 2000 and 2001) without providing any justification, despite the objections raised by Greece. Regulation 1373/99 (2) permitted Italy, again without any justification, to transfer quantities of the variety ‘Katerini’ to other groups of varieties, thereby restricting production of ‘Katerini’ in Italy to 48 tonnes.

After the total failure of this attempt to transfer the Greek variety ‘Katerini’ to Italy, does the Commission intend to remove it from Italy’s register of Community varieties for the marketing years 2000 and 2001?

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 10. (2) OJ L 162, 26.6.1999, p. 47. C 330 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The fixing of guarantee thresholds for tobacco of variety group VII (Katerini) in Italy by Council Regulation (EC) No 660/1999 of 22 March 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (1) for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 harvests is justified by one of the basic objectives of the 1998 reform of the common organisation of the market (COM) in tobacco: the need to reorientate production towards the varieties most sought after on the market.

Under Article 9(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco (2) Member States can ask the Commission for authorisation to transfer part of their guarantee threshold allocations between the various groups of varieties. The Commission examines the requests for transfer and checks that they do not give rise to additional expenditure for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and do not result in an increase in each Member State’s overall guarantee threshold.

To date, the Commission has received no request for transfer for Italy concerning group VII (Katerini), but a transfer remains possible until the deadline for concluding cultivation contracts.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999. (2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Pension liabilities

What are the present liabilities for the European Communities staff?

What are the estimates of the same for 2020?

What reforms leading to a private-based system are under consideration?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

A recent estimate puts the pension liabilities for the staff of the Communities, including those of the Commission, Parliament and the Council at € 14 100 million at the end of 1997 and € 22 200 million (excluding inflation) at the end of 2020.

These estimates result from an actuarial calculation based inter alia, on a real interest rate of 2,5 % for the whole period. The mortality table was developed by the actuary Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) for the purpose of the evaluation.

The liabilities have been determined as the ‘defined benefit obligation’ that would be required to be disclosed in the employer’s balance sheet under International accounting standard 19.

The Commission is not considering any proposals relating to the pension scheme that would lead to a private-based system. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/111

(2000/C 330 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Statement by Commissioner Liikanen

In the 4 October 1999 edition of Cordis Focus, Commissioner Liikanen is on record as stating, ‘It is not acceptable that it costs three times as much and takes seven times as long to start a new business in the European Union as in the US’.

What causes does the Commission identify as creating this cost differential? What measures is it intending to take to sweep away those business burdens? Is it intending, consequently, to stop introducing Social Chapter legislation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

It is clear that the differences between the time necessary and the cost involved in establishing a new enterprise in the Community and those that arise for an equivalent operation in the United States are not acceptable.

The extent of this differential does, in fact, vary between Member States and depends on differing administrative traditions and differing responses to problems that have arisen from time to time in unregulated commercial activity. However, the overwhelming view in all of the Member States is that procedures need to be simplified and costs reduced. The Commission has assisted the Member States to address the problem in a number of ways. The report of the business environment simplification task force (‘BEST’) (1) focuses on this particular issue in its fourth recommendation, where it calls on Member States to take initiatives to facilitate the creation of enterprises. In the follow-up to this report, under the ‘Action Plan to promote Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness’ (2), the Commission is required to monitor and evaluate progress on implementation of the business start-ups recommendation (3) and to share information about best practice.

In the framework of the concerted actions, where the Commission assists the Member States to identify and exchange best practice on matters central to enterprise policy, considerable attention has been paid to the question of business start-ups. The Commission recommendation on improving and simplifying the business environment for start-ups, referred to in the BEST report, summarised the good practice identified during the first concerted action that was directly concerned with this theme. As outlined in the recent report on concerted action (4), there is evidence of progress in this area. The French ‘Centres de formalités d’entreprises’, for instance, have radically simplified procedures for start-ups. Moreover, there is encouraging evidence of Member States learning from each others’ experience. The Portuguese ‘Centro de Formalidades das Empresas’ network, for example, has been consciously based on the French model.

The concerted actions have also identified good practice in the areas of finance, training and support services for start-ups.

Moreover, the Commission is reinforcing the evaluation of the impact of proposed Community legislation on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through its business impact assessment system.

The Commission is also launching a benchmarking initiative in the field of entrepreneurship and innovation. First discussions will take place at the Industry Council in May, first results are expected under the French Presidency.

In the green paper on innovation (5), specific problems for the start-up of innovative companies were highlighted. A variety of measures under the innovation action plan (6) describe existing measures, namely for new technology based companies. A pilot action was launched in early 1999 with the specific objective C 330 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

to identify economic areas which provide the best environment for successful launch and growth of start- up and spin-off companies. This pilot action will also promote the validation and transfer of novel strategies demonstrating best practices from the regions of the Community for the creation of innovative companies. As far as the question refers to ‘Social Chapter legislation’, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to Article 137(2) (ex Article 118) of the EC Treaty.

To this end, the Intergovernmental Conference adopted Declaration no 26, which states that: ‘The High Contracting Parties note that in the discussions on Article 118(2) (now 137(2)) of the Treaty establishing the European Community it was agreed that the Community does not intend, in laying down minimum requirements for the protection of the safety and health of employees, to discriminate in a manner unjustified by the circumstances against employees in small and medium-sized undertakings.’

(1) European Communities (1998). ‘Report of the Business Environment Simplification Task Force’ Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. ISBN 92-828-3418-2. (2) Council Conclusions on the Action Plan to Promote Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness 29.4.1999. (3) Commission Recommendation 97/344/EC of 22 April 1997, on improving and simplifying the business environment for business start-ups, OJ L 145, 5.6.1997. (4) Report from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on Concerted Action with the Member States in the field of Enterprise Policy. COM(1999) 569 final. (5) COM(95) 688 final. (6) COM(96) 589 final.

(2000/C 330 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: EU radon gas levels

Can the Commission state whether it has figures for the levels of radon gas present in public buildings and dwellings throughout the European Union and can it state whether or not these levels of gas create a possible hazard to public health in the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The Commission has carried out a survey of levels of natural radioactivity in Member States which was published in the form of an Atlas (Radiation Protection, 1993, Natural sources of ionizing radiation in Europe, EUR 14 470). It continues to collect information from national surveys.

With regard to the possible hazard to public health, the Commission published in 1990 Commission Recommendation 90/143/Euratom of 21 February 1990 on the protection of the public against indoor exposure to radon (1). In this Recommendation a reference level for remedial action of 400 becquerel per cubic meter is proposed for existing buildings.

The percentage of dwellings exceeding this level is in general very small, but the problem is more significant in some Member States (Finland, Sweden) and in certain regions.

(1) OJ L 80, 27.3.1990. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/113

(2000/C 330 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0272/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Legal basis of PPPs

In the first two paragraphs of its reply to question E-2218/99 (1) the Commission takes the view that the use of PPPs in Community rules is ‘based on these texts’, i.e. on Community rules themselves.

It may be inferred from this that, as far as the Commission is concenred, the credibility of PPPs is based on the fact that they are used in Community rules, whilst the use of PPPs in Community rules is based on the fact that they are credible.

Does the Commission not regard this as a tautological and circular argument?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 124.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The argument put forward in the first two paragraphs of the answer to the Honourable Member’s written question E-2218/99 (1) was not intended to be tautological or circular but to give a full explanation.

Firstly, it was necessary to refer to the political agreement reached at the Berlin European Council (24 and 25 March 1999) and to the assent of the European Parliament (6 May 1999). On 21 June 1999 the Council formally adopted the new Structural Funds Regulations for the period 2000-2006. These include Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2), Article 3 of which provides that ‘the regions covered by Objective 1 shall be regions corresponding to level II of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS level II) 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’. They also include Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 establishing an Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession (ISPA) (2), Article 4 of which provides that ‘an indicative allocation between beneficiary countries of the total Community assistance under ISPA shall be made by the Commission on the basis of the criteria of population, per capita GDP in purchasing power parities and surface area’.

The use and therefore the usefulness of purchasing power parities (PPPs) have thus been shown officially by both Council and Parliament even without a legal basis for the production of the PPPs themselves.

Secondly, it was necessary to underline the fact that for several years international institutions World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) public authorities, universities, research institutes, public and private enterprises, banks, the media and individuals have themselves been using PPPs.

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 124. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. C 330 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0273/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Theoretical basis of Eurostat’s PPP data

In its reply to question E-2218/99 (1) the Commission takes the view that using PPP in Community rules in countries which have adopted the euro is ‘completely correct’ and a reflection of ‘current practice’.

Can the Commission quote a single reference from economic theory which supports the practice of using PPP in order to compare the GDP prices of countries which use the same currency?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 124.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

International comparisons of gross domestic product (GDP) in real terms are only possible if the following three conditions are met: the definition of GDP must be the same, GDP must be expressed in the same monetary unit, and it must be evaluated at the same price level.

GDP estimates, both for Member States and for other countries, generally meet the first condition but do not meet the other two because they are expressed in the national currency and are evaluated in accordance with the prices of the country in question. The use of purchasing power parities (PPPs) allows these last two conditions to be met.

It seems therefore that where two Member States share the same national currency, or where this currency has a fixed and intangible parity with another currency, PPPs are still useful because in this case the first two conditions are met but the third (price levels) is not always.

Moreover, even if price differences were to diminish in future (price convergence) as a result of the internal market and European monetary union, the experience of the United States or of Belgium and Luxembourg shows that significant differences between regional or national price levels could continue to exist for a long time.

Similarly, PPPs are used to compare the GDPs of countries such as the United States and Argentina, even though the Argentine peso has a fixed peg to the American dollar (1 peso = 1 $). In the United States, the use of regional PPPs was recommended for poverty comparisons. In addition, the Federal Government uses PPPs to carry out cost-of-living adjustments for its employees who work in different places of employment throughout the United States.

It therefore seems that the realisation of European monetary union in no way eliminates the significance of the use of PPPs at European level; on the contrary, these will continue to represent a valuable economic tool.

(2000/C 330 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0274/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Use of PPPs for the purpose of regional policy

In its reply to question E-2218/99 (1) the Commission takes the view that the use of PPPs in Community rules and, in particular, in the rules relating to regional policy is ‘completely correct’ and reflects ‘current practice’, and it backs up this view by claiming that its methodology is accepted by the OECD and the UN. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/115

However, at its fourth seminar on regional information at the service of regional policy in Europe, which was held in Rennes in January 1998, Eurostat’s advisory committee on social and economic matters concluded that the validity of figures for GDP and for regional disparities depends on whether euros or PPPs are used, especially in view of the fact that national PPP rates are employed despite the major differences which exist between regions within the same Member State.

As regards the use of PPPs for the purposes of Community rules, does the Commission not consider the opinion of Eurostat’s advisory committee to be more important than the fact that the PPP indicator is used by other international institutions for completely different purposes and with completely different results?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 124.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

Following its fourth seminar on ‘Regional information serving regional policy in Europe’, held at Rennes in January 1998, the European Advisory Committee on Statistical Information in the Economic and Social Spheres (CEIES) drew the following conclusion: ‘The significance of GDP and regional disparities depend to some extent on whether measurements are in ecus or PPS, especially since national PPS rates are used despite major differences between regions within a given Member State’.

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) stipulates that ‘The regions covered by Objective 1 shall be regions corresponding to level II of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS level II) 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’.

A presentation given during the seminar concluded that: ‘It seems that the criterion proposed for the designation of Objective 1 regions in Agenda 2000 NUTS II GDP per head in PPS is mostly justified by convenience. GDP is used because it is published and available. PPS are used because, historically, they were more stable than exchange rates … An important question is whether other single criteria are more convincing. In practice, this seems unlikely’.

The Commission does not currently calculate regional purchasing power parities, but is studying the feasibility of doing so.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0282/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Subject: Crisis in the olive oil market: proposal to set up a Community olive oil databank

In response to the serious crisis in the olive oil market (a crisis which is due to continue during the 1999/2000 marketing year), Italy has carried out investigations at the frontiers across which large amounts of oil from EU and non-EU countries are imported.

Most oil for human consumption which is imported into Italy comes from outside the Community sometimes by means of triangular arrangements involving Spanish and Greek operators which are not always transparent. C 330 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

In North African countries the cost of producing oil of various types is extremely low.

The checks carried out in Italy on imported oils have been inadequate. One of the things they have revealed are analytical values which, strangely, are always a little lower than those laid down in Annex 1 to Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 (1).

It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that most of the oils imported into Italy are not pure but could be the result of mixing oils from North Africa with oils produced in Spain and Greece, so as to ensure that the analytical parameters laid down by law are met.

It is therefore impossible at present to establish with analytical certainty the precise geographical origin of oils imported into and marketed in Italy.

Such problems have caused (and will continue to cause) serious disruption to the market.

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC (2) of 22 September 1966, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1638/98 (3) and in particular Article 35a thereof.

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2815/98 (4) of 22 December 1998 on olive oil marketing rules.

It has been scientifically proved (in the same way as occurred some time ago in the case of the wine- growing sector) that the chemical and analytical characteristics of olive oil vary according to the geographical area in which it is produced.

The only accurate way of determining the precise geographical origin of an oil is to set up a Community databank similar to the one which was set up in the wine-growing sector by means of Regulation (EEC) No 2348/91 (5).

In view of the above facts, what decisions are to be taken as regards the setting up of a Community olive oil databank as a sole analytical instrument capable of tackling the serious problem described above?

(1) OJ L 248, 5.9.1991, p. 1. (2) OJ 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025. (3) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 32. (4) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998, p. 56. (5) OJ L 214, 2.8.1991, p. 39.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

There is in fact no crisis on the olive oil market, particularly in Italy, where the 1999/2000 crop is particularly heavy and end-January 2000 prices are more than 130 % of the triggering threshold for private storage.

For the Community as a whole, sales forecasts for the crop indicate a fall in stocks in 1999/2000 and thus sustained demand. The sharp fall in prices in December 1999 appears to correspond to disposal of stocks accumulated speculatively but was followed at the beginning of January by a sharp rise in the market from which oil from the new crop has benefited.

The less than 50 000 tonnes of olive oil imported annually is too little to disturb a Community market based on estimated 1999/2000 production of 1 600 000 tonnes.

Mixtures of olive oil and seed oil, Community or not, fraudulently sold as olive oil are detected by the analytical methods given in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 of 11 July 1991 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis. Research to improve these methods is in progress. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/117

Blends of olive oil of various origins are not prohibited and are even indispensable where the oils of certain regions are concerned if consumers are to have the qualities of oil they want to buy. This is an important difference from the wine sector.

Research continues at Community level on a databank for olive oil as mentioned by the Honourable Member and the Commission is closely monitoring progress. But the geographical characteristics of olive oils emerge as statistical averages and absolute proof of origin for a particular lot is rarely possible. The situation is much more complex again in the case of the inevitable blends of olive oils from different varieties, soil types or geographical origins.

The Commission therefore considers that at the moment a Community olive oil databank for fraud- fighting purposes is not a priority.

(2000/C 330 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/00 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: EU number plates in Switzerland

In point 3 of his reply to my question E-4110/98 (1) Commissioner Kinnock states that the Commission has asked the Swiss authorities to recognise the distinguishing sign. ‘Member States will be informed as soon as the Commission gets a reply from the Swiss authorities’. In the meantime I have learned through informal channels that about a year ago the Swiss authorities sent a letter to their police and customs services explaining that cars with EU number plates no longer require a separate country sticker.

1. Is the Commission aware of this letter, and does this constitute the recognition referred to in point 3?

2. Have the Member States been informed of this recognition?

(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

1. In their letter of 11 February 1999 the Swiss authorities informed the Commission that they were prepared to recognise the distinctive nationality marks issued by the state of registration of motor vehicles and their trailers in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 on the recognition in intra-Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered (1).

2. The Member States were informed of that recognition by means of a letter to the offices of their permanent representatives dated 9 March 1999.

(1) OJ L 299, 10.11.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0290/00 by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Phare programme for Croatia

In view of the positive outcome of the elections in Croatia on 3 January 2000, will the Council reconsider the suspension of the Phare programme for Croatia? C 330 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2 May 2000)

Recent parliamentary and presidential elections in Croatia, and the democratic way in which they were conducted, have opened a new phase in Croatian politics. The European Union has been very encouraged by this development, which has brought an end to a chapter in Croatian history and marks a beginning of a new era for the country. The Union has reiterated its willingness to work very closely with the new authorities in their quest for making Croatia a full fledged member of the ‘Euro-Atlantic community’.

Against this background, the General Affairs Council decided already in January to rapidly put in place a ‘Joint EU-Croatia Taskforce’ within the framework of ‘the Stabilisation and Association Process’ in order to prepare the ground for future contractual relations. The Task Force was set up on 15 February at a meeting in Brussels.

Furthermore, at its February meeting, the Council invited the Commission to prepare a study on the feasibility of opening negotiations with Croatia on a ‘Stabilisation and Association Agreement’.

As the Honourable Parliamentarian is certainly aware, the Council in the ‘European Union’s Regional Approach to South East Europe of 29 April 1997’ set a number of criteria for the granting of preferential trade measures, PHARE assistance and contractual relations. These criteria are reviewed on a regular basis.

On the occasion of the latest review in February 2000, no major changes were decided upon for any of the countries covered by the EU’s ‘Stabilisation and Association Process’ and the ‘Regional Approach’ criteria, i.e. the situation as far as PHARE assistance to Croatia, remained unchanged for the time being.

However, the Commission has sent a fact finding mission to Croatia in February in order to study possibilities to support the reform efforts, including the possibility of extending the PHARE programme to Croatia.

(2000/C 330 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0309/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: De Zoom Kalmthoutse Heide border park development

The Benelux Council has launched a project to develop the De Zoom Kalmthoutse Heide border park. A management and organisation plan has been drawn up under which work can be carried out on the conservation, management and development of the park’s biological, ecological and cultural-historical assets, taking the different resources that the area possesses into account.

As reported in the BN/de Stem newspaper (16 December 1999), the process of drawing water from within the area is causing the land to dry out in the Groote Meer estate. Thousands of nesting sites for at least 25 different bird species have already disappeared. It is also feared that development of the border park will result in a massive increase in visitors to the area.

1. What action will the Commission take to prevent further drying out of land in the area, and if necessary to raise the water table?

2. Does the Commission agree that any increase in large-scale visitor activity in a bird habitat conflicts with the principles underlying the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) (1).

3. Does the Commission share my view that the most vulnerable areas should be closed to the public, except possibly for small-scale educational visits?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/119

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

The ‘grenspark De Zoom-Kalmthoutse Heide’ is situated partially in Belgium and partially in the Nether- lands.

The Belgian part of the site has been designated as a special protection area (SPA), called ‘Kalmthoutse Heide’, in accordance with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. The Dutch part has been designated as a site of Community interest (SIC), called ‘Ossendrecht’, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (1). The Dutch authorities have announced that they will also designate the site as a SPA.

Pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC, Articles 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4) of that directive apply to the site.

The activities that are mentioned in the question, water extraction and mass recreation, can not be considered as a plan or project in the sense of Article 6(3). Therefore Articles 6(3) and 6(4) do not apply in this case. Because the activities already exist, only Article 6(2) applies to the case in question. This provision prescribes that Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas in question have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the directive.

In reply to the first question it should in particular be noted that it is up to the Member States to take steps to comply with Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and not the Commission. The Commission lacks specific information about ‘De Zoom-Kalmthoutse Heide’, so it is not able to judge if measures have to be taken to prevent further drying out of the site. For the same reason the Commission is not able to take a position with respect to the issues that are raised in the second and third questions.

The Commission is taking the necessary steps to obtain further information about the application of Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC with respect to ‘De Zoom-Kalmthoutse Heide’. If necessary it will take further steps to ensure that the national authorities comply with this provision.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/00

by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Safeguarding citizens’ rights in view of the advent of new forms of telecommunications

The development of digital technology and the applications of this technology in modern forms of communication are creating a new situation in all sectors of audiovisual data transmission. The concomitant development of the Internet as a multi-purpose tool which is user-friendly, i.e. easy and cheap to access for ordinary consumers, means that it can also be used as a telephone system. Various types of full duplex telephone services operating through the Internet are already available (the VDOPhone, for instance). The consequences of this are twofold: the development of an Internet telephone system outside any ‘formal’ legislative framework and the absence in practice of legal safeguards protecting the rights of citizens as regards the confidentiality of communications and personal data. There exists therefore a procedural and operational ‘legislative’ void which must be filled consistently and in good time in the interests of ordinary citizens.

Will the Commission review the present situation and propose a framework to uphold existing legislative safeguards for citizens’ rights in respect of both new forms of telecommunications and ‘conventional’ forms which are changing in response to new digital standards? C 330 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the protection of personal data and privacy in the telecommunications sector (1) applies to all public telecommunications services regardless of the technology used. As far as it contains no specific provision, the rules of the general data protection 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 on the free movement of such data (2) apply.

The example mentioned by the Honourable Member, of voice telephony provided over the Internet, is therefore fully covered by existing data protection principles. This implies that the confidentiality of communications by voice telephony over the Internet must be guaranteed by Member States and that service providers must ensure the security of their services. Moreover, in case of residual security risks, as they are likely to exist on a network as open as the Internet, the service providers are obliged to inform their customers of such risks and must explain them how they can obtain better security (e.g. through encryption).

If in practice there is a certain lack of awareness among service providers about their obligations under existing Community data protection and privacy law, this is probably due to the fact that most Member States have only recently transposed Directive 97/66/EC in national law. The national data protection commissioners have an important role to play in raising awareness about data protection principles among service providers and customers. As members of the Article 29 data protection working party, the independent Community advisory body on data protection and privacy, they have already adopted several relevant opinions and recommendations, for example the document confirming the application of Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 97/66/EC to personal data processing and communications on the Internet (available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15/en/media/dataprot/wpdocs/index.htm).

In addition to legal guarantees, privacy enhancing technologies can reinforce the control that individuals have on their personal data and help prevent such data being compromised on networks. The Commission has initiated some awareness activities on technological developments (e.g. a workshop on privacy enhancing technologies) in this area. Moreover, the Information society technologies programme (IST, part of the Fifth Framework programme on research and technological development (RTD)) includes an action line referring to ‘technology building blocks for trust and security’ focussing on technologies to empower users to consciously and effectively manage and negotiate their personal rights (IST 2000 II.4.1.).

In conclusion, the protection of personal data and privacy for telecommunications services using new technologies is guaranteed by the existing legal framework. Nevertheless, in the context of the 1999 review of telecommunications legislation, the Commission proposed a technological and terminological update of Directive 97/66/EC to ensure a consistent and technology-neutral application of data protection provisions to communication services. The Commission will submit proposals to the Parliament and the Council before summer 2000.

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998. (2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2000/C 330 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0314/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Olive oil imports from third countries

A document on the development of the EAGGF Guarantee Section for the 1988-2000 period published by the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Committees and Delegations states clearly (p. 11) that 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/121

the European Union is self-sufficient as regards the production of olive oil. Despite this, the same document draws attention to the fact that the European Union is importing olive oil on preferential terms, mainly from Tunisia, Morocco and Turkey.

Will the Commission give the precise amounts of olive oil imported from the above three countries and indeed from any other Mediterranean countries and state why olive oil is being imported from outside the EU, and notably on preferential terms, given that the Union not only covers its needs through domestic production of olive oil, but actually produces a surplus of 107,2 %, according to 1996 data which are quoted by the above document?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Overall, the Community appears self-sufficient as regards production of olive oil. However, in many years the Community has to import to meet the demand for olive oil both at home and on the world market. Moreover, operators use olive oils from non-member countries for certain types of cutting of olive oils.

Concerning preferential imports, the Community has committed itself to importing certain quantities of olive oil from the Mediterranean countries. The principal concession concerns Tunisia with 46 000 tonnes of olive oil at reduced duties (EUR 7,81/100 kg instead of the normal customs duty of about EUR 140/100 kg), while Morocco, Lebanon and Algeria were allotted concessions in the form of a reduction of the rate of EUR 0,7245/100 kg.

In the case of Turkey, the reduction in the customs duty on virgin olive oil is 10 % and on refined olive oil 5%.

In the marketing years 1996/97 to 1998/99, total imports in tonnes from these countries were (1):

1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 Tunisia 45 150,7 46 305 46 028 Turkey 45,9 31,5 107,4 Lebanon 13,5 3,8 5,0 Morocco 17 56,2 0,9 Algeria 0 0 0

(1) Imports do not include quantities imported and re-exported under the inward processing arrangement.

(2000/C 330 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Mining and exploitation of gold deposits on the Island of Milos

The company Midas Ltd. is planning to prospect for gold by drilling over an area of 17 760 000 m2 at Profitis Ilias, Chondro Vouno, Koumaria, Kalamavros and Ralaki in the municipality of Milos, a large part of which has been proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 programme.

Investments of this kind do not have a very positive track record internationally: a similar gold mining project at Pergamon in Turkey foundered owing to the resistance of the local population who even involved the European Parliament, and the artificial lakes of toxic waste which are the by-product of such investments pose a threat to the environment (for instance, the Doñana National Park in Spain). In the case of Milos the overwhelming majority of the social and professional bodies on the island are strongly opposed to the project and are calling for an immediate suspension of operations by Midas Ltd. C 330 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

The use of cyanide in processing the gold ore and the highly toxic residues produced by investments of this kind constitute a threat to public health and the environment, the ground water and the entire region, and there is also a risk of marine pollution.

Given that the Greek Aegean islands are facing increasing water supply problems, and the Community has co-funded substantive infrastructures aimed at solving these problems and indeed shown particular concern by taking special measures;

Greece has been found by the European Court of Justice to be in breach of Article 7 of Directive 76/464/ EEC (1) on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community and Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

The environmental impact assessment has been rejected by the Prefectural Council of the Cyclades;

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to prevail upon the relevant Greek authorities to put an end to the above operations which on the one hand are in breach of Community environmental legislation and pose a threat to public health and on the other are clearly at odds with the EU policy on a European integrated coastal zone strategy?

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The areas of ‘Profitis Ilias’ on the island of Milos, as well as the ‘Western Coast of Milos’, are included in the list of sites of Community importance proposed by Greece, by virtue of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. In view of the future inclusion of these sites in the Natura 2000 network, any activities which could seriously affect their conservation value should be avoided.

The project planned by the company Midas is included in Annex II of Council Directive 85/337/EC of 27 June 1985 as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). According to Article 4, Member States have the obligation to determine whether the project shall be the subject of an environmental assessment. The latter Directive is not yet transposed in Greece.

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for the information given about the activities of this company. In order to investigate the issue, a letter will be sent to the Greek authorities requesting information.

Concerning the Court decisions mentioned, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that Directive 92/43/EEC has been transposed in Greece by ministerial decision number 33318/3028/1998. Concerning the Court decision dated 11 June 1998 about the failure of Greece to establish programmes including quality objectives for dangerous substances within List II of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, for the waters of the Gulf of Pagasai and those of Lake Vegoritis, the Commission has sent a letter of formal notice to the Greek authorities on the basis of Article 228 (ex-Article 171) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/123

(2000/C 330 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Environmental pollution and health

Considering the close relationship between environmental pollution and public health, how does the Commission see coordination between these two areas developing?

For instance, is the Commission satisfied that the Commission for the Environment still retains control of releases of genetically modified organisms?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The link between environmental problems and public health has been and remains a strong factor in both Community environment and public health policies.

The two services involved are each in the process of preparing medium and longer range policy plan proposals to be adopted by the Commission later this year. Directorate general Environment is preparing a proposal for the sixth environment action programme. Directorate general Health and consumer protection is preparing a Community strategy in the field of public health, including action programmes in the field of ‘Environment and health’. In the preparatory work of these environmental and public health policy programmes, both services are particularly concerned that inter-service discussion and co-ordination safeguards the link between environment and health.

The existing regulatory framework in relation to genetically modified organisms aims to ensure protection of human health and the environment. It is founded on Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (1) and Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (1), as amended by Council Directive 98/81/EEC of 26 October 1998 (2).

Other aspects of GMOs, such as novel food, fall under the responsibility of the member of the Commission responsible for health and consumer protection, with whom there is a continuing and close collaboration. The Commission continues to ensure that these aspects are correctly co-ordinated among the services involved.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. (2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Biosafety Protocol Conference and the decision-making process

How does the Commission decide what stance the European delegation should take in fora such as the Biosafety Protocol Conference in Montreal, when European legislation on genetic engineering (in particular Directive 90/220/EEC (1) is still mired in controversy?

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. C 330 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The Community managed to reach an agreement with all (133) governments present on the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety on 28 January 2000. This is a major international achievement, integrating environment, trade and development concerns in a balanced way with the full support of the developing nations.

The Community’s negotiation position was based on the Council conclusions of 13 December 1999.

The Protocol addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity with a specific focus on transboundary movements. It establishes an advance informed agreement (AIA) procedure for imports of LMOs intended for introduction into the environment, an alternative procedure for LMOs intended for food, feed and processing (LMO commod- ities) and detailed information and documentation requirements. It specifically incorporates the precautionary principle in the operative part of the Protocol. The Protocol also contains provisions regarding confidential information and information-sharing, capacity-building, and financial resources, with special attention to the situation of developing countries and those without domestic regulatory systems as well as an enabling provision for a future liability regime.

The Protocol gives the option of applying domestic procedures or the minimum provisions under the Protocol. The latter option is provided as assistance for developing countries without adequate administrative and legislative measures in place for the protection of their biodiversity. This means that the Community will continue to apply its own procedures consistent with the objective and provisions of the Protocol.

(2000/C 330 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0321/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Food safety

Short-term scientific evidence led to problems such as BSE and Thalidomide. Such occasions have dramatically affected the health of humans and animals for the worst and shaken the consumer confidence in food safety. Will the precautionary principle be applied by the new Authority, and how will it interrelate with other institutions such as the World Trade Organisation?

The cost of such problems in terms of human misery, not to mention the financial loss, is incalculable. How does the Commission intend determining who bears responsibility and sanctions for not fulfilling that responsibility?

Or is the Commission satisfied with the Product Liability Directive being drawn up in a discussion with the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission adopted a Communication on the precautionary principle with the aim, inter alia, of outlining the Commission’s approach to it and establishing Commission guidelines for its application, as well as providing an input to the debate on this issue, both within the Community and internationally.

The Commission considers that applying the precautionary principle is a decision relating to risk management. The new European food authority will be entrusted with risk assessment and risk communication whereas risk management would remain the preserve of the Commission, Parliament and Council, as appropriate. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/125

Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement of the World trade organisation sets out a framework for sanitary or phytosanitary regulatory measures that affect international trade, where scientific evidence is insufficient. The Commission considers that the guidelines for the application of the precautionary principle proposed in the communication, are not only consistent with Article 5.7 but also an appropriate tool to apply the said Article. Therefore, the application of this principle should not contravene the international obligations of the Community.

With regard to the issue of product liability, the Commission points out that in July 1999 it adopted a green paper (1). The Commission is presently analysing the comments received on the green paper and will present a report on the application of the product liability directive by the end of this year.

(1) COM(1999) 396 final ‘Liability for Defective Products’.

(2000/C 330 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Irregularities at the Las Cárvacas rubbish dump in Madrid

In response to Petition No 288/97 which was submitted to the European Parliament by the ‘Plataforma Cívica y Ecológica de la Casa de Campo de Valdebebas’, the Commission opened infringement procedure A-98/2162 against Spain for its failure to comply with Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC (2). By means of a decree dated 27 March 1998 the Madrid city authorities ordered Vertederos del Norte S.L. to close the illegal and unauthorised rubbish dump at La Dehesa, in the Las Cárvacas district of Madrid, and instructed the company to clean up the site.

Furthermore, the Madrid Regional Directorate-General for Environmental Quality and Assessment ordered the Madrid city authorities to instruct the company to undertake 14 specific projects to seal the dump and clean up the site, including the planting of trees and other forms of vegetation. Despite the issue of such an order the company did not apply any of the remedial measures, for which reason a further instruction was issued on 14 January 1999, ordering the site to be sealed off.

On 30 July 1999 the above-mentioned Directorate-General approved the sealing-off and cleansing project submitted by Vertederos del Norte S.L., which was to be carried out within an eight-month period starting on the date on which the work began. However, no cleaning-up work has so far been undertaken and the rubbish dump is in the same state as it was when it was instructed to close.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in infringement procedure A-98/2162 against Spain? What are the expected dates for the start and the finish of the project to seal off and clean up the rubbish dump? Could the Commission arrange for the project to be speeded up? Why are the Spanish authorities responsible refusing to notify the ‘Plataforma Cívica’ (which launched the petition) regarding the progress of the project?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39. (2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Following several complaints concerning illegal rubbish dumps, including that at Las Cárcavas, the Commission has decided to bring an infringement action against Spain. As part of this it delivered a reasoned opinion as a result of the failure to comply with Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste in connection with, among other things, the illegal dump at Las Cárcavas. C 330 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

The Commission is not aware of the reasons given by the Spanish authorities justifying the refusal to pass on information concerning the progress made by this project. In any case, Article 4 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 (1), on the freedom of access to information on the environment provides that a person who considers that his request for information has been unreasonably refused or ignored, or has been inadequately answered by a public authority, may seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant national legal system.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2000/C 330 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0323/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact of the planned airport at Castellón (Spain)

On the basis of a project involving the construction of airport facilities at Castellón and, additionally, a special plan allowing protected land to be used for the construction of airport facilities, the Valencia regional authorities are planning to build an airport in the vicinity of Bell-Lloc del Pla and Vilanova d’Alcolea.

According to the objections raised against the project, such an airport:

would seriously alter the various ecosystems in the area and have an adverse effect on a range of habitats protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and on wild birds protected under Directive 79/409/EEC (2), such as sylvia undata, caprimilgus europeus, galerida theklae and, in particular, circus pyargus, the colony of which is the only one in Europe which nests on Mediterranean scrubland and one of the few species which nests on natural vegetation. Furthermore, the airport would be located close to Prat de Cabanes (the home of protected species) and to the Desierto de las Palmas nature area, and also in an area crossed by migratory birds, with all the attendant risks to air traffic;

would have a significantly greater noise impact on people living in the vicinity than has been calculated in an environmental impact study which is now obsolete on account of subsequent changes made to the project;

would not be operational from the safety point of view on account of frequent morning and evening mist and fog, hazardous winds and its location amongst mountains, circumstances which would be aggravated by the alignment of the runway in a southwest-northeast direction (the only one possible in view of the mountainous topography).

In view of all the above facts, could the Commission verify, with specific reference to this project, whether or not the abovementioned directives have been complied with and could it ask the Spanish authorities to halt, as a precautionary measure, any construction work or other activity in the area?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Firstly, it should be noted that the area where the airport to which the Honourable Member refers 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 (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Neither has it been 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 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/127

Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Therefore, as far as nature conservation is concerned, this case appears to be the responsibility of the Spanish national and regional authorities alone.

With regard to Council Directive 85/337/EEC (3) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment, it should be noted that Article 2 thereof provides that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before authorisation is granted.

This provision applies to projects of the classes listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive. Annex I point 7 (a) includes the construction of airports with a runway length of 2 100 metres or more. Annex II, point 10 (d) includes the construction of airfields other than those listed in Annex I. Under the terms of Article 4(1) projects of the classes listed in Annex I must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment. For projects of the classes listed in Annex II, Member States must determine through a case-by- case examination whether or not the project should be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

It should be noted that Directive 85/337/EEC was amended by Directive 97/11/EC (4). However, under Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC if a request for authorisation is submitted before 14 March 1999 the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments continue to apply.

In view of the above, the Commission cannot, on the sole basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, determine whether the aforesaid Community provisions are applicable to the project in question. It should be pointed out that the Commission does not have the power to ask the Spanish authorities to suspend the work and activities under way in the area as the Honourable Member requests.

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 L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0324/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Construction of the Valencia-Tarragona railway line

The planned construction of a railway line between Valencia and Tarragona, which was approved by the Spanish authorities in 1996, will create a number of environmental problems as it passes through the towns of Benicàssim and Oropesa. Those problems have been duly notified to the various local, national and Community institutions by the people living in the affected area, who maintain that the route which has finally been decided upon will involve the destruction of residential areas, the laying of the railway line through places frequented by children (such as Benicàssim school), the risk that the building works or the passing of the trains will affect historic buildings (such as the town cemetery, which dates from the beginning of the last century), the destruction of smallholdings and cattle tracks, damage to the country- side caused by substituting ornamental species for native plants and risks to health and to the local population stemming from the hilly terrain and the periodic threat of cold fronts (which could cause railway embankments to be washed away by heavy rain). C 330 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

The effects which the project may have on the environment have already become apparent with the arrival of the heavy machinery to be used for the construction work (which has led to the destruction of native woodlands in the vicinity of the protected area known as the Desierto de Las Palmas Natural Park) and with the setting off of explosions needed to blast out tunnels (which caused a fire to break out). The project has been approved by the Spanish authorities, even though the statutory declaration of environmental impact has not been produced. The only thing which does exist is a study which is quite inadequate as a means of assessing environmental risks and which, in addition, does not exactly cover the route in its final form since it does not include the town of Oropesa.

Furthermore, the study does not address essential considerations such as future emissions caused by passing trains, the issue of waste, noise pollution or the micro-climatic effect of the embankments. In the light of the facts set out above, the Spanish authorities could be infringing Community law, in particular Directive 97/11/EC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

Since, according to two billboards which have been erected at the construction site, the project is receiving 85 % of its funding from the EU via the Cohesion Fund, does the Commission not think that Community funding for the construction work should be suspended until a proper environmental impact statement has been drawn up?

Could the Commission say what stage it has reached in dealing with Petition No 99/4495, which was submitted by the Asociación Benicàssim Pro Enterramiento del Ferrocarril?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The Commission finds 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) to be applicable to this project. It will not hesitate to take all necessary steps to ensure compliance with Community law in this case.

In examining the complaint, the Commission will keep the complainant informed of developments.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3.3.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Monopoly of the Italian Register of Shipping (R.I.N.A.)

The Italian Register of Shipping (R.I.N.A.), established in 1861, checks and inspects the seaworthiness and safety of merchant ships. This body, governed by private law, has the task of classifying vessels and can consequently issue the internationally valid safety certificates essential for navigation.

That being the case, could the Commission:

ascertain whether the fact that the R.I.N.A. is a body governed by private law is incompatible with the monopoly powers which it exercises at national level for the purposes of certifying the safety of merchant ships;

ascertain whether the fact that shipowners serve on the R.I.N.A. management board is contrary to Community rules, since the shipowners are placed in the awkward position of supervising themselves;

take steps, if it thinks fit, with a view to setting up a supranational body to oversee the actions of bodies such as the R.I.N.A.? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/129

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The transposition into the Italian law of Council Directive 94/57/EC (1) put an end to the monopoly that the Italian register of shipping (RINA) enjoyed in Italy for the issuance of safety certificates to merchant ships. The Italian law was adopted in 1998 and from that date onwards classification societies other than RINA will be in a position to carry out statutory tasks (arising from the international conventions) on behalf of the Italian administration. The private legal nature of RINA does not contravene with the provisions regulating the Community-wide recognition of classification societies laid down in the above mentioned Directive.

The presence of shipowners on the board of directors is a normal practice for classification societies. Together with the shipowners, there are other representatives of the shipping industry on the board of directors of these organisations. Their role is to guide the activities of the classification society, mainly by indicating their needs and requesting the establishment of specific rules. Of course, what needs to be verified is the compliance of RINA and of the other recognised organisations with the provisions of criterion A.6 of the Annex to the above mentioned Directive. This criterion states that ‘the organization should not be controlled by shipowners or shipbuilders, or by others engaged commercially in the manufacture, equipping, repair or operation of ships. The organization should not be substantially dependent on a single commercial enterprise for its revenue’. Compliance of RINA with these provisions will be verified during the forthcoming assessment to be carried out by the Commission.

The possibility of establishing a body to assess the activities of the classification societies in a centralised and harmonised manner has recently been raised by several interested parties. The Commission is at present in the process of analysing the feasibility and possible implications of the establishment of such a body. The Commission will keep the Parliament duly informed of its decisions on this matter in the shortest possible time.

(1) Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (OJ L 319, 12.12.1994).

(2000/C 330 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Grant of a licence to conduct test borings for gas in the ‘De Biesbosch’ National Park in the Netherlands

1. Is the Commission aware of the new licence granted on 13 January 2000 by the Netherlands Economic Affairs Minister to the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschapij NV (NAM Netherlands Petroleum Company) to conduct boring operations for the ‘Andel-2’ concessionary area situated between Schoon- hoven, Dordrecht and Hertogenbosch in the provinces of South Holland, Gelderland and North Brabant?

2. Is the Commission aware that the concessionary area referred to in paragraph 1 above includes not only farming and residential areas, but also the De Biesbosch river area, connected to it by a slender one- kilometre wide strip of land situated between the Nieuwe Merwede (on the north side) and the Amer (on the south side), a former fresh-water tidal area that is home to a large number of rare plant and animal species and has enjoyed national-park status since 1994?

3. Is the Commission aware of the Netherlands government’s reasons for including the De Biesbosch area referred to in paragraph 2 above with the rest of the ‘Andel-2’ concessionary area, and does it agree that the area would not have been included unless it had been expressly intended to leave open the option of conducting natural-gas boring operations within a national park area?

4. Can the Commission confirm that De Biesbosch is one of the areas to which the European habitats and birds directive applies, and that oil-boring operations in that area can result in unintended disruption to plant and animal life, and, by way of land subsidence and further soil pollution (following earlier damage by 112 000 tons of petroleum-retaining soil and catalytic converter waste by a company (Shell) with a 50 %-shareholding in NAM on the north side of the Biesbosch? C 330 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

5. Does the Commission agree that holding open the option of allowing gas-boring operations to be conducted within the De Biesbosch National Park area conflicts with the region’s status as a protected area?

6. What action will the Commission take to ensure that the De Biesbosch area ceases to be included in the ‘Andel-2’ concessionary area, so that it can continue to be protected against boring operations and their adverse impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The only information the Commission has about the facts that are raised by the Honourable Member is from articles in Dutch newspapers. Therefore it is not able to go more deeply into this case.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question P-0179/00 by Mr de Roo (1), in which it said that it is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the Netherlands comply with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (3).

(1) See page 99. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/00 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Financing arrangements for combating veterinary disease in the EU

Under the new financial framework, agricultural expenditure is subject to even more restrictions than hitherto. The EU has, in recent years, experienced widespread outbreaks of veterinary disease (in particular BSE and swine fever) that have placed a heavy burden of expenditure on the EU budget.

In the different Member States the costs of combating veterinary sickness are met from the national budget by constituting special funds, the better to be prepared for possible outbreaks, or by developing particular insurance schemes.

Can the Commission:

1. Provide a summary outline of the arrangements for financing the response to outbreaks of veterinary disease, the combating of which is required pursuant to European regulations or directives in Member States?

2. Look into options for financing the costs of any future outbreaks of such infectious diseases of farm animals from funds specially set up for that purpose or by developing special insurance schemes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The cost of veterinary diseases is generally made up of two elements: compensation paid to farmers for the slaughter of their animals, and operating costs for measures to combat these diseases.

The method of calculating and rules on meeting these costs are governed by national law. As regards compensation for farmers, the Member States have generally opted for one of the following arrangements: the cost of veterinary diseases is either funded by means of a special budget earmarked for animal health, or a State fund for veterinary diseases steps in to meet the costs incurred. This is financed through compulsory contributions from farmers, which are usually supplemented by a balancing subsidy from the public authorities. The contributions payable by farmers and the compensation to which they are entitled sometimes depend on the size of the farm concerned. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/131

The Commission is not aware of the existence of any private insurance schemes currently operating on the market and providing farmers with cover against the risks arising from veterinary diseases. However, as the Commission already indicated in the ‘Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the European Union with a view to possible changes to structural support measures’ (1), it would welcome the creation of an insurance scheme for emergencies funded by farm producers’ contributions.

On the other hand, the financial support from the public authorities should be conditional upon the disease being notified without delay, and upon the provisions of Community legislation on the eradication of diseases including Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (2) being implemented effectively.

(1) COM(98) 434 final. (2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2000/C 330 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0334/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Special treatment of a Kurdish national imprisoned in Hamburg

Ilhan Gelkouvan, a Kurdish national imprisoned in Hamburg, has for many days been on a hunger strike with the intention of starving himself to death, maintaining that, although his case has been tried by the courts and final judgment delivered, he is being excluded from the schedule applicable to other prisoners, being given different treatment and being held in solitary confinement. We have now learned that other prisoners in the EU Member States and in third countries have also commenced hunger strikes in sympathy.

1. Is the Council aware of the special treatment being given to Ilhan Gelkouvan by the Hamburg prison authorities?

2. What measures will it take to end this and ensure that the prisoner concerned is treated in accordance with the same criteria applicable to other prisoners, given the fact that he is seeking no more than his due?

(2 May 2000)

The Council has no information on the treatment mentioned and has no competence to deal with the questions raised by the honourable Member of the European Parliament.

(2000/C 330 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0338/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Unemployment figures for Greece

Under the title ‘EUROPE WEEKLY SELECTED STATISTICS No 1128’, ‘Europe’ of 20 December 1999 published information from the Eurostat News Release No 120/99 concerning unemployment figures in the European Union Member States, Japan and the USA. However, as we have repeatedly pointed out, these statistics do not include figures for unemployment in Greece. In a previous answer to my Written Question E-1448/97 (1), the Commission indicated that ‘as from 1998, the National Statistical Service of Greece is planning to implement a continuous labour force survey which will provide quarterly unemployment rates’. C 330 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. Why were the unemployment figures for Greece still missing?

2. Has Greece undertaken to provide accurate and reliable information concerning unemployment figures to the various European Union publications and services?

3. What action is it taking to ensure that prompt and reliable information concerning unemployment figures in Greece appears in its various publications?

4. Has funding been provided for services in Greece to record and publish unemployment figures and if so from which programmes?

(1) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 133.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

In application of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998 on the organization of a labour force sample survey in the Community (1), the National statistical service of Greece carried out a continuous labour force survey (LFS) providing quarterly results.

Community financial support for the transition to a continous LFS was provided in 1997, 1998 and 1999 to the National statistical service of Greece under the Greek action plan for statistics.

Quarterly data of unemployment rates for Greece are now available for the four quarters of 1998. However, in order to obtain seasonally adjusted unemployment rates it is necessary to have quarterly data collected for at least a three year period before seasonally adjusted series can be published.

In the meantime, annual data on unemployment rates available up to 1998 from the labour force survey are published in the joint employment report 1999 adopted by the Council on 29 November 1999 (2).

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998. (2) http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/main.cfm?LANG=1.

(2000/C 330 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0340/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Transportation of live animals

I understand that Commission reports reveal that German, Dutch, Spanish, Belgian, French and Irish authorities are approving route plans for journeys to other Member States which, if scrutinised, indicate that Council Directive 91/628 (1) on requirements for unloading and resting of live animals will, or may, be breached during the journey.

What action does the Commission intend to take to rectify this possible breach?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/133

(2000/C 330 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0341/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Transportation of live animals

I understand that Commission reports reveal that France, Italy, Greece, Belgium and Ireland have breached the provisions of Council Directive 91/628 (1) on the protection of animals during transport.

What action does the Commission intend to take to rectify these breaches?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2000/C 330 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0425/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Protection of animals during transport

In 1999 the European Commission issued five reports on veterinary missions undertaken in various Member States. The Commission’s reports illustrate that in France, Italy, Greece, Belgium and Ireland, the provisions of Council Directive 91/628 (1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29 (2)) on the protection of animals during transport are widely ignored.

What action does the Commission intend to take to require the Member States identified in these reports to enforce the Directive’s provisions?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. (2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0340/00, E-0341/00 and E-0425/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission is aware, following the reports of its food and veterinary office and from the complaints of various organisations, that enforcement of Council Directive 91/628/EC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC concerning the protection of animals during transport is inadequate in many Member States. These problems are being kept under close review by the Commission and are drawn to the attention of the Member States’ authorities as and when they occur. In particular, infringement proceedings in this field have been opened against one Member State and others are under preparation.

In addition, Article 13 of the Directive 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 shortly taking into account all available information.

Meanwhile, a working group of the standing veterinary committee has been established to consider problems in the implementation of the Directive in respect of long-distance transport. The Commission may consider amending Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of the working group on transport and in the light of the experience acquired by Member States. C 330 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0343/00 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Ageism in the aviation industry

Would the Commission indicate the action it proposes to take to ensure a level playing field for pilots over 60 in the Community, given the refusal of the French authorities to allow pilots between 60 and 65 to fly over their territory?

Would the Commission confirm that this directly contravenes Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union, which reads:

Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.

Would the Commission indicate how it has encouraged coordination of employment policy in this field under Article 140 of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Commission considers that, in the case referred to by the Honourable Member, there is no discrimination based on nationality which is prohibited under Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty.

Measures by the Member States to promote employment are coordinated in accordance with Article 128 (ex Article 109 Q) of the EC Treaty. The employment guidelines adopted by the Council on 13 March 2000 pursuant to this Article do not make any reference to the matter raised by the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission’s answer to written question P-1797/99 submitted by Ms Sanders-Ten Holte (1).

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 50.

(2000/C 330 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0344/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Reorganisation of the DG for Energy and Transport

In view of the merging of the Directorates-General for Transport and Energy into a single DG and the reduced importance of the energy sector, in particular the new energy technologies repeatedly supported by Parliament, can the Commission say what proportion of the staff of the new Directorate-General will deal specifically with energy, and of these how many will be devoted to renewable energy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Following the merger of the Directorates general for energy and transport 142 officials of categories A, B and C deal specifically with energy (of whom 26 officials deal specifically and exclusively with renewable energy sources) and 189 officials of categories A, B and C deal specifically with transport. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/135

Moreover, approximately 200 officials are dealing with important horizontal tasks on energy and transport, including internal market issues, international co-operation, environmental protection, information, communication and dissemination of technologies, as well as Trans-European networks. Because of the integrated approach to energy and transport issues, it is not possible to specify the exact breakdown between energy and transport for these officials.

It should be noted however, that a significant number of officials working in horizontal directorates have important tasks related to renewable energy policy and technology promotion, for example with regard to environmental protection and dissemination of innovative technologies. In total, therefore, promotion of renewable energy has been strengthened in the new organisation.

(2000/C 330 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0347/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Trade

French lorry drivers started a protest including, among other things, blocking the most important roads in France. This behaviour constitutes a violation of one of the principles of the European Union the free movement of goods and is affecting Spain in particular, since its products have to pass through France.

Can the Commission explain what steps it will take to ensure the free movement of goods in the European Union?

What sanctions does it envisage imposing to punish such behaviour?

What compensation is envisaged for the businesses which have suffered?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the serious economic impact of the border blockades imposed by French lorry drivers in recent weeks.

The Commission would like to stress that under Community law it is the responsibility of the Member States to take all necessary and proportionate measures to restore the free movement of goods in their territory when events of this nature occur. The Commission would also point out that it is for the Member States to pay compensation to individuals who have suffered as a result of violations of Community law for which these Member States are held to be responsible.

Moreover, the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States (1) provided the Commission with a legal instrument which gives it the power to take rapid action in this type of situation. It should also be emphasised that this Regulation obliges Member States to inform the Commission of unforeseen actions by private individuals which might have a serious impact on the free movement of goods.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, with regard to the dispute of 31 January and 1 February 2000, the French authorities sent a note to the Commission on Friday 28 January in which they undertook to give their European partners as much real-time information as possible and to facilitate the free movement of goods, whilst respecting the workers’ right to strike. C 330 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Also under the above Regulation, on Monday 31 January 2000 the Commission requested more information from the French authorities concerning the dispute and the measures which were likely to be implemented in order to restore the free movement of goods.

The French authorities provided this information in their reply of 1 February 2000, pointing out that instructions had been given to the law enforcement authorities to set up alternative routes and to distribute the necessary information to those concerned. They also added that measures would be taken to allow any subsequent claims for compensation to be dealt with under Article L. 2216-3 of the general code for local authorities.

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the blockades set up during the recent disputes were lifted in a relatively short time compared with other occasions in the recent past. The Commission believes this is certainly due in part to the implementation of Council Regulation No 2679/98 and the steps taken by the economic operators involved.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0350/00 by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Public aid in the electricity sector in Spain: costs borne by the consumer

To date Spanish consumers have paid more than Ptas 300 000 million for the CTC (costs of transition to competition) approved by the Government and defined by the Commission, in principle, as illegal public aid. Does the Commission consider that action must be taken to put an immediate end to this situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission is closely examining this very complex dossier which would in fact appear to be a case of state aid granted without prior notification. However, as the Commission pointed out to the Honourable Members in its reply to written question E-0165/00 (1), in accordance with the Court’s case law the unlawful nature of a state aid measure, i.e. the fact that it was granted without prior notification to the Commission, does not prejudge its compatibility with the common market. The Commission consequently does not plan at this stage to apply Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2) to request the Member State to suspend payment of the aid. Needless to say, it will take account of the amounts already paid when it takes its final decision on the case.

(1) See page 96. (2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0354/00 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) and Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Rising cost of motor vehicle liability insurance

Since 1994, the year in which charges for compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance were deregulated, there has been an alarming increase in the premiums charged to motorists. This year insurance charges in Italy are set to rise by between 30 and 60 %, an increase which will applied by all the companies present 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/137

on the market. There is also evidence of a coordinated trend towards higher premiums, which suggests that some form of cartel is being operated by the insurance companies.

The head of the Italian antitrust authority, Giuseppe Tesauro, has expressed concern at the significant rise in insurance premiums combined with a reduction in the cover provided; furthermore, a legal investigation is under way into the possible existence of a cartel.

1. What action does the Commission intend to take to stop, and impose sanctions on, the cartel operated by the insurance companies in Italy?

2. Does the Commission agree that, as motor vehicle liability insurance is a statutory requirement, the Italian State should bring pressure to bear on the insurance companies to ensure fair charges instead of the excessive premiums fixed by the cartel in question?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

1. The Commission notes the Honourable Members’ concerns regarding a possible cartel between Italian insurance companies in respect of the premiums charged for motor vehicle liability insurance. It also notes that the Italian competition authority is currently carrying out an inquiry into the matter. It is important to remember that the Commission’s competence extends only to examining and possibly penalising restrictions on competition when they substantially affect trade between Member States. Since it is uncertain whether such an effect exists in the case in point, and since the national authorities have opened an inquiry, it would be advisable to allow these authorities to complete their investigation into the matter, in the spirit of cooperation set out in the Commission Notice on cooperation between national competition authorities and the Commission (1).

2. The Honourable Members’ attention is drawn to the fact that the Community rules in this area seek to enable insurance companies to offer services and set up branches in other Member States on the basis of a single authorisation granted by the Member State of origin. More particularly, the Third Insurance Directives, in particular the Third Non-life Insurance Directive, Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (2) (which is applicable to motor vehicle insurance), established the principle of freedom to set tariffs and ended preliminary or systematic checks on tariffs and on the contracts which insurance firms propose to market.

The Commission could not therefore intervene in the way suggested by the Honourable Members. Since the monitoring of insurance companies is a task for the national authorities alone, the Commission is not in a position to check the insurance premiums proposed by companies or to give an opinion on the level of such premiums. It is the task of the competent national institution to ensure that insurance premiums are sufficient to enable firms to meet their contractual commitments.

(1) OJ C 313, 15.10.1997. (2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2000/C 330 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0360/00 by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Construction of a water bottling plant in Taguluche, La Gomera island (Canaries)

The Canaries Government has declared plans for a treated water bottling plant, at Taguluche, La Gomera island, in the municipal district of Valle Gran Rey, to be a project of public and social interest. The proposed construction site is a listed rural conservation area; its location also coincides with an area called Taguluche which the Canaries Government is proposing for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network (1), reference number ES7020108, which coincides geographically with the area intended for construction. C 330 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

The application for a declaration of public utility cannot go forward, under Canaries regional law, because the law states that building or development schemes of public utility or social interest can in no case be taken to mean industrial developments in a rural environment (2).

The social interest of the project is also questionable, since it creates seven jobs (as the plan itself specifies) by infringing the rights of 116 proprietors of the water and their guarantees of cultivating the land. Furthermore, the island of La Gomera does not have an industrial tradition, still less as a water bottling operation, and the plant concerned would be a private, profit-making business set up with public funds. And according to expert reports, water bottling is already getting out of hand in the Canaries.

As a report by the deputy adviser for the environment in the Canaries Government regional planning department acknowledges, there has been no detailed environmental impact assessment for the project in question, to take account of the collection of spring water and its impact on traditional farming in the area. It even admits that the works will affect the Lomo des Carretón environmental protection area, which is also included in the sites of Community importance under reference number ES7020037. It says that the bottling plant will draw water from three springs which their proprietors use to irrigate the land (3).

There is thus no impact statement in compliance with the guidelines of the Community directives. The declaration of both areas as sites of Community importance is based on Criterion 1, the conservation of priority habitats and species, among them the Phoenix canariensis palm. If this scheme were to go ahead, the bottling plant would obviously affect the conservation of this species of palm and local agricultural land, by cutting off the scarce water supply from natural springs in the area.

Does the Commission not agree that the Taguluche bottling plant scheme does not comply with Community law on environmental impact assessments?

Does the Commission think the construction of an industrial establishment as proposed is compatible with conservation of the areas proposed for the Natura 2000 network as sites of Community importance?

(1) See Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) See Law 5/1987 of 7 April on Urban Planning in Rural Areas, and Law 9/1999 of 13 May on Canaries Regional Planning. Law 12/1990 on Canaries Water also applies. (3) If the bottling plant scheme went ahead it would imperil farming in Taguluche by depriving farms of their water for irrigation. A petition against the scheme has been submitted to the European Parliament (No 24/2000).

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The conservation areas of ‘Taguluche’ and ‘Lomo del Carretón’, 140 and 263 hectares respectively, have been included by the Spanish authorities on their national list of potential sites of Community interest for integration in the Natura 2000 network, in accordance with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

With regard to the planned construction of a bottling plant at Taguluche, in the municipal district of Valle Gran Rey on La Gomera island, the Canaries, Spain, the Commission would inform you that it has received a complaint on the same subject, the reference number being P-1999/4875.

The dossier has been presented for consideration by the Commission as to whether the project mentioned by the Honourable Member would have a significant impact on the sites in question in the light of the objectives of Directive 92/43/EEC, in which case the procedure mentioned in Article 6 of that Directive must be applied.

The Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure conformity with Community law in the case at issue.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/139

(2000/C 330 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: The Commission’s attitude towards the problem of the exhaustion of trade mark rights and the admissibility of parallel imports

The effect of Article 7 of the EU trade mark directive (89/104/EEC) (1) is that since 1995 at the latest the principle of ‘international exhaustion’ of trade mark rights hitherto applied in many Member States has been replaced with the principle of ‘European exhaustion’ in the trade mark law of the EU Member States. Since that date, and in particular with regard to the ‘Silhouette’ and ‘Sebago’ rulings of the European Court of Justice, there has been no room for parallel imports of favourable branded goods from outside the EU. In its report of 1 December 1999 the Commission summarises the discussion hitherto and looks into various options for changing the law, although without taking sides on retaining or amending the present principle of exhaustion.

1. In its assessment of the question of whether commercial parallel imports from outside the EU should be possible in the future, what importance does the Commission attach to the increasing supply of low- cost branded goods from EU third countries direct to the final consumer via the Internet? Does it agree that the increasing demand on the part of private customers via the Internet causes considerable problems for retailers and mail order businesses if the latter do not, obtain supplies of low-cost parallel imports and hence are not able to offer low prices?

2. Has the Commission taken note of representations by the sector affected that the legal position as it stands now results in permissible intra-European parallel trade in branded goods being effectively restricted and subject to uncertainties if stocks in hand include, unknown to businesses, products from impermissible third country imports which would result in legal action being taken by manufacturers of branded goods against such businesses? Does the Commission intend to draw conclusions from these representations in the near future and provide remedy?

3. In the light of the criticism expressed at the ‘n/e/r/a report’, does the Commission intend to arrange a further questionnaire or study to clarify matters before any decision is taken?

4. Does the Commission intend to make the issue of international rules on exhaustion of trade mark rights a topic for the forthcoming WTO negotiations? If not, why not?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.

(2000/C 330 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0363/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: The Commission’s attitude towards the problem of the exhaustion of trade mark rights and the admissibility of parallel import

The effect of Article 7 of the EU trade mark directive (89/104/EEC) (1) is that since 1995 at the latest the principle of ‘international exhaustion’ of trade mark rights hitherto applied in many Member States has been replaced with the principle of ‘European exhaustion’ in the trade mark law of the EU Member States. Since that date, and in particular in the light of the ‘Silhouette’ and ‘Sebago’ rulings of the European Court of Justice, there has been no room for parallel imports of favourable branded goods from outside the EU. In its report of 1 December 1999 the Commission summarises the present discussion and looks into various options for changing the law, although without taking sides on retaining or amending the present principle of exhaustion.

1. What is the Commission’s attitude towards the question of ‘international exhaustion’ and towards amending Article 7 of the trade mark directive, and does it intend to propose an amendment to the Council and Parliament? C 330 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

2. Does the Commission share the view of persons advocating a change in the law that reintroducing parallel imports could cut consumer prices for certain branded goods by 30-50 % and, in the light of the results of the ‘n/e/r/a report’, does it accept the calculation that savings in the order of EUR 35 to 40 billion would be possible for consumers EU-wide?

3. What is the Commission’s attitude towards the argument currently being put forward by the branded industry that future parallel imports would lead to an increased incidence of product piracy? Does the Commission have any information, beyond that presented in its report of 1 December 1999, to suggest that the incidence of product piracy has diminished or increased since the ban on parallel imports in 1995?

4. What is the Commission’s view of the argument put forwarded by the branded goods industry that a future introduction of parallel imports would result in a shift of jobs from the EU to third countries? Does the Commission not think that it is much more conceivable that the law as it stands at present is an inducement to shift production facilities abroad, with the loss of jobs in the EU?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0362/00 and E-0363/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The discussion on exhaustion continues on the basis of a Commission staff working paper, addressing certain key issues which has been submitted to the Council and the Parliament. In the light of these discussions and all other relevant factors, the Commission will define its position on the question of exhaustion of trade mark rights, as soon as appropriate and feasible.

The Honourable Member has raised an interesting and important question concerning the possible impact of e-commerce on the exhaustion issue. The Commission is currently examining this as a matter of priority. The situation concerning parallel trade into the Community depends on the outcome of the ongoing discussions on exhaustion. If a possible change of exhaustion regime did not solve this issue, the Commission might have to reflect on the need for other measures.

The Commission is happy with the national economic research associates (NERA) study and is using the study as a basis for the work on exhaustion. There is, at least for the moment, no immediate need for further studies to be carried out. The Commission staff paper lists several different options to change the current exhaustion regime. One of them is to raise this question at a bilateral or multilateral level with third countries. Whether or not the issue of exhaustion should be raised in the forthcoming World trade organization (WTO) negotiations will be examined when the Commission defines its position on the exhaustion question.

The Commission will take a position on international exhaustion after the current discussions have been finalised. It is therefore premature to react to the question of the Honourable Member. Concerning the Honourable Member’s reference to re-introduction of parallel imports the Commission would underline that re-introducing parallel trade is not really the issue. The discussions concern the question of exhaustion of trade mark rights. Many other factors have an impact on parallel imports, such as import duties, import quota and vertical relationships. The calculation of possible effects on consumer pricing presented by the Honourable Member is not supported by the information provided in the NERA study.

The Commission considers the phenomenon of counterfeiting and piracy as a serious problem. The possible impact of exhaustion regimes on this problem has to be carefully analysed. The Commission has so far not received any information on the possible impact of a ban on parallel imports. The question of the possible impact on employment of a change in the exhaustion regime is still under discussion and it is too early to draw any conclusion from this discussion. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/141

(2000/C 330 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0367/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Reduced VAT rates for district heating systems’ customers

To date, the supply of gas and electricity appears in the Community list of projects to which the Member States of the European Union may apply a reduced VAT rate. On the other hand, this is not the case for customers of district heating networks.

However, these urban networks often help in a reprocessing of domestic waste and in energy diversifica- tion, which is a European Union objective; finally, with regard to the social requirements which determine the reduced rate, whether the consumer uses gas, electricity or a district heating system, the tax burden should be the same, especially since the consumer often hardly has any choice (people living in blocks of flats, etc.).

Can the Commission please explain what could have justified such an imbalance between the different types of energy supply? Does it intend to correct this imbalance by proposing the inclusion of agreements concluded with district heating networks in the list of projects which may benefit from reduced VAT rates?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Current Community legislation does not allow Member States to apply a reduced VAT rate to district heating systems’ customers.

The current rules were adopted after negotiations within the Council which led to the amendment of the Commission’s original proposal (1) dropping the possibility of applying a reduced VAT rate to natural gas and electricity.

In its proposal on the harmonisation of rates the Commission stated that the obligatory reduced rate should apply to energy products for heating and lighting in order to avoid distortions.

The Commission will examine this matter at the next meeting on the contents of Annex H to the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) (2) to which the reduced rate applies. It cannot, however, at this stage predict the outcome of the Council’s discussions on any new proposals.

(1) OJ C 250, 18.9.1987, amended by OJ C 44, 19.2.1992. (2) OJ L 262, 15.10.1977.

(2000/C 330 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0368/00 by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Transfer of part of the electricity generation capacity of ENEL S.p.A., the former Italian state monopoly in this sector

As part of the process of privatising and liberalising the electrical energy production sector, the Italian Government recently decided in its capacity as controlling shareholder, and in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, to remove 21 plants with a total capacity of 15 thousand megawatts from the former state monopoly ENEL S.p.A (equal to about a quarter of its production capacity) and hand them over to three separate and newly established companies: Eurogen S.p.A., Elettrogen S.p.A. and Interpower S.p.A.

On 25 January 2000 the Italian Cabinet passed a decree laying down the procedures for the transfer involving the three private companies, stipulating that it should be done through private negotiation, under the control of ENEL S.p.A. and under the supervision of the Treasury Minister and the Minister for Industry, as well as with the assistance of the advisory committee for privatisations. C 330 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

In order to ensure greater transparency and efficiency, the Italian Government could have opted for an international tendering procedure or a public share offer, which would have ensured that the companies were acquired by Italian or foreign purchasers with better knowledge of how to manage privatised companies and who would have been prepared to pay a higher price.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not think that the procedure followed by the Italian Government betrays its desire to control the ownership structure among operators on the national electricity market and that this is in breach of Community rules which protect competition and the free movement of capital, as well as consumer rights in the European Union?

Does the Commission not think that the Italian Government’s attitude is designed to allow ENEL S.p.A. to abuse the dominant position which it enjoys, in violation of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, point (b) of which prohibits practices consisting of ‘limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers’, in other words practices designed to create barriers to market entry by ‘unwanted’ competitors?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The Commission has examined the decree issued by the Italian Treasury Minister on 25 January 2000 specifying the conditions for the sale of production plants operated by ENEL, the Italian state electric power company.

In so far as the free movement of capital and establishment is concerned, the position of the Commission was set out in detail in its communication on certain legal aspects concerning intra-Community investment (1). The Commission has had concerns on certain aspects of the legal regime in Italy governing privatisation, as well as in certain other Member States. These concerns are reflected in several cases currently before the Court of justice (C-58/99 in the case of Italy). It might be noted that the issues in contention have generally concerned the reservation of special powers to the state in companies that have been, or are being, privatised, or explicit restrictions on foreign participation. With the guarantee that Community’s rules on free movement of capital and establishment and the principles settled by the Court’s case-law and set out in the Communication are respected, the Commission would not feel that the freedom of capital movements and establishment would extend to prescriptions on how exactly a privatisation should be organised or, should this not be by way of a public offering, on the Member State’s freedom of choice as to which interested party a particular company is sold. Nevertheless, the implementation of such a decision, if restrictive of free movement of capital, must be based on measures which fulfil four conditions settled down in the above-mentioned case-law: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective that they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.

Having studied the ministerial decree in the light of Community competition rules, the Commission notes above all that whatever procedure is followed, the sale will enable new operators to acquire production capacity hitherto in the hands of ENEL. The ultimate objective of the decree is to allow new competitors to enter the electricity production market. Thus, the measure in itself pursues an objective favourable to competition.

The Honourable Member underlined the risk that the sale procedures followed by the Government might enable ENEL to abuse its dominant position. The Commission considers there is no evidence for the time being that the procedure selected will enable ENEL to abuse its dominant position.

(1) OJ C 220, 19.7.1997. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/143

(2000/C 330 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0372/00 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Implementation in the UK of Article 33 of the EC Treaty

Is the Commission satisfied that the United Kingdom is honouring its obligations under Article 33(1)(b) of the EC Treaty (consolidated version)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the EC Treaty sets out the objectives of the common agricultural policy. As the Court of justice has stated, it is the responsibility of the Community institutions, in adopting the common organisation of agricultural markets under the EC Treaty, to secure the permanent harmonisation between the various objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 33, which may prove to be contradictory, and, where necessary, allow any one of them temporary priority in order to satisfy the demands of the economic factors or conditions in view of which their decisions are made. The Court has repeatedly referred to the broad discretion which the Community institutions have in this respect.

As a result, in principle no single one of the objectives listed in Article 33 constitutes, in itself, an appropriate yardstick by which the acts of any individual Member State are to be judged, and it therefore does not fall to the Commission to make any such judgment. Of course, the Member States, in applying the common agricultural policy within their competence, are subject to the general principles of Community law, and specific rules laid down in Community legislation, and it is the Commission’s task to ensure compliance with these requirements in specific cases.

(2000/C 330 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0374/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Higher education in the United Kingdom

Does not the Commission feel that its educational programmes such as Erasmus and Socrates (which offer all EU students the chance to study in other Member States), are being undermined by the inequitable situation in the UK whereby a non-British student wishing to study in Scotland will have the payment of fees deferred, whilst one wishing to study in England will have to pay upon enrolment?

Does not the Commission agree that this situation gives Scottish universities an unfair advantage over their English, Welsh and Northern Irish competitors when trying to enrol students, and does it not agree that this therefore constitutes a breach of EU competition law?

(2000/C 330 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0375/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Higher education tuition fees

Devolution within the UK now presents a situation whereby students from other Member States in the EU will be exempt from paying tuition fees in Scotland but not in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. C 330 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

If, for example, a French student studying in Scotland did not have to pay fees, although a French student studying in England, which is still the same Member State, did have to pay fees, would the Commission consider this to be discrimination?

(2000/C 330 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0376/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Higher education tuition fees

Devolution in the UK has led to the anomaly where Scottish and EU students will be exempt from paying tuition fees in Scotland whereas English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will be the only EU students who are not exempt.

As there is no precedent for this type of devolution within the EU, does the Commission feel that this constitutes a case of discrimination against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students? If so, what actions do it intend to take?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0374/00, E-0375/00 and E-0376/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

Under the terms the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of its teaching and the organisation of its education system.

Under Community law, the Member States are not obliged to award grants or aid to help students to cover their education fees. This is a matter for the Member States to decide. It is only when a Member State awards grants of this kind to nationals that the Treaty requires it to treat non-nationals in the same way. The principle of equal treatment means, in practice, that all teaching establishments must accept students from other Member States under the same conditions as their own nationals. Students may therefore not be required to make any extra payment on grounds of nationality.

Given that students from other Member States are treated in education establishments in Scotland in the same way as students from that country, the situation to which the Honourable Member refers does not involve discrimination on grounds of nationality and is therefore not contrary to Article 12(ex Article 6) of the EC Treaty.

The fact that the regulations governing enrolment fees are different in the rest of the United Kingdom is a matter of national law and is not within the Community’s competence.

As regards the mobility of students under the Erasmus programme, the general rule is that all students participating in the programme are exempted from enrolment fees. Consequently, the Scottish arrangements do not affect mobility under Erasmus.

Finally, as regards the application of the competition rules to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission feels that the activities of universities within the national education system should not be considered as commercial or financial activities and that the competition rules do not therefore apply.

Nor can these activities be regarded as services within the meaning of the Treaty. The Court of Justice has already ruled that courses provided in a higher education establishment which are funded primarily by the State do not constitute services within the meaning of Article 50 (ex Article 60) of the EC Treaty. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/145

If the measures to which the question refers apply to university and higher education establishments, where the purpose of the Member State is not to make a profit but to fulfil its duty to its population in the social, cultural and educational field, this does not constitute a service within the meaning of the Treaty. In fact, the system referred to is generally funded by the State and not by the students or their parents. In any case, the nature of the activity is not affected by the fact that the students or their parents are sometimes obliged to pay education fees to make some contribution to the operating costs.

(2000/C 330 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0379/00

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

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Measures to provide information on the current denied-boarding compensation system

The Commission proposal COM(1998) 41 final (1) of 30 January 1998 proposed amendments to Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (2) and established common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport.

In the proposal the Commission stated its intention of increasing information to passengers, which was deemed insufficient, in particular by displaying notices at check-in counters (Article 3). In addition, the Commission intended to launch an information campaign on passengers’ rights to compensation when denied boarding.

Is the Commission aware that notices on passengers’ rights in cases of overbooking are not displayed on check-in counters? Does it intend to take any measures to combat this?

Given the cases of malpractice by airlines of which the Commission is aware in which passengers have not received compensation, or have been only partially compensated, as a direct result of a lack of information, could the Commission indicate when it will carry out the information campaign to European citizens, and the various forms this will take?

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 18. (2) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The Commission has for some years been concerned about the implementation and effectiveness of Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport. It became aware of a number of cases in which passengers were not fully compensated, largely because they were not informed of their rights.

This led the Commission to propose, two years ago, the amendment of the Regulation. One aim of the amending regulation was to improve information for passengers by the display of notices at check-in points. However adoption of the regulation has not been completed by the Council. Consequently there is no obligation at present to put up notices at check-in counters.

Faced by delay in the adoption of the amendment, the Commission recently launched a study on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91. The aim of the study is, first, to make an inventory of the legal measures that Member States have taken to apply the regulation and of the rules that airlines have laid down to deal with overbooking and, second, to assess how all these measures have worked in practice. The Commission will then consider whether further action is needed. C 330 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

However the Commission well understands the necessity of ensuring passengers are informed about their rights, if they are to insist on their respect. For that reason, it plans to launch an immediate initiative to improve information to passengers. It intends to arrange for the publication and display, in airports, travel agencies and the offices of airlines, of a charter of all existing rights. This would cover compensation for denied boarding, among other things.

(2000/C 330 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/00

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

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Improving road safety by tackling accident ‘black spots’ and sections of road with high accident rates

The most recent information concerning the new communication on road safety currently being drawn up by the Commission seems to indicate that the new programme ‘classifies’ the proposed measures by order of effectiveness, on the basis of the now-popular measure of EUR 1 million.

However, like previous programmes, which were too general in nature, the new communication may miss a unique opportunity to take more decisive action on infrastructure and, more specifically, on ‘black spots’, using engineering techniques which experts term ‘low cost’.

What effectiveness rating does the Commission’s new communication attach to tackling accident black spots and improving sections of road with high accident rates as a road safety measure?

Does the Commission intend to issue Europe-wide recommendations on the definition and typology of these ‘low-cost engineering techniques’?

Finally, does the Commission intend to draw up Europe-wide recommendations on tackling accident black spots, and to create a budget line for co-financing relevant projects at national level?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

In its forthcoming communication on road safety, the low cost infrastructure measures including improvements to the layout and design of roadside objects to reduce the severity of injury in a road accident, and management of black spots, have been identified as priorities.

In general these measures appear to be very cost-effective with an estimated cost per avoided fatality starting at around € 80 000.

Investments in these infrastructure measures have to be left to local authorities but the Commission will develop guidelines in order to exchange best practice experience. Moreover authorities at all levels are recommended to bring the benefit of such measures closer to those who decide on the investments by means of targeted financial programmes. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/147

(2000/C 330 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Information and direction signs for international traffic on the trans-European road network (TERN)

One of the main features of the trans-European network is ‘interoperability’. The European Commission, working together with the Member States, has made considerable efforts to achieve this, in accordance with the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. The Motorway Working Group and the Action Start subgroup were established to work towards the creation of Community rules to harmonise various technical aspects, including information and direction signs within the trans-European road network (TERN), in order to ensure interoperability.

However, despite the efforts of the Action Start subgroup, information and direction signs within the TERN continue to be characterised by a lack of continuity and harmonisation.

Does the Commission intend to draw up Community rules to reflect the conclusions of the work of the Action Start subgroup?

What additional measures does the Commission intend to take, in the light of the report of the Action Start subgroup, to ensure interoperability within the trans-European road network and minimise the confusion which the current lack of harmonisation of information and direction signs creates for the international traffic which uses it?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

The Vienna Convention on road signs and signals (1) establishes a common system for warning, priority, prohibitory and mandatory road signs, but contains only very general rules for direction signs.

The Start Action, in 1994, which aimed at evaluating the interoperability needs for the establishment of the Trans European road network (TERN), firstly recommended that Member States apply this Convention, and secondly proposed that the Community complements it with other requirements. The Commission recognised that the harmonisation of road signs would be perceived by European citizens as a strong symbol of European integration, it considered however that such legislative action was not opportune as two Member States have not signed the Vienna Convention (Ireland, Netherlands) and three others have not ratified it (Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom), even if they largely apply it.

However the current revision process for the Community guidelines on the development of the Trans European transport network offers the opportunity to reassess this position. The Commission will consider how best to ensure the interoperability and quality of the TEN-T in its report on the revision of the Community guidelines that will be submitted to the Parliament and Council in the middle of 2000.

(1) Convention on road signs and signals, adopted by the United Nations Economic commission for Europe, of 8 November 1968, revised in 1993 and 1995.

(2000/C 330 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0383/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Adaptation to technical progress of motor vehicles

The accession of the European Community, by decision of the Council, to the agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on the adoption of technical specifications for motor vehicles (more commonly known as the Revised 1958 Agreement) was a decisive step towards the stated firm political commitment to eliminating technical trade barriers within the European Union. C 330 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

However, inexplicably, the accession was not total, since the act of accession did not incorporate all of the regulations listed in the annex of the agreement on the date of signing (27 November 1997). This situation, combined with the fact that the number of regulations has increased since then, means that there has not been full adaptation to technical progress in this sector.

Does the Commission intend to complete this list by the end of 2000 in order to incorporate in the act of accession all those regulations contained in the Revised 1958 Agreement which are currently outstanding?

Is there any legal or technical obstacle to full incorporation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

With the adoption of Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997, the Community has become a Contracting Party to the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) Revised 1958 Agreement on 24 March 1998. At the date of its accession to this Agreement, the Community has restricted its accession to the recognition of 78 Regulations annexed to it.

It has been agreed that UN-ECE Regulations which are binding on the Community are to be published in the Official journal before their entry into force. In the meantime, the Member States accept approvals even when granted by other Contracting Parties and grant approvals according to these Regulations.

Ever since the Community’s accession to the UN-ECE 1958 Revised Agreement the number of Regulations has remained unchanged. In order for new UN-ECE Regulations to be adopted, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after the assent of the Parliament, has to approve them first. Several new draft UN-ECE Regulations are currently being examined by the Council with the intention of having them recognized by the Community. It should also be recalled that the Parliament has already given its assent to two of them.

With regard to existing UN-ECE Regulations which have not been recognized by the Community at the time of its accession to the Revised 1958 UN-ECE Agreement it should be underlined that the Commission intends to gradually submit proposals to the Council and to the European Parliament, aimed at the Community’s adhesion to the remaining Regulations. At the time of its adhesion to the UN-ECE 1958 Revised Agreement, the Community in fact considered these remaining 31 Regulations first needed to be adapted to technical progress by UN-ECE before the Community could adhere to them. This adaptation is currently being processed by UN-ECE working groups. As soon as this work is finalised, the Commission will table the appropriate proposals.

It should also be underlined that the Community has played an active role in the UN-ECE decision making process with regard to the amendment of UN-ECE Regulations to which it has adhered. Thus, between November 1998 and October 1999, the Community has accepted some thirty amendments to UN-ECE Regulations it has recognized.

For reasons of transparency, the Commission will examine the possibility to establish a register showing the actual state of application of UN-ECE Regulations by the Community.

(2000/C 330 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0385/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Anti-advertising chip in televisions

Some televisions nowadays have an electronic chip which automatically allows advertisements to be eliminated and alternative pictures shown. The technology is comparable to that of the chip in a radio which provides traffic news. The advantage to consumers is that they can avoid seeing advertisements. Advertisers will have a motivated audience. The alternative to advertising could be funded by gradually reducing the tax deductibility of advertising costs. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/149

Activating the chip requires a change in legislation so that it would be obligatory to emit a signal when an advertisement starts. Rules are also needed on offering an alternative.

Hence, there is a need for European rules making the chip compulsory for all televisions that are placed on the market.

Can the Commission say whether European rules making it compulsory to fit a chip are feasible and desirable?

What initiatives will the Commission take to introduce such rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the new technical possibility of allowing viewers to replace television (TV) commercials with substitute pictures. This approach would require the insertion of an appropriate chip in television receivers to detect advertising. The Commission understands that no system has yet been defined to undertake this task, although certain technical elements of the radio data system might provide a technical basis for such a capability in radio.

The Honourable Member considers that on the one hand, this capability would be of interest to viewers wishing to avoid advertising and on the other, to advertisers interested in reaching only those consumers who are receptive to their commercial communications. The Honourable Member suggests that the replacement pictures could be financed by progressive reduction in the tax deductibility associated with advertising expenditure. The Honourable Member believes that a change in law would be required to allow for such signals to be transmitted by broadcasters and furthermore to ensure that the required infrastructure be put in place to allow for these ‘replacement broadcasts’. The Honourable Member therefore asks the Commission whether it believes it to be desirable to legislate for the insertion of these chips in televisions to be made mandatory.

First, the Commission sees the usefulness of this technical concept for consumers who do not wish to receive TV advertising. It also agrees that advertisers prefer to target those consumers who are most amenable to advertising. It would therefore seem that this concept should be of interest to both TV viewers and advertisers and that there would therefore be a market for it. In the event that such an innovation would be a viable proposition for any TV manufacturer, the Commission does not therefore see any reason to legislate in this area. One should also consider that broadcasting technology is changing. The introduction of digital television will make possible new forms of advertising, but also give consumers more control, thanks to interactivity. Any system developed for analogue television risks obsolescence.

Secondly, it is clear that commercial TV broadcasters whose sole source of funding is the sale of advertising and sponsorship time, would as a consequence of the spread of this technology, have to respond by either changing their existing media sales rates or consider charging consumers for this ‘premium, advertising clear’ service. The Commission, again, does not believe that legislation is necessary to force them to offer such a service that has a clear value-added to viewers and advertisers.

Finally, the Commission does not believe that the Honourable Member’s suggestion of decreasing tax deductibility on advertising expenditures would be of assistance in this matter. On the contrary, this would further reduce the demand for advertising space by advertisers which in turn would put further pressure on commercial TV broadcasters and thus worsen their chances of developing an appropriate funding method for diffusing such an interesting technology. In addition, at the present stage the Commission sees no prospects of the adoption of Community rules, which would in fact amount to partial harmonisation of national legislation concerning deductibility on advertising expenditures for direct tax purposes. C 330 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0393/00 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Council Directive 91/628 (as amended by Council Directive 95/29 of June 1995) on protection of animals during transport

Council Directive 91/628 (1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29 (2) concerning the protection of animals during transport states that no live animal shall be transported in a condition which can cause suffering and that the Member States are responsible for the proper enforcement of the Directive.

According to Article 13 of Council Directive 95/29 of June 1995, the Commission should submit before 31 December 1999 a report to the Council on the experience acquired by the Member States since the implementation of the Directive, possibly accompanied by proposals. When does the Commission expect to comply with this requirement?

Does the Commission agree that the proposals accompanying the Commission’s report to the Council should call for the EU to adopt a major change of policy whereby the long distance transport of live animals is abandoned and replaced by a trade in meat?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. (2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

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 agricultural, transport, single market and research policies.

During the first quarter of this year following the provision of Article 13 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport, the Commission will present to the Council a report on the experience acquired by Member States in the application of Community legislation in this field.

It is the Commission’s view that, if all provisions of Community legislation are rigorously enforced, animals can be transported under satisfactory welfare conditions. However, it is evident that problems are being experienced, especially with very long distance travel, both within the Community and for animals imported from European third countries. These problems are being kept under close review by the Commission, and are drawn to the attention of Member States as and when they occur.

The data concerning the enforcement of the Directive on animal protection during transport derived from the above mentioned report as well as new scientific evidence in this subject will be taken into account by the Commission to amend current Community legislation.

(2000/C 330 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0395/00 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Canadian seal cull quota

The Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Herb Dhaliwal, has recently announced the quota for seal hunting. The 2000 quota is set at 275 000 for zadel seals and 10 000 for klapmutsen. These quotas are the same as last year but in previous years the quotas were on the increase (having quadrupled since 1995). 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/151

Studies published in the scientific journals Maríne Mammal Science (July 1999) and Conservation Biology (28 October 1999) indicate that the actual number of seals killed by hunting (zadel seals) in Canada and Greenland was between 417 000 and 533 000 last year. The studies sat that if ‘sustainable hunting’ means that hunting does not result in a fall in population (i.e. the birth rate keeps pace with the number of seals killed), the actual number of seals killed should be in the order of 93 000 and 264 000. Accordingly, the number of seals killed as a result of hunting should be adjusted downwards.

1. Is the Commission aware of the publications in the periodicals referred to above?

2. In the Commission’s view, how do the results of these studies relate to the quota laid down by the Canadian government?

3. Is the Commission prepared to take action to urge the Canadian government to change its policy? If so, what action?

4. Can the Commission provide any information on compliance with the seals directive (83/129/ EEC) (1), as amended in 1985 and 1989? Can the Commission guarantee that Member States are actually complying with this directive?

(1) OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the scientific publications mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The quotas for harp and hooded seal hunting in Canada have remained unchanged since 1996 and neither species is considered endangered, according to the International Union for conservation of nature and natural resources (IUCN) red list of threatened animals. The Commission takes it that the Canadian authorities are aware of problems concerning the relation between quotas and effective harvest numbers and that for that reason an extensive harp seal population survey has been conducted by the Canadian Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans in 1999 with final results expected in spring 2000. Consequently the Commission sees no need to intervene in this matter.

The Commission has no reason to assume that Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom, which only concerns furs of whitecoat pups of harp seals and of blueback pups of hooded seals, is not correctly implemented in the Member States. Some years ago miscoding of lambskins led to the impression that whitehead skins had been imported into the Community. Commercial harvesting of whitecoats and bluebacks is against the law in Canada. As a result of this measure it appears that trade in these specific kinds of seal skins has petered out.

(2000/C 330 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/00

by Doris Pack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: FIBT advertising rights on bobsleighs, helmets and competitors’ clothing

In its International Rules on World Cup and European and world championship competitions, the Milan- based FIBT (International Bobsleighing and Tobogganing Federation) claims ownership of items that belong to competitors and clubs and/or national associations. C 330 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

At the highest levels, bobsleighing is generally a professional sport. As a rule, the bobsleighs and other equipment used are the property of bobsleigh team members or of the clubs to which they belong or of the national associations sponsoring them.

In Section 1.13.3.2 of its International Rules, the FIBT declares, in breach of the rights of ownership and personal rights of competing team members, clubs and national associations, that 50 cm2 on each side of a bobsleigh and the lower third of its cowling, including the surfaces of the front lateral bumpers, is FIBT property.

The FIBT makes it difficult for top bobsleigh teams, clubs and national associations to find sponsors and so restricts their freedom to develop economic activity.

Will the Commission therefore state whether the FIBT rules on advertising space on bobsleighs, helmets and competitors’ clothing run counter to Community case-law as it is currently evolving with regard to professional sport?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

On the basis of the information provided in the Honourable Member’s question, the Commission finds it difficult to give a definitive answer. Full knowledge of the economic and legal facts and of the specific features of the sport, together with a definition of the market concerned, are needed in order to assess whether a federation’s behaviour is restrictive within the meaning of the competition rules.

In any case, the right to allocate advertising space is a matter for national law. Should the various national laws grant the International Bobsleighing and Tobagganing Federation (FIBT) the right to decide on the use of advertising space, it would be necessary to consider whether the behaviour referred to by the Honourable Member is the result of an agreement prohibited under Article 81 (former Article 85) of the EC Treaty or could constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 (former Article 86) of the EC Treaty. The Commission does not have the information to carry out an analysis which would enable it to determine whether the behaviour referred to by the Honourable Member affects trade between Member States or whether the FIBT, on the assumption that it acts as an undertaking, holds a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market.

(2000/C 330 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/00

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Impartiality of EU food monitoring

Between 11 and 21 October 1998, European Union veterinary inspectors made an inspection visit to the Kola peninsula in Russia with the aim of ascertaining whether it would be possible to grant permission for reindeer meat and game to be imported into the EU from that source.

According to the inspection report (XXIV/1472/98), a representative of an enterprise with an interest in imports of reindeer meat from the Kola peninsula took part in the Commission’s inspection mission. The report states that the enterprise helped to organise the journey and arranged interpreting services for meetings.

Is it standard practice for representatives of commercial enterprises to participate in EU inspection missions in third countries? Is it likely to boost consumer confidence in the impartiality of the EU’s food monitoring if parties with commercial interests participate in inspection missions? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/153

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

As indicated in the report (available on the Europa website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/), to which the Honourable Members refer, the mission team comprised two vets from the Commission, and one from the Finnish ministry of Agriculture. Two members of the team were fluent in Russian, which was the language used during the mission. It proved impossible to obtain official interpretation support for the third inspector. For these reasons, it was necessary to take exceptional measures, which fell outside normal food and veterinary office practices, to ensure the successful performance and completion of the mission.

To this end, the assistance of an interpreter for the third inspector, provided through the Swedish-owned exporting company, was accepted. In addition, the mission programme was finalised with the regional, rather than the central, official veterinary services, with assistance from the Swedish exporting company. A director of that company travelled with the team to assist with travel arrangements, but he did not form part of the team and, as is made clear in the report, did not participate in any of the technical meetings during the mission. The performance of the mission, and the reporting of its findings, conclusions and recommendations, were in no way prejudiced by this arrangement. All travel and accommodation arrangements were made fully in accordance with Commission rules.

The Commission is very aware of the need to ensure that consumers have confidence in the impartiality of its inspection and control activities. The findings of the mission, as is evidenced by the publication of the report, were achieved in a fully transparent and independent manner. They were accepted by the Member States in the standing veterinary committee on 10th February 1999.

(2000/C 330 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0406/00 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Council

(16 February 2000)

Subject: Compensation for German shipping and transport firms operating on the Danube following the closing of the Yugoslav section of the Danube

A number of firms in Regensburg (Germany) are specialised in transport operations from Germany to destinations below Yugoslavia on the Danube. As a result of the war in Kosovo,the destruction of bridges over the Danube, and the subsequent closure of the Yugoslav section of the Danube the business operations of these firms have come to a halt. Since these firms specialise in vey specific transport operations on the Danube, they have practically no possibility of branching out into other areas of activity.

Can the Council therefore provide the following information:

1. Should these firms be regarded as victims of the Kosovo war in the same way as firms situated in Kosovo itself?

2. Are these firms eligible for financial restructuring aid to offset their losses?

3. Are these companies entitled to non-reimbursable aid for restructuring or consolidation to offset their ongoing losses and to publicly guaranteed investment aid?

(2 May 2000)

The Council informs the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to decide on aid granted by Member States under the provisions of Articles 87 et seq of the EC Treaty. C 330 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0409/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Reduction of peat use in horticulture

What steps is the Commission taking to encourage a reduction in the use of peat in domestic and commercial horticulture and to promote the use of alternatives in order to protect lowland peatbog habitats?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

With regard to the search for alternatives to the use of peat in horticulture, the Commission is evaluating the possibility of regulating the production of compost from the biodegradable fraction of municipal waste. Compost of suitable quality (in terms of presence of heavy metals, organic compounds and pathogens) may replace peat in a number of applications in domestic and commercial horticulture.

However, the key mechanism involving the Community for the protection of lowland peatbog habitats is the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

The Community has also supported many projects for the conservation and restoration of peatbogs under the Life Regulation.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, as amended by Council Directive 97/62/CE of 27.10.1997, OJ L 305, 8.11.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/00 by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Council

(17 February 2000)

Subject: Mission financed by the Commission for customs reform in Albania

Mrs Natalina Cea, head of the mission financed by the Commission in Albania for customs reform, has announced that after three years she is leaving the post which she has filled with great professionalism, having shown commitment and courage in carrying out her tasks throughout this period.

The mission has achieved positive results, having put the Albanian customs system back into operation and thus permitted a very large increase in State customs revenue; in addition, it has provided crucial help in redrafting Albanian customs legislation.

Mrs Cea has reported a serious climate of intimidation and obstacles in carrying out her work.

The Italian customs department, from which Mrs Cea was transferred, has always actively supported and valued the work of the head of the mission and, on learning of her request for rotation, submitted to the Commission a proposal for her replacement, thus confirming its own commitment to continuing in this difficult ongoing mission with the aim of combating illegality and intensifying the fight against crime.

In the light of the above:

1. What is the Council’s view on the situation in Albania with regard to this specific delicate area of cooperation?

2. Does it not consider that the mission should be stepped up further and actively supported, despite the obstacles met with to date? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/155

3. In view of the commitment of and the specific experience acquired by the Italian customs department in this field, does the Council not consider that, in order to guarantee the continued effectiveness of the mission, it would be advisable to maintain a close relationship with the Italian customs department and therefore give priority consideration to the candidate already put forward by the department to replace Mrs Cea?

(2 May 2000)

The Council has, on several occasions, confirmed the readiness of the European Union to support Albania in its stabilisation and reform process, in particular through ongoing Community assistance.

While welcoming the efforts made by the Albanian authorities in tackling economic, political and institutional weaknesses, the Council has also made it clear that a condition for a successful participation of the country in the Stabilisation and Association Process for South East Europe, will be that a number of issues are addressed, in particular the consolidation of the rule of law and acceleration of structural reforms.

The setting up of a stable and effective customs administration clearly is one of the issues, and the particular project to which the Honourable Parliamentarian makes reference, the Customs Assistance Mission, is the most important project financed by the Community in this field, and the Council follows it with great interest and concern.

The Council hence shares the view of the Honourable Parliamentarian that continued effectiveness of the Customs Mission is of the utmost importance. It therefore regrets the departure of the Head of Mission. The Council clearly cannot express itself on management and appointments within the Mission. It will, however, support the Commission in its efforts to conduct a selection procedure based on professional qualifications, which will allow for the appointment of a new Head of Mission who fulfils the requirements for the job.

In this context the Council would like to refer to the answer by the Commission to your written question number P-405/00.

(2000/C 330 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Eliminating the dangers of using depleted uranium in (civil) aviation

1. Is the Commission aware of the report in the New Scientist (UK) for 15 January 2000 investigating the crash of the Korean-Air Boeing 747 in Essex, UK, in December 1999, which reveals in particular that the (civilian) airliner was carrying 300 kg of depleted uranium in the tail, not as cargo but as a counterweight?

2. Is the Commission aware that such quantities of depleted uranium are built into older aircraft in particular on a large scale?

3. Is the Commission also aware of the serious dangers to public health that can be caused by depleted uranium, the best known examples being the Bijlmermeer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) air crash and, on a vastly greater scale, the Gulf War in Iraq?

4. Can the Commission state to what rules, European or worldwide, the use of depleted uranium in aircraft construction is subject?

5. Can the Commission state what rules exist concerning the processing of depleted uranium during the dismantling of aircraft and the processing of depleted uranium in the event of disasters?

6. What action will the Commission take to eliminate completely the dangers posed by the use of depleted uranium in aircraft? C 330 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

Not being in possession of all the details of the Korean Air Boeing 747 accident in Essex, United Kingdom, in December 1999, the Commission recently enquired into this matter at the request of Parliament’s Committee on Petitions.

The enquiry confirmed that depleted uranium was indeed used, in the past, in the construction of aircraft, including the Boeing 747, on account of its high density. This practice was abandoned in 1981, and uranium has gradually been replaced by other metals.

It is true that aircraft containing depleted uranium remain in service, but the enquiry carried out by the Dutch authorities following the El Al Boeing accident on 4 October 1992 near Amsterdam showed that the likelihood of an accident involving one of these aircraft having a harmful effect on public health was negligible.

Community law contains no provisions excluding the use of depleted uranium in aircraft construction. The findings of the abovementioned enquiry confirmed that there is no need, given our current level of knowledge, for the few aircraft still containing depleted uranium to be banned from use.

(2000/C 330 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/00 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 February 2000)

Subject: Respect for human rights in EU foreign policy

The Europe-Africa summit conference will provide an excellent opportunity for promoting a rapproche- ment, furthering mutual understanding and establishing new ties of cooperation between the two continents.

The European Union must insist on the adoption of an agenda which includes the principles of democracy and respect for human rights.

What subjects does the Council propose should be included in the agenda of this summit conference? Does it intend to include equality of treatment of men and women and the protection of children and compliance with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child?

(2 May 2000)

The Council shares the Honourable Member’s view that the Africa-Europe Summit to take place in Cairo on 3 and 4 April 2000 will provide an excellent opportunity, at the threshold of the new century, to establish a strategic partnership between the Member States of the European Union and the States of the African continent, a partnership which will be based on the historical heritage which unites us and on our common interest in promoting peace, democracy, human rights, development and the eradication of poverty.

The subjects for debate by the Heads of State or Government attending the summit have been agreed jointly by the European Union and its African partners. They range over the fields of politics, economics and development. The European Union attaches particular importance to the political dialogue with its African partners, which will include in-depth discussion of the promotion of democracy and human rights, including the subjects to which the Honourable Member refers. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/157

(2000/C 330 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/00

by Giorgos Katiforis (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Commission dispute with the International Automobile Federation

Can the Commission explain why it took until the end of June 1999 to issue its statement of objections against the International Automobile Federation (FIA) when the FIA voluntarily notified its rules and statutes to the Commission in July 1994, and can it state what technical reports were commissioned by the Competition Department in support of its objections?

Can the Commission explain why it saw a need to break its own rules of confidentiality and brief the press illegally regarding the FIA case, and, after its actions were condemned by the Court of First Instance, can it state what disciplinary action was taken against those who authorised this illegal action?

Can the Commission inform the House of the total costs involved in defending its case against the FIA in the Court of First Instance, including (a) the costs awarded against it, and (b) the man hours expended by the legal services in defending the case?

Can the Commission guarantee that if its statement of objections against the FIA is adopted, this will not lead to the current practice of free-to-air broadcasting of Formula One for European citizens being eroded or scrapped?

Can the Commission confirm that the report on sport by Commissioner Reding, adopted by the Commission in December 1999 and submitted to the Helsinki European Summit, is the most up-to-date and definitive statement by the Commission on the issue of sports governance and the application of internal market rules, and if so could the Commission confirm that all its departments would be expected to pay due regard of its contents when acting on behalf of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

The Honourable Member’s question relates to a pending competition investigation. As regards parliamentary questions on pending cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the letter of the then competition Commissioner dated 28th January 1999 to the then Chairman of the Parliament committee on Economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy which explained that only limited, general and non-confidential information can be provided in relation to pending cases.

As regards the delays involved in these cases, the Commission would also like to refer the Honourable Member to the above mentioned letter, in which the Commission stated that the International automobile federation (FIA) itself extended the scope of the case by modifying its rules and by filing a new notification concerning Formula One in September 1997. The same letter also explained that, after the date of the initial notification, the Commission received a number of complaints against the FIA.

The Competition Directorate general did not commission any technical reports in the FIA−related cases. The necessary information was provided by the parties involved or third parties either on their own initiative or upon the Commission’s request.

The issue of the leak to the press was settled by the Commission’s public apology on 26 July 1999 (press release IP/99/564) and the order of the Court of first instance (CFI) dated 6 December 1999 (Case T-85/ 98). The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to this order. Due to the fact that no professional fault had been established, this incident did not warrant any disciplinary action. C 330 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

In the above mentioned Order, the CFI fixed the total costs payable by the Commission at € 40 000 whereas the FIA had requested an amount of € 400 000. The Commission cannot give any relevant information on the man hours spent by its legal services in defending the case before the CFI which was settled at an early stage. The Commission staff and budgetary regulations do not provide for a method for such calculations. Moreover, the Court of justice held (Case C-409/96T/DEP) that the work undertaken by Commission officials who act as agents for the Commission is part of their duties as officials and that no portion thereof can be specifically attributed to the representation and defence in a particular case.

As regards the fourth question, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the statement of objections was already adopted by the Commission on 29 June 1999. The Commission expects that any final action in the present case will have the effect of stimulating competition in the relevant broadcasting market.

Finally, the Commission confirms that its report on sport of December 1999 mentioned by the Honourable Member is the most current Commission statement on its overall policy in sport related issues and that all departments in the Commission are taking due regard of its contents in their respective actions.

(2000/C 330 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0434/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Housing safety standards

With reference to Written Question E-2480/99 and the Commission reply (1), and while questioning in passing the fact that the Commission did not consider it necessary to introduce legislation laying down safety standards for housing, despite the many recent incidents that have alerted us to this issue, can the Commission explain why a directive adopted twelve years ago (Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988) (2) has not yet been transposed into the individual Member States’ domestic law?

Does the Commission agree that it is possible that a directive dating back so far no longer corresponds to current safety standards for housing, and requires updating?

So, while we urgently request that a directive be drawn up on housing safety standards, could the Commission also take action to speed up the process of drawing up technical specifications, which supposedly is being carried out by the standards organisations, with a view to laying down harmonised and, as far as possible, definitive standards?

Finally, could the Commission set out the criteria for the implementation of the reference directive, once it has been updated or transposed into law?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 52. (2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Members’ concerns regarding housing safety standards in the Community.

For several years the Commission has made a considerable effort to bring about harmonisation of the different types and methods of design and construction both in the building industry and in public works, in so far as its mandate and means have allowed. These efforts resulted both in the adoption of Council Directive 89/106/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products and in the preparation of Eurocodes. The Commission would also like to point out that all Member States have transposed this Directive, the latest being Belgium in 1998. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/159

However, this legislative instrument requires harmonised technical specifications detailing all ‘safety’ aspects i.e. essential requirements for all product families which are supposed to be construction- related. These specifications must allow the products to be incorporated permanently in construction works, ensuring that they respect the essential requirements of structural safety, environmental standards and energy conservation.

These technical specifications are drawn up by two bodies: the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA) in accordance with the new approach to technical harmonisation and standards and with the principle of subsidiarity (1). In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, building safety is the responsibility of Member States.

The Commission believes the Directive is still up-to-date as the expected technical specifications correspond to scientific and technical progress and to advancements in the state of the art.

The Commission has completed its programme for drawing up standardisation mandates for the fifty product families approved by the Standing Committee on Construction; the CEN must draw up harmonised standards and the EOTA must provide harmonised technical approval. The Commission is currently concentrating all its efforts on ensuring that the two bodies provide, as a matter of urgency, harmonised specifications per mandate and per contract.

(1) Council Resolution of 7 May 1985, OJ C 136, 4.6.1985.

(2000/C 330 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0440/00 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Procedure for concluding contracts under the Fifth framework programme for research

Now that the legal basis for the Fifth framework programme for research has been established, there is increasing criticism of the arrangements for contracts, in particular that they are padded out with unnecessary information and dealt with too slowly. These are circumstances which could be a disincentive to participation in the programme.

Is the Commission aware of such problems in concluding contracts under the framework programme for research?

What speedy and effective action does the Commission intend to take to simplify the procedure for concluding contracts?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of a number of complaints relating to the complexity of the procedures that were set up in 1999 for the Fifth Framework programme.

At the end of 1999 the Commissioner responsible for research established an interservice group to review procedures in the light of the experience of the first year of the programme. The aim of the group is to simplify a number of steps in the procedures, to the extent that this is possible under the existing rules which apply to the programme. The Commission would hope to take the first decisions to simplify internal procedures in March 2000. The review process will then continue in order to identify other measures that might be taken. C 330 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0443/00

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Council

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Domestic fuel oil for opposition towns in Serbia

1. What towns in Yugoslavia receive oil from the EU?

2. What criteria are applied?

3. Why is the town of Pancevo not included?

4. Can the Council answer these questions a little more promptly than usual on account of the winter?

(2 May 2000)

1. The Council invited the Commission at its meeting on 24 January to extend the ‘Energy for Democracy’ initiative, as suggested by the Serbian opposition forces after the Berlin trilateral meeting with the EU and the US of 17 December 1999. The final decision on which communities should benefit was left to the Commission, being responsible for the implementation of the budget. On the basis of a proposal by the Commission, a decision was adopted by the Council to amend the Common Position 1999/691/CFSP on support to democratic forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), authorising the supply, sale or export of petroleum and petroleum products to the Serbian municipalities of Sombor, Subotica, Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Novi Sad.

2. The choice of municipalities was based on the priority list tabled by the Serbian opposition forces themselves. Particular attention was given to the municipalities which have a great number of socially vulnerable persons, as well as social institutions of regional character.

3. Pancevo was not among the priority municipalities indicated by the Serbian opposition.

4. The Council reiterates its readiness to continue supporting Serbian people in need and recalls that humanitarian assistance already provided by the Community for 1999, amounted to € 72,1 million for Serbia alone, while member States contributed with almost the same amount.

(2000/C 330 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0448/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: BSE in France

In view of the findings of the Commission’s veterinary mission to France (DG SANCO 1058/99) will the Commission undertake a follow-up investigation into current practices there, including (a) ineffective examination of BSE suspect cases, (b) re-admission of suspect cases and fallen stock into the human food chain, (c) levels of contamination of cattle feed by meat and bone meal, and will he place on record correspondence with the French Ministry of Agriculture subsequent to Mr Bernard Vallat’s letter of 24 November 1999? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/161

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The mission report, together with the comments of the French authorities on the draft report, have already been published on the Internet.

The Commission’s standard procedure for follow-up to veterinary mission findings is to give the Member State the opportunity to provide details of the action taken and planned in relation to the recommendations contained in the mission report. In the case of the veterinary mission to France (DG SANCO/1058/ 1999) the Commission has requested a reply from the French authorities. The Commission will take whatever follow-up action is necessary, in the light of this reply.

Follow-up action will apply to all deficiencies observed, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) monitoring, readmission of suspect cases into the food chain and implementation of the meat and bone meal (MBM) ban. The mission team found that fallen stock (i.e. animals which died on the farm) are excluded from BSE surveillance, but it found no evidence that fallen stock enters the human food chain in France.

(2000/C 330 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0449/00

by Harlem Désir (PSE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Political situation in Austria and amendment of the Treaties

As was pointed out by Commission President Romano Prodi in his statement to Parliament on 2 February 2000, the Treaties as they stand make no provision for the departure voluntary or otherwise of a Member State of the Union even in the event of serious and repeated infringements of the founding principles enshrined in Article 6 of the Amsterdam Treaty.

On the eve of the Union’s enlargement and at a time when an extreme right-wing party has joined the government of a Member State thus prompting the Portuguese Presidency and the heads of state or government of the 14 other countries to suspend their bilateral relations with that country, should not this question be placed on the agenda for the next IGC? Indeed, would it not be appropriate to envisage an amendment to the Treaties to include a clause providing for suspension or expulsion in the event of a country infringing the European Union’s founding values and principles of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights?

(2 May 2000)

1. Pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, it is for the Conference of the representatives of the governments of the Member States, and not for the Council, to determine by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

2. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as far as the present Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, provision has been made for two observers from the European Parliament to attend meetings of the representatives of the governments of the Member States and intervene to express the European Parliament’s view on all matters discussed. C 330 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0455/00 by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Health inspection fees for meat Directive 85/73/EEC

Application of Directives 85/73/EEC (1) and 64/433/EEC (2), in conjunction with the ECJ judgment of 9 September 1999, is causing major problems in Germany with regard to competition law owing to the ambiguities and contradictions contained in those legal bases, and this has resulted in a number of court cases.

The Commission is requested to answer the following questions in order to provide legal certainty on this issue:

1. Pursuant to the ECJ decision of 9 September 1999, the authorisation granted in Chapter I(4)(b) of the Annex to Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 93/118 (3), to collect a special fee which is higher than the standard amounts laid down in Chapter I(1) may be used unconditionally, but subject to the general proviso that the special fee does not exceed the actual costs. In the light of this, will the Commission explain: whether the decision applies also to the wording of Chapter I(4)(b) of Annex A to Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 96/43 (4)? whether the basis for assessing the level of fee that covers actual costs is to be determined by the competent authority at its discretion, and what is meant by ‘actual costs’? whether a ‘fee’ within the meaning of Chapter I(4)(b) of Annex A to Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 96/43, means an average fee calculated on the basis of costs country-wide, that is to say across the territory of the competent authority? whether, pursuant to Chapter I(4)(b) of Annex A, it is possible to levy fees that are differentiated according to category of business? whether fees may be levied on the basis of a combination of the provisions of Chapter I(4)(a) and (b) of Annex A?

2. Do the standard amounts pursuant to Chapter I(1)(b) and (c) of the Annex already include the proportion of costs attributable to trichinosis testing?

(1) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14. (2) OJ 121, 29.7.1964, p. 2012. (3) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15. (4) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problems, particularly in Germany, of implementing the provisions of Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat referred to in Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/ EEC (1).

1. A priori, the principles of interpretation outlined by the Court of Justice in its judgement of 9 September 1999 (Case C 347/97 Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bayerischen Verwaltungsgericht- shof: Anton Feyrer v Landkreis Rottal-Inn 1999 C 352/08) are also valid for interpreting Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (b) of Directive 85/73/EEC as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43/EEC, in the sense that ‘in order to cover increased costs, Member States may … collect a special fee covering actual costs’.

Article 5 (1) of Directive 85/73/EEC lays down that ‘the Community fees shall be set at a level which covers the costs borne by the competent authority in respect of: salary costs and social-security costs involved in the inspection service, administrative costs incurred in carrying out controls and inspections, which may include the expenditure required for in-service training of inspectors’. Thus on this point the Directive provides only a general framework. As the Commission has already pointed out in its reply to written question E-1121/98 (2), estimating actual costs or expenses may be a complex process since it involves adding together total expenditure (staff costs, social contributions, analysis costs, administrative 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/163

expenses, etc.). Moreover, certain items, such as the costs of constructing or modernising buildings, may be subject to different accounting processes. It should also be remembered that in the ideal case scenario the official statement of costs can only be provided at the end of year n+1, year n being the year in which the veterinary checks and inspections in question are carried out. On this subject, it is clear that the working documents used to establish standard amounts are for guidance only. Only the text of the Directive is legally binding.

Paragraph 3 of the above-mentioned judgement of 9 September 1999 by the Court of Justice states that ‘in cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities the collection of fees relating to health inspections and controls of fresh meat, Article 2(3) of Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 93/118, authorises it to collect an amount higher than Community fee levels so long as it does not exceed the actual costs of inspection incurred by the competent local authority’. If competence is delegated to local authorities, these are the costs incurred by the authorities in national territory. In the absence of such delegation, there is in principle no difference between the costs incurred at national level and the costs incurred by the authorities in national territory.

With regard to the provisions of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (a) of Directive 85/73/EEC, the text itself indicates that differences are possible between establishments. ‘In order to cover increased costs, Member States may … increase the standard amounts of fees as laid down in points 1 and 2 (a) for individual establishments’. The provisions of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (b) do not refer specifically to this possibility. The relevant concept is that of ‘actual costs’. It is not made clear whether calculation of these costs can be for a given establishment or whether it should be done at the level of the competent authority, which can carry out an equalisation for the establishments for which it is responsible.

The question needs to be clarified. In the context of Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (a) of Directive 85/73/ EEC, a Member State may as a general rule, in order to cover increased costs, provide for standard fees and increase these amounts for certain establishments meeting the conditions referred to. Such a system has its own internal coherence. The other option referred to in Annex A, Chapter I, point 4 (b) for covering increased costs gives Member States the possibility of charging a special fee covering actual costs. This option also has its own internal coherence. It is therefore difficult to come up with a combination of these two systems.

2. In the context of Annex A, Chapter I, the standard amounts are laid down in points 1 and 2 (a) and not in points 4 (a) and (b). These amounts cover all the checks laid down by the Directives concerned and, therefore, the checks relating to the detection of trichinosis.

(1) See the consolidated version in Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC. (2) OJ C 402, 6.1.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Catchment area management ESDP

In its recent publication entitled ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective (Potsdam unofficial council, May 1999) (1) the Commission writes (p. 68) that the proposal for a directive which inter alia covers integrated catchment area management is currently under negotiation.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is the exact title of the proposal, when was it drawn up and by whom?

2. At what stage are the discussions on this proposal for an EU directive? C 330 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

3. What positions have the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council adopted?

4. What is the Commission’s approach in this directive, and what implications will the directive have for countries with adequate water supplies?

5. What precisely does integrated catchment area management mean?

6. What action has the Commission taken so far to counter the problem of leaking public water supply grids in some Member States?

7. Does the Commission have data and information on water quality and water shortages in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and what is the gap between them and the data for EU Member States?

(1) ISBN, 92-828-7656-X.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

This is the Commission proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1). The Parliament in its plenary session of 16 February 2000 finalised the second reading (2), (3). On the majority of issues there is agreement between the points of view of Parliament, Commission and Council. There are divergent points of view on some issues, in particular deadlines, derogations, hazardous substances and charges for water and waste water. A detailed evaluation will be part of the amended Commission proposal to be adopted by the Commission in March 2000.

The main objectives of the new Community water framework directive will be to expand water protection to all waters; to achieve and maintain ‘good status’ within a set deadline; to base water management on river basins; to combine the approaches of emission criteria and water quality criteria; to ensure water pricing policy with adequate incentive for users to use water resources in an efficient way; to involve citizens more closely in planning and decision taking procedures; and to streamline legislation. One of the elements of ‘good status’ for groundwater is a long-term balance between available resources and abstractions. These objectives are valid regardless of whether Member States have larger water resources or not. The objective of the directive is to achieve and maintain water quality, not to distribute water resources. Monitoring and measures to achieve the quality objective (‘good status’) within a set deadline have to be coordinated with a river basin district. The operative part in this context is a programme of measures which ensures achieving the objective of ‘good status’.

For public (drinking) water supply systems Community legislation defines the quality of water for the consumer at the tap. This is the 1980 drinking water directive, Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (4) amended by the 1998 drinking water directive, Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 (5). There is no obligation at European level to construct public water supply systems. However, construction and improvement of such water supply systems, including measures against leaking distribution systems, may be funded by the structural funds and the Cohesion fund.

Water protection is an important factor in the current accession negotiations. Evaluations of the status quo, objectives and programmes for achieving the objective for the whole range of Community water legislation are an integral part of the accession negotiations. Water resources show a quite diverse pattern from country to country and from region to region, both in the 15 Member States and in candidate countries, a situation to be expected given the diverse geographical and hydrological situation.

(1) OJ C 184, 17.6.1997. (2) Opinion of the European Parliament (1st reading) of 11.2.1999, OJ C 150, 28.5.1999. (3) Opinion of the European Parliament (2nd reading) of 16.2.2000 not yet published in the OJ. (4) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980. (5) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/165

(2000/C 330 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0462/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Blood alcohol levels for drivers

Can the Commission state whether a new proposal for the reduction of blood alcohol levels permitted for drivers of motor vehicles throughout the European Union is being considered and, if so, when is the Commission likely to come forward with these proposals?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

For many years the Commission has investigated the problem of drinking and driving and the road accidents which it generates. The conclusion, from a road safety as well as from a public health point of view, is that national and European actions to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving are a priority to make Community roads safer and to prevent much human suffering. Most experts will agree that what is required is a package of measures to tackle this problem embracing blood alcohol content (BAC) limits, appropriate health promotion programmes and campaigns, effective and targeted enforcement, penalties, and rehabilitation programmes for serious offenders.

The original proposal for a BAC limit of 0,5 milligramme per milliliter (mg/ml) brought forward in 1988, remained unadopted simply because too many Member States objected to such a measure on the grounds of subsidiarity, even though they themselves were prepared to accept 0,5 mg/ml. Indeed, since 1988 some Member States have accepted 0,5 mg/ml in their national legislation.

Against this background, the Commission has no intention to put forward a new directive but sees a Council recommendation has the best way to deal with this important road safety and public health problem.

(2000/C 330 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/00 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Must-carry rules for cable networks and their impact on the EU’s policy on ‘Television without Frontiers’

Must-carry rules imposed on cable networks pose a problem in several Member States. Such rules oblige cable operators to transmit a number of mostly national broadcasts, including in some cases pay-television services. Cable capacity is scarce and only a limited number of broadcasts and services can be transmitted. Must-carry rules reduce the transmission capacity available to meet customer demand.

Such rules have an adverse impact on the functioning of the internal market, the freedom to provide services and on the retransmission of transborder television services. In addition, they discriminate in favour of national broadcasts, to which they grant privileged access to cable.

I refer to my previous parliamentary question E-2006/98 (1) and ask the Commission to state what steps it has taken in the meantime and what further steps it plans to take in the near future. A time schedule in this respect would be welcome.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 134. C 330 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

In reply to the Honourable Member’s previous written question E-2006/98 (1), the Commission indicated that a questionnaire was under preparation for circulation to all interested parties. Such a questionnaire was sent to Member States, cable operators, broadcasters, consumer organisations and copyright organisations throughout the Community. The Commission has also issued a communication reviewing regulation in the communications sector (2), which considered the economic impact on cable operators’ ability to compete in convergent communications markets. On the basis of a substantial number of replies received, in the context of both initiatives, the Commission is examining whether a horizontal initiative in this area is necessary.

The need for such an initiative also has to be examined in the light of the growing number of complaints in this area, which shows the importance of this issue for the functioning of the internal market.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 134. (2) COM(1999) 539.

(2000/C 330 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Commission policy on implementation of the EU budget for 2000 in respect of the promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages

The two EU budgetary authorities, Parliament and the Council, have decided to set aside a number of headings under the Community budget for 2000 to promote and safeguard regional and minority languages.

To be more precise, it has been indicated that line B3-1003N (Preparatory measures for promotion of the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society), to which the sum of EUR 2 million has been earmarked, aims, within the information society, to promote the linguistic diversity of the Commun- ity, including regional and minority languages, and to finance preparatory measures with a view to the designation of 2001 as the European Year of Languages, including sign languages.

Will the Commission say exactly how much of the sum of EUR 2 million is to be earmarked for the protection and safeguard of minority languages in the Community, and what sum is to be allocated specifically in order to the achieve the two basic aims mentioned above?

What procedure will it be pursuing with a view to implementing the aforementioned budget line?

When does it intend to begin accepting applications for specific projects which may be eligible for funding to promote and safeguard minority languages?

What will be the guidelines and requirements governing the eligibility of projects for Community funding?

When can the selected projects hope to receive the Community funding allocated to them?

Is any other heading or sum in the EU budget for 2000 likely to be in any way earmarked for the promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages, and if so, what will be the amounts of money involved? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/167

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Budget heading B-1003 ‘Preparatory measures for promotion of the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society’ is intended, according to the budget remarks, to promote the Community’s linguistic diversity, including regional and minority languages. It is also intended to cover the funding of preparatory measures for the European Year of Languages (EYL).

The Commission originally asked for € 4 million to prepare for the Year. It now proposes to use all of the € 2 million finally awarded for these preparatory activities.

The limited budget available in 2000 will only be enough to cover urgent expenditure which cannot be deferred until 2001, i.e. the information campaign and launch events. These activities will be funded respectively following a call for tenders for this contract and on the basis of proposals from those Member States organising launch events. The Commission has always emphasised that many of the activities associated with the Year will be neutral in target language terms. However, all the target languages defined in the decision establishing the Year will be included.

The Commission plans to publish a call for proposals during the autumn to identify projects eligible for a grant under the 2001 budget; the text of the call is currently being drawn up. The projects chosen will be informed once the selection and financial commitment procedure has been completed. If necessary, a second call will be published in 2001.

With regard to linguistic diversity in the information society, the Commission is planning to publish at the end of April 2000 a call for proposals for preparatory measures intended to prepare the joint follow-up to the Multilingual Information Society (MLIS) and INFO 2000 programmes. These measures could, in principle, target all languages, including regional and minority ones, if their objectives are suitable and fit within the framework of the call for proposals.

(2000/C 330 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0467/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Shortcomings in the transposition of Community legislation on health and safety at work into Spanish law

Spain has adopted a number of provisions to transpose the Community laws aimed at guaranteeing minimum levels of safety protection for workers into domestic law. These Community laws are Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and two individual directives ensuing from it Directive 92/104/EEC (2) on the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries, and Directive 92/57/EEC (3) on the minimum safety and health requirements for workers at construction sites.

Spanish legislation on certain civil engineering projects, such as tunnels, does not conform to the provisions of Directive 92/57/EEC, since in Spain such sites are also covered by the inspection of safeguards established for mining and other extractive industries, in accordance with Royal Decree 1389/ 97. Spanish Law 42/97 of 14 November 1997 stipulates that the labour and social security inspectorate is not competent to deal with health and safety issues for any form of underground activity, regardless of whether or not it involves mining.

The Commission has already received complaints from trade unions and professional organisations to the effect that, rather than improving security levels as Community legislation requires, the irregular extension of measures and monitoring for the mining sector to civil engineering projects involving the construction of underground tunnels places workers at risk. The risks involved stem from the enforcement of safety and C 330 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

technical standards not intended for construction projects and the possibility that standards and instructions may contradict one another. With such legislation in force, Spain cannot hope to attain the required safety levels laid down in Directive 92/57/EEC.

1. Has the Commission looked into the shortcomings in the transposition of Directive 92/57/EEC into Spanish law, which have resulted in the failure to conduct health and safety checks for underground activities not involving mining and thus undermined the implementation of the Directive?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to adopt to ensure the proper transposition of Directive 92/57/EEC in Spain with regard to underground civil engineering projects?

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1. (2) OJ L 404, 31.12.1992, p. 10. (3) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 6.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission has analysed the Spanish measures for the implementation of Directive 92/57/EEC and considers it to have been correctly transposed into Spanish law.

This conclusion is not affected by the fact that Royal Decree 1389/1997 transposing Directive 92/104/EEC on surface and underground mineral-extracting industries makes tunnelling activities of whatever nature subject to the minimum requirements applicable to the mining sector. Royal Decree 1389/1997 lays down that this shall be without prejudice to the rules applicable to the construction sector, namely the provisions transposing Directive 92/57/EEC.

In so far as Directive 92/57/EEC was adopted on the basis of Article 137 of the EC Treaty (ex-Article 118a), it lays down ‘minimum requirements’ in the field of safety and health protection for implementation on temporary or mobile work sites. The expression ‘minimum requirements’ means that the Member States are authorised to maintain or establish more rigorous measures than those which are the subject of Community intervention, in accordance with the provisions of Article 137 (5) of the EC Treaty.

Examination of the Spanish legislation has shown that application of the minimum requirements established for the mining sector to certain construction activities such as tunnelling increases the level of protection for workers laid down by Directive 92/57/EEC.

It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure proper monitoring and surveillance of the national provisions transposing directives. In this regard, the appointment of the competent authorities is entirely a matter for the Member States.

(2000/C 330 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0469/00 by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: European Union measures in the Île-de-France region

Can the Commission provide synoptic tables and comprehensive statistical information concerning the various aids and subsidies received by the Île-de-France and each of its departments for the period 1994-1999 from the various European funds (ESF, ERDF, EAGGF, etc.), from the EIB, from urban policy resources and other financial instruments and from other sources?

Can it indicate the extent to which these numerous measures have affected employment levels in the Île-de-France region and give estimates or, if possible, precise figures, by sector of activity concerning the number of jobs directly or indirectly created or saved as a result? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/169

(2000/C 330 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0470/00 by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Programmes, Community projects and European initiatives in the Île-de-France region

Can the Commission draw up an exhaustive list of the various European programmes and projects or Community initiatives of which the Île-de-France region is a beneficiary indicating to what extent by virtue of its associate status?

Can it also give a full list of European programmes and initiatives organised for the various bodies situated in the Île-de-France region, that is to say research centres, associations, universities, municipalities and other bodies organisations, indicating to what extent each of them benefit?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0469/00 and E-0470/00 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2000/C 330 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0472/00 by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Access to ‘generic’ pharmaceuticals

The procedures for authorising the marketing of pharmaceuticals in certain Member States effectively prevent the registration of cheap ‘generic’ products if the pharmaceutical company manufacturing the original product has withdrawn its licence for the product for commercial reasons and replace it with a substitute. This places the consumer in a particularly unfavourable position and is based on a questionable interpretation of Council Directive 65/65/EEC (1) and, in particular, Article 4(8)(a)(iii).

This obstacle to the registration of ‘generic’ pharmaceuticals is entirely contrary to the stated policy of the Commission set out in its communication on the internal market in the pharmaceutical sector (COM(98) 588), Parliament’s position as set out in the Read Report (A4-0205/1999) and that of the Council as set out in its resolution of 18 May 1999, all of which call for better access for consumers to ‘generic’ pharmaceuticals.

What specific action will the Commission take to end this obstacle to the availability of ‘generic’ pharmaceuticals?

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that ‘generic’ pharmaceuticals can be registered, even if the pharmaceutical company which manufactured the original product has withdrawn its licence in favour of a similar product for reasons which are not dictated by public health considerations?

(1) OJ 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The availability of generic pharmaceuticals is one of the Commission’s main priorities, as set out in various documents. The Commission is keen to implement this policy and is drafting recommendations based on various judgements of the Court of Justice which allow an interpretation more favourable to generic pharmaceuticals. C 330 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Following the judgements of 3 December 1998 in case C-368/96 and of 16 December 1999 in case C-94/98, even if the holder of a marketing authorisation for an original medicinal product withdraws that authorisation in favour of one for a medicinal product the formula of which contains the same active ingredients but different constituents although it still has the same therapeutic effect, a marketing authorisation may be granted for the generic medicinal product by referring to either formula.

Following these judgements and others concerning medicinal products, it is necessary to improve the information available on this subject. Supplementary information will be therefore be published in the notice to applicants for marketing authorisations as provided for in the Annex to Council Directive 75/ 318/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical, pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of proprietary medicinal products (1). This is currently being prepared in cooperation with the Member States.

(1) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975.

(2000/C 330 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Sellafield reprocessing plant and Cap de la Hague

Numerous data from university institutes and reliable environmental organisations substantiate the progressive contamination of Europe’s seas. The Commission has been aware of such information for years (Petition 393/95). It has also been kept informed of worsening findings in the intervening period. As a contracting party to the OSPAR Convention, the Commission aims by 2020 to bring down measurement values for radioactivity throughout the European marine and North East Atlantic biotope to natural levels.

1. What information in terms of emission levels and radioactive contamination of the coastal and marine biotope by the Sellafield reprocessing plant and Cap de la Hague has been forwarded to the Commission by the public authorities of the operating countries in the past few years?

2. Why has the Commission taken no account of the alarming findings of university institutes and reliable environmental organisations? Why has it until now relied exclusively on the findings and interpretations communicated by the operating countries’ public authorities when assessing the situation? How does it rate their scientific independence?

3. Is it the Commission’s opinion that it has fulfilled its duty of care, having inspected the Sellafield reprocessing plant and Cap de la Hague only once in each case over a 10-year period (1989-1999)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The information which the Honourable Member seeks, in respect of the provision of information by Member States of levels of radioactivity in the environment, and of the manner in which the Commission interprets this information and that from other sources, has been supplied in response to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2585/99 (1).

The Commission, as a contracting party to the Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north east Atlantic, is playing an active role in contributing to the implementation of the Oslo-Paris Commission (OSPAR) strategy with regard to radioactive substances. The manner in which the Commi- ssion could most effectively contribute to the implementation of this strategy was discussed by contracting parties at the OSPAR Radiation absorbed doses (RAD) meeting, hosted by the Commission, in Luxembourg from 18 to 21 January 2000. As a result of this, and earlier discussions, the Commission has undertaken to carry out several actions to assist the implementation of the strategy, including a commitment to undertake an update of the Marína project on the radiological exposure in the Community from radioactivity in north European marine waters. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/171

The Commission has carried out verification visits, under Article 35 of the Euratom treaty, to Sellafield and to Cap de la Hague as part of a planned programme of such visits to all Member States, which continues. The Commission is achieving as high a level of verification visits as possible within the constraints of resources allocated at present.

(1) See page 24.

(2000/C 330 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0480/00 by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Allocation from the Structural Funds for the region of Estremedura for the period 2000-2006

Could the Commission indicate the amount of funding the Spanish region of Estremedura is likely to receive under the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

A precise figure cannot be put at this stage on the Structural Funds appropriations for the Extremadura region in the 2000-2006 programming period. Objective 1 assistance is currently being negotiated with the Spanish authorities. The amounts which will be allocated to Extremadura under the Interreg, Urban, Equal and Leader Community Initiatives are similarly hard to estimate at this stage.

In the case of Objective 1, the Commission sent each Member State a proposal for allocating the available funding between the eligible regions, based on the method it had used to allocate the budget for Objective 1 among the Member States. A copy of the proposal for Spain is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

It should be stressed, however, that the proposal is only indicative. The Member State and the Commission will together agree on the final distribution when adopting the Community support framework.

(2000/C 330 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/00 by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Funding under the EQUAL Community initiative

Could the Commission indicate the amount of funding the Spanish region of Estremedura is likely to receive under the EQUAL Community initiative?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission cannot, at this stage, make any forecast of the amount of funding to be attributed to the Region of Extremadura following the implementation of the EQUAL initiative in Spain. In the EQUAL proposal, only an indicative amount is declared for each Member State. In the case of Spain, it must await the presentation of the Spanish operational programme and the selection of projects to know what amount will be received by Extremadura. C 330 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0488/00 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Admissibility of parallel imports

Under Article 7 of the EU trade mark directive (89/104/EEC) (1) the ‘European exhaustion’ principle has applied in the EU Member States’ trade mark legislation since 1995 rather than the principle of ‘international exhaustion’ previously applied in many Member States. There has been no room for parallel imports of branded goods from outside the EU since that time. In its report of 1 December 1999 the Commission does not commit itself on whether it is in favour of retaining or changing the current exhaustion principle.

This being the case:

1. What is the Commission’s position on the question of ‘international exhaustion’ and an amendment to Article 7 of the trade mark directive, and does it intend to propose a change in the law to the Council and Parliament?

2. Does the Commission agree with the argument advanced by the advocates of a change in the law that the reintroduction of parallel imports might lead to a significant reduction in the consumer prices of certain branded products of between 30 and 50 %, thus making annual savings of up to EUR 35 to 40bn possible for consumers throughout the EU?

3. In addition to the statements in its report of 1 December 1999, does the Commission have any information to indicate that the occurrence of product piracy has declined appreciably throughout the EU since parallel imports were prohibited in 1995, or does it have information to indicate that cases of product piracy have in fact increased since that time?

4. How does the Commission view the claims by the branded goods industry that, if parallel imports were permitted in the future, jobs would be relocated from the EU to third countries?

5. Does the Commission agree that growing demand from private customers through the internet will give rise to major difficulties for the retail and mail order trade in branded products unless these undertakings are themselves able to obtain supplies of cheap parallel imports and to offer goods at correspondingly low prices?

6. Does the Commission intend to make ‘international exhaustion rules’ in trade mark legislation the subject of forthcoming rounds of negotiations at WTO level? If not, why not?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The discussion on exhaustion is based on a Commission staff working paper (1), which addresses certain key issues. The working paper has been submitted to the Council and the Parliament. In the light of these discussions and all the other relevant factors, the Commission will define its position on the question of exhaustion of trade mark rights, as soon as appropriate and feasible.

The Commission would also refer to the answer given to other questions on the same issue (Mr Lehne, Written Questions E-0362-3/00 (2)).

1. As indicated above the Commission will take a position on this issue once the discussions have been finalised. It is therefore premature at this stage to react to the question of the Honourable Member.

2. Concerning the Honourable Member’s reference to re-introduction of parallel imports the Commi- ssion would underline that discussions have been focusing on the question of exhaustion of trade mark rights. Many other factors apart from trade mark rights have an impact on parallel imports, such as import duties, import quota and vertical relationships. The calculation on possible effects on consumer pricing 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/173

presented by the Honourable Member is not supported by the information provided in the study on exhaustion carried out for the Commission by the NERA research institute in London.

3. The Commission considers the phenomenon of counterfeiting and piracy to be a serious problem. The possible impact of exhaustion regimes on this problem has to be analysed carefully. The Commission has so far not received any information on the possible impact of a ban on parallel imports.

4. The question of the possible impact of a change in exhaustion regime on employment is still under discussion and it is too early to draw any conclusion from this discussion.

5. The Honourable Member has raised an interesting and important question concerning the possible impact of e-commerce on the exhaustion issue. The Commission is currently studying this question as a priority issue.

6. The Commission staff paper lists several different options to change the current exhaustion regime. One of them is to raise this question at a bilateral or multilateral level with third countries. Whether or not the issue of exhaustion should be raised in the forthcoming World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations will be examined when the Commission defines its position on the exhaustion question.

(1) SEC(1999) 2033. (2) See page 139.

(2000/C 330 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0489/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Implementation of the ‘Leonardo da Vinci’ vocational training programme

It sometimes happens that the way in which the participation of young students in the ‘Leonardo da Vinci’ programme is organised gives cause for complaint. Specifically, an exchange of architecture students taking their diploma examination (College of Higher Education) was set to begin on 1 January 2000 but was postponed until July. This obviously disrupts the career plans of those young people and causes great disappointment not only with the national partners, but also with the European Institutions.

Could the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

1. When will the programmes be cleared for publication by partners in the Member States?

2. How is it possible that candidates have already been recruited and nominated, even though the programme is still at the approval stage?

3. Will the start of the various programmes or measures be set by the Commission or by the partners in the Member States responsible for their publications?

4. Will there be compensation for the lost half-year?

5. The candidates were counting on participating in the programme. They now face a break in their career. How does the Commission plan to support those disappointed candidates whose participation is no longer possible because of the delay?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

1. Under the first phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme (1995-1999), placement and exchange programmes for students and young graduates were selected through an annual selection procedure following a call for proposals. Programme promoters and partners can announce traineeships on receipt of confirmation from the Commission that their programme has been approved. C 330 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

2. Traineeships can be announced by the potential promoter or partners before the programme has been accepted, provided it is made clear that they are subject to acceptance of the programme by the Commission.

3. Under the first phase of Leonardo da Vinci, the programmes mentioned in paragraph 1 generally began on 1 December. They usually run for two years and placements have an average duration of six months.

4. The promoter, beneficiary and the sending and host organisations enter into a binding agreement on participation in a placement or exchange programme. It is not the Commission’s responsibility to provide compensation.

5. The Commission can only offer financial support to participants in a placement or exchange programme.

(2000/C 330 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) and Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Statements made by Commissioner Monti in Spain concerning state aid granted by the Spanish Government

One of the undertakings given by the Prodi Commission was that the European Parliament would be notified of agreements and decisions before the press was informed. During Mr Monti’s appearance before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we asked for information concerning the issue of the CTCs (costs of transition to competition) of the Spanish electricity companies. As time was short, the Commissioner stated that he would reply to the question in writing. To date, no response has been received.

On 4 February Commissioner Monti travelled to Madrid where he met with members of the Spanish Government. Afterwards, he held a press conference, during the course of which he gave certain information on this issue, before the European Parliament was informed. Some of the information given possibly distorted by the Spanish Government implied a certain degree of agreement between the report of the independent expert and the position of the Spanish Government. This information is at odds with the views expressed by officials in the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition, according to whom the conclusions of the independent report differ from the estimates of the Spanish Government ‘on four points’, which would imply a ‘substantial reduction in the figure’. In addition, the Commissioner himself according to press reports at least intends to investigate the issue, which hardly squares with the triumphalist interpretation of the Spanish Government.

On what points does the independent expert’s report differ from the estimates of the Spanish Government? On what points does the report differ from the estimates of the Spanish Electricity Commission? Will a copy of the report be provided to the European Parliament? On what factors is the Spanish Government basing its assumption that the Commission will find in its favour? Does Commissioner Monti consider that he has fulfilled the undertaking to inform Parliament before the press?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The consultant’s mandate was to check that the assumptions taken as a basis by the Spanish authorities to calculate the ‘costs of transition to competition’ (CTCs) complied with internationally recognised standards; it was not to calculate all admissible CTCs anew. Thus, a comparison cannot be made between the consultant’s report and the report drawn up by the Comisión Nacional del Sistema Eléctrico. As was stated in the answer to Written Question E-348/00 by Ms Diez Gonzalez (1), the Commission is studying the results of the assessments and has requested the Spanish authorities to provide additional information. As regards the questions which were put to the Member of the Commission with responsibility for competition at the meeting of the Economic and Monetary Committee held on 11 January 2000 and to which he could not reply for want of time, the Commission would point out that, as agreed at that meeting, it sent a written answer to the chair of the Economic and Monetary Committee on 24 February 2000. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/175

Given that the consultant’s report is confidential, the Commission does not plan to send a copy to Parliament. The Commission would emphasise that it is not in the least responsible for any views expressed in the report. The Commission is continuing to examine the matter and has not yet taken a decision. Parliament will be duly informed.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 179.

(2000/C 330 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Revision of the EWC Directive

The German parent company of Fujitsu Siemens Computers has closed its company in Finland for reasons which are clearly not economic, in order to preserve jobs in Germany. In this connection the company was clearly in breach of its consultation and information obligations under the EWC directive, and of its obligation to discuss its decision with the managers and decision-makers responsible (COM(1998) 612 fin. (1). Is it within the Commission’s power to monitor compliance with this directive and does it have plans to amend the directive to make it more binding?

(1) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999, p. 3.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission does not have any information at its disposal which enables it to conclude that the employee information and consultation obligations under Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (1) have not been respected in the case referred to by the Honourable Member. In any event, as this Directive has been properly incorporated into German law, it is first and foremost the task of the national authorities to assess any infringements of the rules in force which may be brought to their attention by those who feel they have been wronged.

The Commission is currently looking at how this Directive has been implemented. Within the next few weeks it will adopt a report to the European Parliament and Council on this subject.

The Commission has on several occasions emphasised the need for the proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees to be adopted by Parliament and the Council without delay. Clearly, the provisions contained in the proposal are not yet in force.

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(2000/C 330 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0500/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Member State violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community

Is the Council aware that, as of this moment, more than one hundred and eighty Members of the European Parliament have signed the following motion for a resolution:

Mindful of the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) as amended by Protocol No 11 ‘requiring that C 330 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

no one shall be expelled by means either of an individual or collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national’ and that ‘no one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a national’, and mindful of the incorporation of those rights under Article 6 of the Common Provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the following undersigned Members of the European Parliament call upon the Governments of Austria, Greece and Italy to honour their Treaty commitments by restoring to the former royal houses of their respective countries full civil rights, including the right to enter freely without let or hindrance their countries of origin, without any further delay, and request that, where such rights have not been restored by 1 January 2000, the European Court initiate proceedings against any offending State?

At all events, given that, under the terms of the Treaty, there is no basis for discrimination against individual families, having regard to the provisions of Articles 39 and 43 of Title III of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, dealing respectively with the free movement of persons, services and capital and the right of establishment, given that Prince Victor Emmanuel has not been permitted to visit his homeland for 53 years or his son ever to set foot on Italian soil, and given that, although the aforementioned rights are not conditional, Otto von Habsburg was required to sign away fundamental civil rights before being allowed to settle in Austria, will the Council demonstrate its commitment to upholding the European Treaties and to European law by urging its Members to refer Austria, Greece and Italy without delay to the European Court of Justice?

(2 May 2000)

Under Article 226 of the TEC, it is for the Commission to bring matters before the Court of Justice if it considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the TEC.

(2000/C 330 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(25 February 2000)

Subject: Reassignment of Council staff

What procedures does the Council have available, and how often are they implemented, for the reassignment of staff from one directorate-general which may need fewer staff to another directorate- general which may need more staff? How effective have these measures been in terms of the number of posts transferred each year between directorates-general as a percentage of total numbers in post? Can the Council give any other information about its reassignment of staff?

(2 May 2000)

At the start of the 1980s the General Secretariat of the Council introduced a policy on in-house mobility guided by the principle, recognised in the Staff Regulations, that any official should be able to ‘apply for a transfer within his institution’ (Article 7 (1)). This policy is based on the premise that it is not only in the interest of the person applying for the transfer but also in the interest of the institution to give a person who wants to be reassigned opportunities for mobility.

However, in response to the question put by the Honourable Member, the General Secretariat has not yet established any particular internal procedures or rules for the reassignment or ‘redeployment’ of staff within its services and directorates-general. In practice, though, over the last few years there have been several isolated instances where staff have been reassigned so as to bolster existing teams or set up new ones, depending on the urgency and the importance of certain dossiers. This redeployment has been carried out in compliance with the mobility procedure. In particular, these were officials who were assigned to the Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit (PPEWU) and to the co-decision legislative procedure unit. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/177

Moreover, the Secretary-General has also set up a Task Force, which offers temporary back-up from officials who are provisionally seconded away from their regular duties in order to cope with any non- routine and exceptional needs of the Institution, such as IGCs or negotiations on successive enlargements.

The General Secretariat of the Council sets great store by there being a degree of flexibility with regard to redeployment in order to be able to be able to deal with new and urgent matters whenever necessary.

(2000/C 330 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0506/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Use of intelligence services to gather information about commercial activities

In the Commission’s view, would the use of intelligence services by Member States to gather information about the commercial activities of companies from another Member State constitute a legitimate state aid? Does it have any evidence that any Member States are directing their intelligence efforts in this way? Is it concerned about reports that Member States are using intelligence services in this way (e.g. Sunday Times, 23 January 2000)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

So far, the Commission does not have any evidence of the use by Member States of intelligence services to gather sensitive commercial information from companies of other Member States. Whatever the legal qualification of these alleged practices, the Commission will of course never support them. As regards the legal instruments to combat these alleged practices, the Commission does not consider that the state aid provisions constitute the most appropriate solution. This kind of practice should normally be dealt with at national level by penal jurisdictions.

(2000/C 330 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0507/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Measurement of regional living standards

Further to the answer to Written Question E-2223/99 (1) in which the Commission detailed real per capita gross domestic product and real per capita gross regional product figures for the Union, is it convinced that these figures represent the best guide to regional living standards that is available? Is there a means of taking into account the income earned in one region by a resident of another for example, a commuter from South East England working in London to produce series based on personal incomes rather than gross regional product?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 150.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of the production generated by resident production units. The production value is equal to the sum of the incomes (salaries, rents and profits) generated by the production activity. Regional GDP is therefore an overall indicator of the production activity in a region and is well suited to measuring a region’s level of economic development. C 330 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

However, it is true that income from production is not the same as citizens’ disposable income: the difference results from taxes and transfers. In addition, regional GDP is estimated at the place of production, while disposable income should be estimated for the households’ place of residence.

The Commission does not yet have information on households’ disposable income at regional level. However, as part of the 1995 revision of the European System of Accounts (ESA), methodological principles for the drawing up of regional household accounts have been established. This work, carried out with the assistance of the national statistical institutes, will produce the first data in this area from 2001. The data will be published regularly and will provide users with an additional indicator to measure regional differences.

(2000/C 330 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0509/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Assessment of inflation differentials

In the answer to Written Question E-2228/99 (1) given by Mr Solbes Mira on 20 December 1999, the Commission says that it will assess inflation differentials in view of the overall economic situation in order to avoid any harmful divergence in inflation. Given that it also states that ‘it would be fraught with difficulty to provide a quantitative assessment of the scope for sustained inflation differentials across the euro area’, how does it propose to ‘assess’ such inflation differentials? Would the Commission’s proposed assessment be more credible if it were based on a study of this issue ex ante rather than ex post? Will the Commission publish such a study albeit with any necessary emphasis on the uncertainties involved in the assumption?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 127.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The Commission and the Council constantly monitor economic developments in the euro area and in each of the Member States. This monitoring takes place inter alia in official documents, such as the annual review of the Community economy, and in surveillance discussions in the economic and financial committee, the economic policy committee, the Euro-11 group and the Ecofin Council. Monitoring of inflation differences and cyclical divergence across the euro area is a crucial aspect of economic surveillance.

The Commission recognises that sustained inflation differentials may occur in the Economic and monetary union (EMU). Recent empirical studies based on the Balassa-Samuelson framework are useful in stressing this fact and they form an important background element in the assessment of actual inflation developments. Nevertheless, a review of the assumptions underlying these numerical simulations suggests that it is fraught with difficulty to quantify ex ante the scope for sustained inflation differentials across the euro area. This cannot be done with any great confidence.

The Commission does not apply a static framework for assessing inflation differences across EMU and it will not do so in future. Rather, a variety of factors which may justify differences in economic performances have to be considered. The Commission currently assesses cyclical divergence and inflation differences on the basis of a wide range of indicators, including output gaps, economic growth, wages, unit labour costs, inflation, price movements for traded and on-traded goods, and movements in real exchange rates relative to long-run purchasing power parity (PPP)-levels. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/179

In order to improve the understanding of inflation differentials in EMU, the Commission expects to launch an external study analysing the sources of sustained inflation differentials in a modified Balassa-Samuelson framework. The results of this study, which are expected at the end of 2000, will be made public. More important than providing a set of ex ante estimates of the scope for inflation differentials in EMU, the study is intended to help in improving and refining the framework used by the Commission to assess cyclical divergence and inflation differences across EMU.

(2000/C 330 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0519/00 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Transparency

In the Briefing of the European Parliament Press Service for the part session 12-16 February 1996, it is stated that, regarding the matter of the ‘Wild Birds Directive’, ‘the Commission is also proposing that in future such decisions would be taken in secret by a special committee, away from the glare of publicity and not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny’.

Can the Commission provide details of the context of this statement? Has the Commission specified a lack of Parliamentary scrutiny on other occasions? If so, in what circumstances is this deemed appropriate?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

The statement of the Parliament Press Service was made in the context of the first reading at the Parliament session of 15 February 1996 of the Commission’s proposal (1) to modify Article 7(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2).

The Commission does not share the sentiment of the statement quoted by the Honourable Member. On the contrary, from the seven amendments voted by the Parliament (3), the Commission immediately agreed with amendment No 4 concerning the transmission of the composite report of the application of the Directive to the Member States and the Parliament.

Furthermore, the Parliament is informed by the Commission of committee proceedings on a regular basis, as set out in Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (4).

(1) OJ C 100, 9.4.1994. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (3) Bulletin, 1996/1/2, p. 1.3.152. (4) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0522/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Procedure followed by Poste Italiane SpA for the award of contracts for mail delivery services

Does the Commission intend to take steps to check the regularity of the procedures for the award of contracts followed by Poste Italiane SpA, the Italian postal services provider, with particular reference to the priority mail service? C 330 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Last year the agreement with the Italian state railways on the distribution of freight by rail was discontinued. Can the Commission state whether the new transport service providers were chosen on the basis of a regular call for tenders in line with the procedures laid down by Community legislation?

The strategy of integrating environmental policies into other Community policies is a priority for the European Union, as established in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The European Union has undertaken to reduce CO2 emissions, as required by the Kyoto Convention.

Does the Commission consider that, wherever possible and providing the same standards of efficiency are assured, preference should be given to rail rather than road transport?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of any alleged infringements of Community procurement law that would allow it to approach the Italian authorities in order to check the regularity of procedures for the award of contracts mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would therefore be particularly grateful if the Honourable Member could forward any information she has on the subject. The Commission will launch an investigation on the basis of this information to assess whether any infringements of Community law on public contracts have occurred, and to take any necessary measures laid down in the EC Treaty in order to ensure that the procedure in question complies with Community law on public contracts.

Current Commission policy in the rail sector aims to give rail transport a competitive position in the transport market by creating a framework which will allow it to compete on equal terms with other modes of transport.

(2000/C 330 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0523/00 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Investigating and preventing mobbing in Europe

The scientific literature defines ‘mobbing’ as systematic and continuous victimisation of an employee, by his colleagues or superiors, with a view to forcing him out of his job. It involves repeated non-physical attacks of various kinds and degrees including continuous and unjustified criticism, slander, making the victim perform thankless or degrading tasks, and any action that could damage his professional or personal standing in the eyes of third persons, superiors or business contacts.

The consequences of such incidents should not be underestimated. The first studies indicate that mobbing is not only detrimental to the victims’ health, but causes firms significant social costs. It is reported that the work rate of a person subjected to such treatment can decline by 80 %, as it affects workers’ performance, resistance and concentration and can eventually result in physical and psychological illnesses involving protracted absences from work.

Recently, this problem has aroused growing interest at European level. The various national statutory provisions do not at present provide an adequate basis for the establishment of measures to prevent mobbing, protect the victims and provide compensation. A few references to the subject exist in the legislation, but there is no separate body of law aimed at providing a global and effective response.

What does the Commission intend to do to address this problem in Europe? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/181

Does it agree that it is necessary to look into this delicate and important subject more closely by, for example, carrying out a comparative study of mobbing in the various countries of the European Union and examining possible solutions?

What internal measures does the Commission intend to take in connection with the administrative reforms currently under way?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that this subject should be investigated more closely and, indeed, the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work has set up a working party on the prevention of violence in the workplace. The working document on this subject, drawn up by an institute at the Commission’s request, and a publication by the ILO (International Labour Organisation) on violence in the workplace, also presented to the working party, have been forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

At its first meeting in October 1999, the working party decided to investigate the subject of violence in the workplace in general, including mobbing and sexual harassment at work.

The working party is currently drawing up an opinion on this subject which is due to be discussed at the plenary meeting of the Advisory Committee planned for October 2000. On the basis of this opinion, the Commission will be able to assess the need for new Community measures to protect workers from violence in the workplace.

As part of the reform of the Staff Regulations, Action 47 of the White Paper (1) on reforming the Commission expressly provides for the adoption of provisions to protect the dignity of the person in the workplace.

With regard to sexual harassment in particular, which may be considered to be one of the specific aspects of violence in the workplace, in 1990 the Commission published a code of conduct for its staff, which was supplemented and updated in 1996.

(1) COM(2000) 200.

(2000/C 330 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Workplace equipment for blind switchboard operators

The occupation of switchboard operator is one of the few employment opportunities available to blind people. As a consequence of advances in the field of electronics, switchboards are currently being manufactured in such a way that blind and partially-sighted people are no longer able to work independently and in the most effective manner. The new switchboards often do not permit blind people to identify incoming calls, lines which are not engaged, and the engaged signal for internal telephones, as such information only appears on a display suitable for use by people who are able to see. Blind people need to be provided with the information in an acoustic form or in a form identifiable to the touch. In order to ensure that blind and partially-sighted people continue to have the opportunity to work as switchboard operators, and are able to exercise their right to work, it is important for producers of telephone equipment to manufacture switchboards in such a way that they can be easily and inexpensively adapted for use by blind people.

Do European directives or regulations exist requiring manufacturers to design equipment in such a way as to meet the needs of blind people?

Does the Commission intend to duly examine this problem and to submit appropriate proposals for legislation? C 330 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The Commission believes that developments taking place in the field of new technologies can and must be used in order to create new employment opportunities for the disabled, including blind people. In addition, the focus should no longer be on low-skilled and often repetitive jobs which do not reflect the vocational skills or motivation of the people concerned.

Technology is now available to allow adaptation of telecommunication switchboards for people with visual impairment using standard flexible personal computer technology to interface with the operator. In addition, both software and hardware exists to increase the accessibility of computer technologies to those with visual impairment. It is therefore questionable to what extent it is necessary to impose additional technical specifications to ensure a higher level of adaptation for such equipment. Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 9 March 1999, relating to radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment (1) gives the Commission the possibility to consider whether certain classes of equipment need to be re-designed to facilitate their use by people with different forms of impairment. The Commission set up study groups (in which groups with various forms of disability were represented) to assess the requirements for applying this provision. As a result of the discussions the Commission concluded that, at present, there is no substantive justification to apply this provision, given that the barriers to access identified were not of a technical nature.

Furthermore, under the Community policy on the standardisation of the information society, the Commission gave a standardisation mandate to the European standardisation bodies, namely the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), with the aim of identifying specific standardisation needs in order to improve the integration of disabled people into the information society.

Lastly, in November 1999, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2). The proposal makes provision for equal employment opportunities, in particular by requiring employers, within reasonable limits, to adapt workstations for disabled people.

(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999. (2) COM(1999) 565 final.

(2000/C 330 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0530/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Implementation of the Socrates education programme

My researches reveal that during the implementation of the Socrates student exchange programme problems with the recognition of certificates at partner universities have been caused by differences in academic systems. This appears to be especially true of exchanges between German and French universities. If the certificates awarded for such post-graduate courses were recognised, it would be easier to motivate young students to take part. As it is, they have the impression that the participants in exchanges fall behind in the achievement of their academic objectives and do not develop any interest in an exchange in the future.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. To what extent were the differences between the Member States’ academic systems taken into account when the Socrates programme was being established? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/183

2. How does the Commission intend to increase the willingness of universities to recognise each other’s certificates or to change the practical aspects of recognition so that interested students may take part without losing time at their home universities?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take to approximate university education systems throughout Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The academic recognition of diplomas falls within the competence of the Member States. At present there are no Community provisions which cover this type of recognition. Under Article 149 of the EC Treaty, each Member State is solely responsible for the content of its teaching and the organisation of its own educational system and any harmonisation in this respect is excluded. The authorities are entitled to subordinate enrolment in a course of education to the requirement of previous academic recognition of qualifications acquired in another Member State. They are also free to determine the rules governing that type of procedure, since there are no Community regulations laying down that a Member State is required to recognise, for academic purposes, diplomas obtained in another Member State.

The Commission encourages mutual recognition for academic purposes between the various education systems in Europe through the Socrates programme, in particular the Erasmus action. A tangible result of the effort to promote understanding of the academic recognition of qualifications is the network of national information centres for the recognition of diplomas (NARIC). These centres provide information on national academic recognition procedures. This network, created in 1984, aims to assist in promoting the mobility of students, teachers and researchers by providing authoritative advice and information concerning the academic recognition of diplomas. The main users of these services are higher education institutions, students and their advisers, parents, teachers and prospective employers.

The Commission also encourages and supports ECTS (the European credit transfer system), which provides an instrument to create transparency, to build bridges between institutions and to widen the choices available to students. The system makes it easier for institutions to recognise learning achievements of students through the use of commonly understood measurements credits and grades and provides a means to interpret national systems of higher education. The ECTS system is based on three core elements: information (on study programmes and student achievement), mutual agreement (between the partner institutions and the student) and the use of ECTS credits (to indicate student workload). The ECTS system is currently used in about 1 300 institutions in the Community, the EEA-states and the associated countries. The system has gained wide acceptance by national authorities, universities and students.

Following the debate on the possible synergies between academic and professional recognition, initiated in 1994, the Council invited the Commission, in conclusions of 6 May 1996, to examine the possibilities for the introduction, on a voluntary basis, of a European administrative annex to academic diplomas. The work on this ‘diploma supplement’ is entrusted to a working party, which was established in December 1996 as a joint initiative of the Commission, the Council of Europe and Unesco/CEPES. Since then, a model for a diploma supplement has been developed. It provides a description of the nature and the contents of academic programmes, the level of the qualification obtained and information on the higher education system in which the qualification has been obtained.

(2000/C 330 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0537/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: European standards for emissions and residues from incinerators

Could the Commission state what public health and environmental protection standards exist, in the European Union, in respect of emissions of waste substances or other residues from incinerators? C 330 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mme Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

In June 1989 two directives were adopted to control the emissions of certain pollutants from municipal waste incineration plants: Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (1) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste incineration plants (2).

These directives have made a considerable contribution to the reduction of emissions of pollutants in the Community. However, their scope is restricted to municipal waste while incineration is increasingly used as a means of treatment for other wastes, such as sewage sludge, clinical waste and tyres.

In 1994 Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste (3)was adopted. This introduces conditions for the operation of plants for incinerating the most hazardous wastes. It imposes more stringent standards for emissions than the 1989 directives for municipal waste incineration and introduces numerical emission limits for dioxins and furans.

In future, all three directives will be repealed and replaced by a single directive, which sets emission limit values for all relevant pollutants. The Council adopted a common position on the future directive on incineration on 25 November 1999 (4). The second reading will take place in March 2000 and the final adoption is expected for autumn 2000. The proposed emission limit values will become applicable to existing plants five years after the adoption of the directive, that is to say probably in autumn 2005.

(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989. (2) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989. (3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. (4) OJ C 25, 28.1.2000.

(2000/C 330 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0541/00 by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2000)

Subject: Mental health

In view of the resolution on mental health adopted unanimously on 18 November 1999 at the meeting of the Council of Health Ministers, the conclusions of the European Summit conference held under the Finnish presidency and the observations by Mr Byrne, member of the Commission, concerning a set of measures in the field of mental health, does the Commission in fact intend to take measures in this area and if so what measures, particularly in view of quantitative and qualitative findings which reveal the serious impact of mental disorders on European citizens in many areas of their everyday life?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

The Commission is currently developing a health strategy in which mental health will play a role. This strategy will take account of the resolution on mental health of the Health Council and the conclusions of the conference held under the Finnish Presidency.

Important developments in the area of mental health are already taking place under the Community action programmes on health promotion and health monitoring. A report on the mental health promotion of children has recently been published as a result of a project. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/185

(2000/C 330 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0550/00 by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Commission proceedings against restrictions imposed by the Evin law (France) on the televised broadcasting in France of sporting events held abroad

In March 1995, the French authorities cancelled the broadcasting on French television channels of several sporting events held abroad because of the presence of hoardings advertising certain makes of alcoholic beverage. The French authorities take the view that the appearance of hoardings is tantamount to advertising, which is prohibited under the Evin law.

Following these incidents, the French inter-trade wine-growers organisations, CNIV (national committee of inter-trade organisations for wines of designated origin) and CIVB (Bordeaux wines inter-trade committee), lodged a complaint with the Commission against France for infringement of the free movement of services.

On 2 July 1996, the Commission sent France a reasoned opinion establishing and formally condemning the restriction on the freedom to provide services. The Commission recognised that the extra-territorial aspects of the Evin law are contrary to the single market and a clear obstacle to the free movement of services.

After unilaterally adopting a code of good conduct in this area in 1995, France recently adjusted its position and divided sporting events into two categories: ‘bilateral events’, to which the restrictions contained in the Evin law continue to apply, and ‘multilateral events’, for which the advertising of alcoholic beverages is permitted.

This position is discriminatory, since only major alcoholic beverage producers have the financial resources needed to advertise at ‘multilateral’ sporting events. For their part, small and medium-sized producers of alcoholic beverages, such as producers of quality wines, are being deprived of the opportunity to advertise their products at sporting events which would be within their means.

In the light of the reasoned opinion of the Commission of 2 July 1996 and the recent actions taken by France, will the Commission decide to refer this matter to the Court of Justice of the European Communities?

If so, when will it initiate this procedure?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Commission is examining this issue carefully in view of the great concerns to which this case has given rise in the Parliament.

The Commission shares these concerns and this explains why it decided to send a reasoned opinion on this case in 1996. As noted publicly by the Commission at that time, it felt that the measures taken by the French authorities to enforce the Loi Evin contravened Community rules which prohibit unjustified restrictions on the freedom to provide services (Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty). The Commission fully supports the objective of protecting public health, but in this instance it considered that the measures taken to interpret and apply the relevant French legislation were not proportionate to this objective.

Given the interest the Parliament has displayed in this case, the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market has decided to seek personally an effective resolution to the issue. He will therefore be asking to meet with the relevant French ministers in Paris in the near future to discuss this infringement procedure at the highest level. The Commissioner hopes that a satisfactory solution will be found with the French authorities. C 330 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0563/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Public procurement

What was the total amount of contracts won by the businesses of each Member State from EU Member State public authorities outside their country of origin in each of the last five years? Please give a breakdown of the total amount for each country by each other Member State.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission does not have at its disposal the statistics on the amount of contracts won by businesses of each Member State from public authorities outside their Member State of origin at the level of detail to provide the breakdown requested.

The Commission has been working towards a better understanding of the Community public procurement markets and has been developing a set of indicators to measure market trends and the impact of public procurement policy over time in fulfilment of its commitment in the communication on public procurement (1).

The Commission is currently preparing a preliminary set of nine indicators which provide annual estimates of total public procurement, the amount covered by the public procurement directives and the amount actually advertised in the Official journal as well as the number of entities publishing notices, the number of notices published and the amount of cross procurement within the Community. Additional indicators will measure the quality of published notices and compare prices paid by the public sector for the same or similar goods and services across the Community.

The volume of intra Community cross border procurement, the amount of procurement by public authorities of goods and services originating in another Member State, has proved difficult to measure for several reasons.

Firstly the free movement of goods within the Community makes it difficult to ascertain where particular goods procured by those authorities actually originated. The same is true for the freedom to provide services. Increasingly the right of establishment makes it an even more complicated matter to interpret those statistics on procurement provided by Member States. Another complicating issue is the formation of consortia of companies from several Member States, particularly for larger tenders and construction projects. Deciding where such consortia are based is often not meaningful and even to determine it proportionally would be difficult.

The public authorities themselves often do not know, or record, where specific goods or services originated.

For all these reasons the indicator of cross border procurement which is being developed has been based on a survey of the suppliers to public authorities, rather than the authorities themselves. This figures show the extent of cross border procurement within the Community. For each Member State the value of direct and indirect intra-Community imports are given as a percentage of total procurement in 1998. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/187

(in %)

Import penetration

Direct Indirect Total Belgium & Luxembourg 5,8 11,6 17,3 Denmark 3,3 23,0 26,3 Germany 1,2 3,8 5,0 Greece 2,4 23,7 26,1 Spain 1,6 5,7 7,3 France 1,7 9,8 11,5 Ireland 4,4 27,9 32,3 Italy 1,4 6,5 7,9 Netherlands 5,5 10,7 16,2 Austria 3,4 10,2 13,6 Portugal 2,9 18,5 21,4 Finland 3,7 24,6 28,3 Sweden 6,2 8,4 14,6 United Kingdom 0,6 11,0 11,6 EU-15 weighted Mean 1,8 8,5 10,3

The indicator does not provide figures with a sufficient degree of reliability to measure bilateral cross border procurement between specific Member States. The estimate at the Community level is more reliable but figures for individual Member States should also be treated with some caution, due to the sample size (2000 companies surveyed). The figures represent all procurement, above and below the directives’ thresholds, within the selected sectors.

A larger scale survey is planned in order to improve the accuracy of this indicator and to monitor progress. The Commission is pursuing the possibility of incorporating this survey within the framework of the structural business statistics programme carried out by Eurostat together with the Member States’ statistical institutes.

(1) COM(98) 143 final.

(2000/C 330 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0568/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Staff dismissals and wage costs

How many members of the Council’s staff have been dismissed in each of the last five years, and what proportion does this represent of the total staff establishment in each year? What was the total wage bill for the institution, and what was the average amount paid to each employee in each year?

(2 May 2000)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that over the last five-year period, out of a total average staff complement of 2 400 officials, one person in the General Secretariat was removed from his post under Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations and one person was not established at the end of his probationary period pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the Staff Regulations. C 330 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Council staff

Will the Council please indicate the number of its staff in post, including all services such as interpretation and translation, in each of the last five years?

(2 May 2000)

The Honourable Member will find attached a table showing the number of staff in post in the Council General Secretariat over the last five years.

Number of staff in post in the council general secretariat (Officials and temporary staff 1995-1999)

Year Category/Service 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 A 246 261 280 283 290 L/A (1) 509 554 588 581 616 B 190 192 188 196 202 C 1 205 1 246 1 246 1 253 1 260 D 127 128 131 134 132 Total 2 277 2 381 2 433 2 447 2 500

(1) There are no interpreters employed as permanent officials in the Council General Secretariat. These tasks are carried out by JICS (Commission).

(2000/C 330 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0577/00 by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Spring and MCI WorldCom merger

In 1998, the Commission reviewed the proposed merger between MCI and WorldCom and estimated that the combined company would control 50 % or more of the US backbone. It concluded that this concentration would have an adverse anti-competitive impact on European carriers, ISPs and Internet users. As a result, the Commission forced the divestiture of the MCI Internet backbone business.

1. Is the Commission now aware of the proposed merger between Sprint and MCI WorldCom and that it would result in the largest market capitalisation in the world and domination of the global Internet and would have a consequent anti-competitive impact throughout Europe?

2. Is it further aware that such a merger between the number one and number two US backbone providers would lead to an 80 % US market share with significant European and transatlantic capacity?

3. European IP-networks are configured in such a way that intra-European traffic is frequently routed via the United States. MCI WorldCom, with its major Internet switching facility in Washington DC handles 85 % of all intra-European Internet traffic. Sprint owns the only other switching facility on the east coast. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/189

Together they will be in a dominant position. This will enable them to charge higher prices for carrying and switching global Internet traffic. Will the Commission carry out an urgent review of the proposed new merger between Sprint and MCI WorldCom and ensure that such a merger does not go ahead as it would have serious consequences for European wholesale (ISP) and retail customers (Internet users)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Commission is carefully assessing the merger between MCI WorldCom and Sprint. The Commission decided on 21 February 2000 to enter into a four months full investigation of the impact the merger may have on competition in the common market.

The Commission already in 1998 examined the effects of the merger between MCI and WorldCom on the market for the provision of Internet connectivity. The Commission’s investigation in the current transaction is also this time first and foremost focusing on the market for the provision of top level connectivity services in the Internet (i.e. those networks to which anybody must directly or indirectly have access in order to get universal reach on the Internet). In addition, the Commission is investigating the market for the provision of global telecommunications services to multinational corporations and the market for termination into the United States of international calls originated in the Community.

If the Commission’s investigation concludes that the merger will lead to a creation or a strengthening of a dominant position in any of these markets, the parties have the possibility to propose remedies to eliminate these concerns.

The final decision on this transaction is expected by early July 2000.

(2000/C 330 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Turkish ministers’ disagreements and concerns about Akkuyu European strategy for nuclear safety

The Turkish Environment Minister, Ms Aykut, stated at the conference in Mersin on 2 February 2000 that she was not fully informed about the dangers arising from the construction of a nuclear power plant at Akkuyu, that comprehensive information on the power plant had not been provided and that she was personally opposed to the construction of a nuclear power station. The Turkish Minister for Tourism, Mr Mumcu, expressed similar opposition in the newspaper Cumhuriyet, emphasising that Akkuyu is only 120 kilometres from the tourist beaches of Mersin. In addition, Mr Ulug, professor at Izmir University, has said that ‘the stance adopted by those who favour the construction of a nuclear power plant in an earthquake-prone area is an outrage’. Finally, Greenpeace spokesperson Ms Keskin has stated that ‘in the event of an accident radiation would contaminate not only Turkey, but also Cyprus, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North Africa and even the Caucasus’.

1. Could the Commission say what its position is with regard to the above statements, which very clearly demonstrate opposition to and pronounced unease over the planned construction of a nuclear power plant at Akkuyu and also over the consequences that this will have for the environment, tourism and the health of millions of citizens living in southern Turkey and neighbouring countries, including EU citizens, since the region where the plant will be established is one of considerable seismic activity? C 330 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

2. In view of the Council decision that ‘Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States’ and the positions adopted by the Council, the Commission and Parliament concerning nuclear safety and enlargement, what action will the Commission take to prevent the construction of a nuclear power plant in an earthquake-prone area, which the Turks themselves describe as an outrage?

3. Is it possible for Community funding to be given to support energy sector activities for the development of nuclear power stations in earthquake-prone areas within the framework of the customs union and the regulations concerning economic and social development with Turkey, when there are such crucial concerns and when Parliament has expressly called on Turkey to respect the principles of sustainable development?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The Honourable Member should refer to the Commission’s answer to the oral question H-0781/99 that was asked by Mr Souladakis during the January 2000 session question time (1).

The Commission would add that it has no intention of using Community funds to support in any way the building of nuclear reactors in Turkey.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (January 2000).

(2000/C 330 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0606/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: European Day for Tolerance

The past century bore witness to countless attacks on freedom of expression, killings for crimes of conscience, cases of torture on racial and religious grounds and other atrocities contrary to the notion of the human being as a free entity. The sense of collective shame we must feel as a result of this should form the basis for a constant refusal ever to repeat the countless mistakes made in this respect.

As the spectre of a possible return to the errors of the past looms once more on the horizon threatening the peaceful co-existence of European democratic society, perhaps we might consider the creation of an annual European Day for Tolerance.

Will the Commission indicate whether it would consider using its right of initiative to propose that each year the European Union set aside a day to celebrate tolerance as the very cornerstone upon which European co-existence is built?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission deplores all crimes against people’s fundamental rights and supports the notion of peaceful co-existence. However, the Commission does not intend to propose an annual European day for tolerance. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/191

(2000/C 330 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Quarterly calculation of bank interest payable by account-holders

Does the European Union consider it admissible that up until July 2000, Italy will continue to tolerate (i.e. consider legal) ‘anatocisms’, i.e. the quarterly calculation of interest payable by account-holders (be they private individuals or companies), while the interest payable by banks is calculated on an annual basis?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

In its reply to Written Question No 0532/00, the Commission pointed out that under Article 4 of the EC Treaty the Community’s economic policy is based on the internal market and is conducted in accordance with the principles of an open market economy with free competition. Only by adhering to this principle is it possible to achieve an optimum allocation of economic resources in the interests of both firms and consumers. In this connection, the Commission observed that, in its view, it was neither possible nor expedient to intervene regarding the interest rates applied by credit institutions. This also applies to methods of calculating interest payable; it is up to each credit institution to offer services to clients in the light of its assessment of the market and the associated risks, and this, of course, in compliance with the rules on competition and transparency in financial transactions.

(2000/C 330 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/00 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Vaccination against IBR in the European Union

Thousands of Dutch farmers are suffering losses on account of an unknown cattle disease (‘slijters’). It is suspected that this disease may be caused by a defective vaccine against IBR (Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis).

1. Does the Commission have any view about the causes of these phenomena?

2. Are similar losses occurring elsewhere in the Union and if so, what precautions has the Commission taken on this account?

3. Has the Commission instituted a special inquiry or taken any measures with regard to IBR vaccines in order to prevent a recurrence of the problem?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission has been informed by the Dutch authorities about the disease occurring in dairy cattle farms in the Netherlands.

These authorities state that in a number of dairy cattle farms emaciation of milking cows has been reported. Investigations have been carried out to identify the precise causes of this disease. The results of these investigations suggest that in some farms the symptoms appeared after the use of a vaccine against infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), which was contaminated with bovine viral diarrhea virus. This is a well-known virus of ruminants widespread in most countries in the world, for which there is no evidence C 330 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

or suspicion that it can affect humans. In these farms all animals have been slaughtered and destroyed. However, in other farms the presence of infectious agents has not been confirmed and other causes (deficiency in cobalt and vitamin B12) are probably involved.

Except for a single reported field case in Italy that was suspected to relate to an IBR vaccine, the Commission is not aware of other possibly similar situations having occurred in the Community.

With regard to the recent Community action related to IBR vaccines, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to the written question E-0634/00 by Mrs Muscardini (1).

(1) See page 194.

(2000/C 330 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0616/00 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Suspension of investment incentives in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region

According to information which I have received, the Commission has decided to suspend investment incentives to businesses in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region until a final decision is taken on the matter, which might be as late as June 2001.

This will mean that such businesses will no longer have access to the PEDIP (specific programme for development of Portuguese industry), Procom (trade) or SIFIT (tourism) programmes.

In view of the economic difficulties which this suspension will cause to the region and neighbouring areas, will the Commission explain why it has taken such a decision and how and when it intends to unblock the situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

After the guidelines on national regional aid were adopted (1), the Commission asked the Portuguese authorities to send it a notification under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93(3)) supplying a draft map showing, first, the Portuguese regions which it was proposed should qualify for national regional aid under the exemptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty (formerly Article 92), and, second, the intensity ceilings for aid for initial investment and aid for job creation linked to investment envisaged in each of the regions shown, and the ceilings applicable where aid under different schemes is combined.

The Portuguese authorities supplied a draft regional aid map for the period 2000-06, and on 8 December 1999 the Commission approved the sections of the map defining the regions in Portugal qualifying for the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(a), namely North, Centre, Alentejo, Algarve, Azores and Madeira.

But in respect of the only Portuguese region which was to qualify under the exemption in Article 87(3)(c), namely Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, the Commission initiated the procedure of Article 88(2): it took the view that on the basis of the information available the proposal made by the Portuguese authorities could not be considered compatible with the guidelines. According to the Portuguese notification the whole of this region, which accounts for 33,4 % of the population of the country, was to be covered by the transitional period referred to in point 5.7 of the guidelines, during which the aid intensities which had applied there until the end of 1999 under Article 87(3)(a) would be adapted. But, given the limitations on the geographical scope of point 5.7 of the guidelines, which are imposed by footnote 43, only a section of the region (10,2 % of the population of the country) would qualify for such a transitional period. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/193

As the Honourable Member observes, Article 88(3) has the effect of suspending assistance until the above procedure has resulted in a final decision. The Commission will make known its position as soon as possible in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Teaching of Greek-language interpreting

The Germersheim campus of the University of Mainz (Germany) has a teaching programme which includes a very useful training course for interpreters from and into various European languages. Despite the fact that there are several dozen students studying interpreting from and into Greek, I am informed that the university plans to discontinue the teaching of interpreting from and into this language. At the same time, I am told that the university receives funding from the European Union precisely to support the teaching of interpreting.

In the light of this information, could the Commission say what plans the University of Mainz has with regard to the teaching of interpreting from and into Greek?

Since there does not seem to be any good reason for its abolition, could the Commission request the University of Mainz or its supervisory authority to maintain the teaching of this language, which is particularly useful for the operation of Community bodies and many other European organisations and undertakings?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honorable Member’s comments on the importance of Greek as an official Community language. In the field of interpreting, the Joint Interpreting and Conference Service is making the utmost effort to guarantee multilingualism and the equal dignity of all the languages. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot take the place of national authorities when it comes to the training of interpreters.

In fact, in keeping with the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of the education it provides and for the way in which its education system is organised. The decision to discontinue the teaching of interpreting in Greek is therefore the responsibility of the university authorities and ultimately of the Member State concerned.

Finally, it would appear in the present case that the information received by the Honorable Member does not entirely reflect the situation as it stands. The University of Mainz has in fact confirmed that Greek is not and never has been one of the languages in the syllabus for the training of interpreters. Moreover, the Commission does not contribute financially to the interpreter training programme at this university.

(2000/C 330 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/00 by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Hallmarking

Further to Answer H-0729/99 (1) to my previous question about the hallmarking of silver, will the Commission use its best endeavours to facilitate an in-depth discussion to take place in the Council’s C 330 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

working group concerning the Council’s proposal for the ‘E’ and ‘e’ distinction between manufacturer- marked and third party marked silver articles, and so enable agreement to be reached to a directive which will finally inaugurate a single market in silver articles?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission agrees with the suggestion by the Honourable Member to distinguish between ‘E’ and ‘e’ marking. It will endeavour to facilitate the in-depth discussion in the next Council working group and so to enable agreement about the hallmarking Directive to be reached.

(2000/C 330 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0634/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Eradication of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR)

Following a vaccination-related accident in the Netherlands in the spring of 1999, the Commission rightly decided to put a temporary ban on the vaccines ‘Bayovac IBR marker vivum’ and ‘attenuated Rhinobovin marker’ until the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) could carry out the necessary scientific tests and make a final decision. However, in the absence of proof of adverse effects, it did not ban the vaccines ‘Bayovac IBR marker inactivatum’ and ‘killed Rhinobovin marker’, which are officially authorised in all EU Member States, except for Italy.

1. Does the Commission not consider it would be advisable to speed up procedures in order to bring the validation process for the live vaccines to an end, thereby providing assurance in the fight to eradicate infectious bovine rhinotracheitis?

2. Does the Commission consider it necessary to ask Italy to lift its ban on marketing authorisation for Bayer’s ‘inactivatum’ vaccine and Hoechst’s ‘killed’ vaccine?

3. Does it consider this isolation, decreed by the Italian Ministry of Health, to be justified when the said Ministry is granting exemptions from the ban and is allowing the ‘inactivatum’ vaccine, purchased in France, to be given to Italian cattle due to take part in a European event (Friesian cattle show) in Brussels on 11, 12 and 13 February?

4. Whilst respecting the fundamental need for scientific testing, does the Commission not think that any procrastination might help to exacerbate the economic losses of Italian breeders brought about by the delay in efforts to eradicate IBR?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

1., 2. and 4. As a result of cases of bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) occurring in cattle vaccinated with the nationally authorised veterinary medicinal product Bayovac (infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR)) marker vivum in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom presented to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) a Community referral under Article 23a of Council Directive 81/851/EEC (1). At that time the marketing authorisation holders informed the EMEA that Bayovac IBR marker vivum and Rhinobovin marker had been voluntarily withdrawn in all Community markets pending the outcome of the Community referral. At no time was a temporary ban imposed by the Commission. However, the national marketing authorisations were suspended by the Irish, Italian, Dutch and British authorities 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/195

On 21 January 2000 the committee for veterinary medicinal products (CVMP) having considered the matter in detail reached an opinion in respect of Bayovac IBR marker vivum and Rhinobovin marker, as authorised in Belgium, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and United Kingdom. The opinion requires variation of all marketing authorisations for all such products authorised in different Member States to ensure additional quality controls in the manufacturing process to minimise contamination with BVD. In addition, new methods of detecting potential contamination with BVD virus are introduced into the production process, which will also be subject to the aforementioned variations.

This opinion was forwarded to the Commission on 11 February 2000 and the Commission is currently preparing a binding decision in accordance with the procedure foreseen in Article 22 of Directive 81/851/ EEC. In accordance with that Article, the Member States and marketing authorisation holders will have to comply with the Commission decision within 30 days following notification, hence lifting the suspensions of the national marketing authorisations with the implementation of the requested variations. National IBR eradication programmes may then be continued.

The Commission fully endorses the view expressed by the Honourable Members that a decision on a Community referral should be taken quickly in order to avoid possible economic losses of interested parties. The possibility to adopt such decision quickly is, however, limited by the binding procedures and time limits foreseen in Community pharmaceutical legislation and the need to carry out a proper scientific evaluation.

3. The committee for veterinary medicinal products concluded that the adverse reactions seen in the Netherlands and in Italy resulted from contamination of administered live IBR vaccine. Inactivated IBR vaccines have not been under investigation. Nevertheless the Italian authorities opted for precautionary reasons to suspend also the inactivated vaccine. Obviously, since the inactivated vaccine was not suspended by the Belgian authority, cattle present in Belgium may have been vaccinated with the inactivated vaccine.

(1) Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products, OJ L 317, 6.11.1981.

(2000/C 330 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0635/00

by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Plans for a ‘child care cheque’ in Carinthia

1. Is the Commission aware that the Governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, is planning to pay Austrian mothers in Carinthia a monthly child allowance for the first six years of a child’s life if they stay at home to look after their children?

2. Does the Commission not feel that an arrangement of this kind is inconsistent with European rules concerning the coordination of social security (EEC 1408/71 (1), etc.) and that it must be seen as discriminating against non-Austrian women and other inhabitants of Carinthia?

3. Does the Commission not feel that denying migrants and non-Austrians (or non-EU citizens) this child allowance is at odds with the European tradition that measures relating to children and child care must apply to all inhabitants?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. C 330 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission’s attention has been drawn to the plan to which the Honourable Member is referring.

In the absence of social security harmonisation, each Member State is responsible for determining all the specific characteristics of its social legislation as long as, in doing so, it respects Community law.

However, there are Community rules which coordinate the different national social security systems, contained in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) and its implementing Regulation No 574/72, and which aim to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of workers and members of their families, by guaranteeing certain fundamental principles such as equal treatment with nationals, exportability of social security benefits within the Community, aggregation of insurance periods and the prevalence of one applicable body of legislation.

The above-mentioned rules for coordinating Member States’ social security systems protect the rights of migrant workers in so far as they are nationals of the European Union or the European Economic Area. Moreover, Tunisian, Moroccan, Algerian and Turkish nationals who are legally residing in a Member State also benefit from equal treatment with respect to social security due to agreements between their country of origin and the Community. Nationals from non-member countries residing in Member States cannot refer to Community law in order to receive equal treatment with nationals. As a result, when the Austrian authorities introduce the conditions for entitlement and the new social security allowance, they will have to respect the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, which implies that Commun- ity nationals and the nationals of the four above-mentioned countries will benefit from the allowance under the same conditions as Austrian nationals.

In addition, in 1997, the Commission already proposed to extend the field of application of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to cover nationals of all non-member countries who are insured under a Member State’s legislation and who are legally residing in the Community. The Council is still reviewing this proposal (2).

Furthermore, the Commission also recently adopted a proposal to simplify and reform the rules for coordinating Member States’ social security systems (3), which covers every person insured by social security legislation in a Member State and which also protects nationals of non-member countries. In accordance with the co-decision principle, Parliament and the Council are currently reviewing this proposal, which can only be adopted by a unanimous decision.

(1) Latest consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.10.1997). (2) OJ C 6, 1.1.1998. (3) OJ C 38, 12.2.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0642/00 by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Commission’s position regarding the arrest of Kurdish mayors in Turkey

At the European Parliament part-session on 1 December 1999, Commissioner Günter Verheugen, on behalf of the Commission, gave a positive assessment of political developments within Turkey with regard to the country’s status as an applicant for accession.

In the light of the arrest of the Kurdish mayors of Diyarbakir, Siirt and Bingöl, Feridun Celik, Selim Özalp and Feyzullah Kararslan, by the Turkish police and paramilitary special units on 19 February 2000:

1. does the Commission stand by its positive assessment?

2. does the Commission regard the intensified action by the Turkish authorities against democratically elected Kurdish representatives and the Kurdish party Hadep as part of these ‘positive’ developments? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/197

3. or does the Commission assess these measures by the Turkish authorities differently? If that is the case, namely if the Commission agrees that a critical, negative assessment is to be given of the Turkish action against Kurdish politicians, what does it consider to be the implications for relations between the EU and Turkey, in particular with regard to implementing the regulations on the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey and on the implementation of measures to intensify the EC-Turkey customs union, as well as to Turkey’s proposed accession to the European Union? What steps does the Commission intend to take in practice?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

Having learned of the arrest on 19 February 2000 of three mayors belonging to the HADEP party, the Commission, in close co-ordination with the Presidency and the Member States, informed the Turkish authorities of its concern at the situation of the three elected representatives.

The three men in question were released on bail on 28 February 2000, and were reinstated in their posts on 29 February 2000.

It is not the role of the Commission to pronounce judgment on the character of the legal proceedings taken against these three elected politicians. However, the Commission was concerned that these events might further complicate the vital dialogue between the Turkish authorities and HADEP, a political party which has come to represent a large part of that section of the population which is of Kurdish origin. The Commission was also concerned for the consequences these events might have on Turkey’s preparations for accession to the Union.

(2000/C 330 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0644/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 February 2000)

Subject: The behaviour of Belgium and France towards Austria

For a number of days now Belgium and France have been pursuing an offensive policy of isolating Austria because of their fear that the FPÖ’s participation in the government could pose a threat to human rights and the protection of minorities in Austria. At the same time, Belgium and France are the only countries, apart from Turkey, which have neither ratified nor signed the Council of Europe’s framework agreement on the protection of national minorities.

1. Is there any justification for France’s and Belgium’s behaviour given that the two countries have still not ratified or signed the Council of Europe’s framework agreement on the protection of national minorities and that the two countries do not guarantee the minimum European standard of protection of minorities?

2. Does every country, regardless of its own political history or circumstances (for example, France’s ‘empty chair’ policy in the 1960s or Great Britain’s veto policy), have the right to isolate without any legal basis a trustworthy member of the European Union?

(2 May 2000)

It would not be appropriate for the Council to take a view on actions which have been taken by one or more of the Governments of the Member States and which have no direct bearing on the work of the Council. Any such action is a matter for the Governments of the Member States concerned. C 330 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0662/00 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Fifth Action Programme on equal opportunities for women and men

Following the discussion of 22 February last with Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou on the Fifth Equality Opportunities Programme:

1. How does the Commission, given that this action programme is scheduled to be adopted at the end of 2000 or the beginning of 2001, envisage its implementation in 2001?

2. How does the Commission, given that it envisages the Fifth Programme covering both mainstreaming activities and positive action, intend to divide the funding between these two areas?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

As the member of the Commission responsible for Employment and social affairs mentioned in the discussion in the women’s rights committee on 22 February 2000, the proposal for a new framework programme on gender equality, covering the period 2001 2005 is scheduled to be presented for adoption before Summer 2000. Both the Portuguese and the French presidencies have introduced this subject in their respective agendas in order to ensure the adoption of the new programme by the Council on the basis of Article 13 of the EC Treaty, so that it can be implemented in 2001.

With regard to the funding of the new programme, this will reflect its combined approach linking specific actions to redress inequalities that women experience, and gender mainstreaming. Under this new approach, the Commission will be invited to identify its activities to promote gender equality (be it mainstreaming policies or positive action) both in terms of content and expenditure, the new programme being the ‘umbrella’ for all Community policies that can make a contribution to the goal of achieving gender equality. In addition, the new programme will include a series of horizontal and co-ordinating actions to ensure internal consistency and effectiveness as well as monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Actions which cannot be funded under other budget lines will be presented under the form of a Council decision for an action programme equipped with a specific budget line (B3-4012).

(2000/C 330 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0663/00 by Martin Schulz (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: The Leuna refinery in the Federal Republic of Germany

1. Has the Commission completed all its enquiries into whether the construction of the Leuna refinery in Germany satisfies the requirements of competition law? Does the Commission have no doubts concerning the proper handling and implementation of the procedure by the competent authorities in Germany?

2. Is the Commission aware that documents connected with aid to the Leuna refinery may have disappeared from the Federal Chancellor’s office? Has the Commission taken any steps to examine whether such incidents affect the interests of the EU, with particular regard to establishing whether the proper procedures were used for granting licences?

3. Has the Commission contacted the authorities in the Federal Republic to check whether the documents that may have disappeared and the data that may have been deleted include documents or data of which the EU’s authorities have copies or which, if found, could be of assistance to the Commission? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/199

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

1. In the framework of its responsibilities for state aid control, pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 (ex-Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is currently investigating whether the cost for the construction of the Leuna 2000 refinery by Elf was artificially inflated. Elf could have received aid payments which go beyond the 35 % aid ceiling permitted in Eastern Germany. As for the investigation of possible fraud in relation to the granting of state aid, it should be noted that such investigations are the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission will study with interest the results of such investigations in order to see whether it has to draw any conclusions.

2. The Commission is aware of allegations that some files have disappeared in the chancellery concerning the Leuna refinery. Such events would not, however, in any way change the obligations of a Member State to submit to the Commission any information necessary for assessing the compatibility of state aid.

3. The Commission is ready to assist the German authorities in their investigations and to provide any Information connected with the existence of acts constituting criminal offences, subject only to the need to avoid obstacles to the proper functioning and independence of the Communities.

(2000/C 330 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0666/00 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Allegations of ESF fraud in Spain

Following the discovery that the Centro Politécnico de Educación a Distancia y Editorial (CPD) company, in which the wife of his political appointee, the Director-General for Migration, had a 50 % holding, had made use of inside information to charge approximately ESP 2 billion (EUR 12 million) in respect of its involvement in programmes run by the National Employment Agency (INEM), the Spanish Minister for Labour and Social Affairs dismissed the Director-General and, deciding to accept political responsibility for the affair, resigned on 19 February.

Given that the INEM is responsible for administering a large proportion of the ESF funds allocated to Spain, would the Commission state whether the above matter has come to its attention; European Social Fund aid or other types of Community aid is, or may be, being put to improper use; this is an isolated case, or whether it is aware of similar cases; OLAF has opened any inquiries, and, if it has, whether it could forward the conclusions thereof or details of the stage that has been reached therein to either the author of this question or the relevant EP committee?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

As a result of press coverage, the Commission is already familiar with the case mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Given the nature of the operations concerned (training schemes) and the link to the largest European Social Fund promoter in Spain (the National Employment Agency ‘INEM’), the Commission has called upon the Spanish authorities to keep it informed of the results of their investigation and any involvement on the part of the ESF. The information which the Spanish authorities will supply should enable the Commission to gauge the extent of any problems.

Within the framework of its annual inspection activities, the Commission has arranged an inspection visit to the INEM, which was announced when the Commission submitted its plan to the national authorities in December 1999. C 330 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

In accordance with Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 28 April 1999 (1) establishing the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), the Office exercises its investigation powers in full independence. On the basis of Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (2), the Director of the Office reports on a regular basis, primarily to Parliament, on the results of the Office’s investigations and subject to the conditions set out therein.

The Commission has not received any information from the Office about the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member.

(1) Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom. OJ L 136, 31.5.1999. (2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0669/00 by Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 92/61/EEC into Spanish legislation

The transposition of Directive 92/61/EEC (1) into Spanish legislation has given rise to various provisions governing the type-approval, use and registration of vehicles. One of the most recent is the new General Vehicle Regulation, approved by Royal Decree 2822/98 of 23 December. Under this regulation, 2, 3 or 4-wheeled vehicles with the technical characteristics described in the above directive are classed as mopeds.

In view of the above, is the Commission aware of the alleged discriminatory treatment applied to light quadricycles in Spain as a result of a breach of Community law whereby the Spanish Government has allowed hidden subsidies to manufacturers of 2 and 3-wheeled mopeds and motorcycles in Spain?

Likewise, in connection with this, is the Commission aware of the alleged discriminatory tax arrangements applied in Spain to quadricycles, which have been made subject to indirect taxation conditions identical to those applied to other mopeds, with retrospective effect, in particular VAT and the special tax on certain means of transport?

Surely correct implementation of the directive would mean that quadricycles would receive the same treatment as all other mopeds?

(1) OJ L 225, 10.8.1992, p. 72.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The effect of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 92/61/CEE of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles is to divide those vehicles that are the object of the directive into mopeds, motorcycles and tricycles. In addition, Article 1(3) provides that the Directive will apply equally to four-wheel motor vehicles (‘quadricycles’) possessing the characteristics stipulated in Articles 1(3)(a) and 1(3)(b).

In a letter dated 29 January 1993, the Spanish authorities informed the Commission that this Directive was to be transposed into Spanish law. The Spanish authorities also forwarded a copy of the legal instrument through which the transposition was to be effected: ministerial order 18634 of 24 July 1992 as published in the Official Gazette No 187, page 27373, of 5 August 1992.3.

On the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission has not been able to determine positively that manufacturers of two and three-wheel mopeds and motorcycles are indeed in receipt of hidden subsidies. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/201

The Commission is perfectly well aware that mopeds are treated differently in Spain according as they have two, three or even four wheels. Where VAT is concerned, two and three-wheel mopeds with a capacity of less than 50 cubic centimetres (cc) are taxed at a reduced rate, otherwise the standard rate is applied. Since mopeds do not figure among those goods which may benefit from a reduced rate listed in Annex H of the Council’s Sixth Directive 77/388/CEE, of 17 May 1977 concerning the harmonisation of Member States’ laws on turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) the Commission will consider whether it might be useful to initiate proceedings on this matter in the context of article 226 (formerly article 169) of the EC treaty. The special tax imposed by Spain on certain means of transport is collected whenever a vehicle, whether new or secondhand, is definitively registered for the first time in Spain. Certain categories of vehicle, among them two and three-wheel mopeds with a capacity of no more than 250 cc, are exempted from this rule. The registration of light quadricycles is, however, subject to the tax. Since the tax is not itself subject to harmonisation at the European level, Spain is free to choose the categories of vehicle to which it applies.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2000/C 330 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0672/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Protection from asbestos for workers in the air and sea transport sectors

In 1990 the Council adopted Directive 90/394/EEC (1) on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work, implementing the framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC (2) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and applying to all sectors of public and private activity.

In Italy, Article 2 of law 277/91, which was adopted in application of Directives 80/1107/EEC (3), 82/605/ EEC (4), 83/477/EEC (5), 86/188/EEC (6) and 88/642/EEC (7) on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work, excluded from its scope workers in the air and sea transport sectors on the grounds that they would be protected by ad hoc national legislation to be introduced at a later date.

However, the Italian Government has not yet adopted specific legislation on the protection of workers in the air and sea transport sectors from exposure to carcinogens.

Will the Commission therefore establish whether the above information is correct?

Will it examine whether Article 2 of Italian law 277/91, excluding certain categories of worker and thereby depriving them of the appropriate protection, is contrary to Community legislation in force on the protection of workers?

If necessary, will it call on the Italian Government to transpose Community directives 90/394/EEC and 89/391/EEC, which are designed to protect all workers, including those in the air and sea transport sectors, from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work?

(1) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990, p. 1. (2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1. (3) OJ L 327, 3.12.1980, p. 8. (4) OJ L 247, 23.8.1982, p. 12. (5) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 25. (6) OJ L 137, 24.5.1986, p. 28. (7) OJ L 356, 24.12.1988, p. 74. C 330 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The Commission does not fully agree with the views expressed by the Honourable Member for the following reasons.

Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work, being an individual directive pursuant to framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, applies to all sectors of activity, whether public or private, with very specific exceptions in certain public service activities. The air and sea transport sectors are covered by Directive 90/394/EEC.

Taking into consideration the adoption of Commission Directive 91/632/EEC of 28 October 1991 (1) adapting to technical progress for the fifteenth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (2), all forms of asbestos have been classified as carcinogens at Community level and consequently are covered by the scope of Directive 90/394/EEC.

The exclusion of certain categories of workers from the scope of Law 277/91 is in accordance with the provisions of Directives 80/1107/EEC, 82/605/EEC, 83/477/EEC, 86/188/EEC and 88/642/EEC.

This does not mean, however, that workers in the air and sea transport sectors are deprived of protection from exposure to carcinogens. They are covered by the legislation which transposes Directive 90/394/EEC into Italian law.

The Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that Directives 90/394/EEC and 89/391/EEC were transposed into Italian law by Legislative Decree No 626 of 19 September 1994 and that this decree’s scope does not exclude workers in the air and sea transport sectors.

(1) OJ L 338, 10.12.1991. (2) OJ 196, 16.8.1967; OJ L 327, 3.12.1980; OJ L 247, 23.8.1982; OJ L 263, 24.9.1983; OJ L 137, 24.5.1986; OJ L 356, 24.12.1988.

(2000/C 330 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0675/00 by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: The length of time ECHO has had no Director

It has been obvious that a new Director of ECHO would need to be appointed ever since it was announced that Mr Alberto Navarro was to join Mr Javier Solana’s private office. Why has the new Commissioner, Mr Nielson, taken so long to suggest an appointee, and why is it that the appointed candidate has not yet taken up his duties?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Mr Alberto Navarro, former Director of the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), was invited to take up his new duties as head of Mr Solana’s private office on 1 October 1999.

In accordance with the relevant administrative procedures, Mr Sabato Della Monica was made acting director of ECHO with effect from 1 October 1999 until such time as a permanent appointment was made. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/203

The vacant post of Director of ECHO was published on 10 November 1999 by agreement with the private office of the Member responsible for development and humanitarian aid; the final date for applications was 24 November 1999.

The Advisory Committee on Appointments (ACA) met on 16 December 1999 to draw up a shortlist of applicants. After in-depth talks, the ACA issued its opinion on 20 January 2000. The Commission decided to appoint Mrs Costanza Adinolfi to the post (PV(2000) 1466 of 15 February 2000). Mrs Adinolfi will take up her duties as Director of ECHO on 15 March 2000.

(2000/C 330 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0676/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Tourism measures

There is frequent criticism from many sources of a lack of coordination of tourism policy within the EU; the reason generally given by the Commission is that the Treaties do not provide sufficient legal basis for such measures.

Can the Commission say whether it intends in future to seek better coordination and harmonisation of the Member States’ existing legislation on tourism?

Can the Commission also say what specific measures to promote tourism it has adopted to date, in particular in the area of bed and breakfast, rooms in private houses, holiday accommodation and similar structures, and what action it intends to take in this area in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its Communication of 28 April 1999 on ‘Enhancing tourism’s potential for employment’ (1), in which a new approach is taken concerning the Community’s tourism activities. This approach is based on knowledge of the tourism sector and market and of its growth and employment potential in promoting conditions which would allow this potential to be sustained in the long term. The method used for this purpose is based on cooperation with the Member States, consultation of the economic and social operators in the tourist industry and coordination of other Community measures and programmes which impact on tourism. The Commission is aware of the many and varied aspects of tourism and regards it as an essential task to consolidate the consistent integration of these aspects with other policies, for example regional policy, transport policy, policies relating to the environment, enterprise, competition, employment and research.

The Commission believes that tourist activities at Community level must complement Member States’ activities and respect the principle of subsidiarity. It does not therefore intend to harmonise the tourism legislation currently in force in the Member States unless this legislation calls the internal market into question. However, since 1996, measures taken by the Member States have been coordinated within the Advisory Committee on Tourism.

It is not the responsibility of the Commission to take specific measures concerning particular types of tourism or accommodation. Existing programmes of assistance, for example the Structural Funds, allow the Member States’ authorities, the regions and the tourism business to support the most appropriate tourist activities.

(1) COM(1999) 205 final. C 330 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0678/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Discrepancies in the levels of heart disease among EU Member States and the need for further preventive action

Bearing in mind Article 152 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community and given the discrepancies in the levels of heart disease throughout the EU (with Ireland having almost five times the rate of that in France) and the fact that Irish women now account for one in two deaths in Ireland from cardiac arrest and that many cases of heart disease are easily preventable, can the Commission comment on these discrepancies and outline what, if anything, it intends to do to tackle heart disease further across the EU (and in particular in countries such as Ireland) to ensure that such high death rates are brought down?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

This issue is currently being discussed in the context of the European heart health initiative, which is a Community-wide project aiming at increasing awareness in all the Member States among policy makers, health professionals, and in the longer term the general public, of the importance of fighting cardio- vascular disease and of ways of making prevention possible.

It is expected that the project will propose guidelines on how cardio-vascular disease should be tackled and on what actions and policies for a healthier Europe should be developed and implemented in this respect.

The new public health strategy and action programme will offer a solid basis for continuing efforts to combat cardio-vascular disease in the Community.

(2000/C 330 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0679/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Car prices in Ireland and the future legal framework of car distribution

Bearing in mind the relatively high prices of cars in Ireland for general consumers compared to other members of the Euro zone, will the Commission state when it intends to take its decision regarding the future legal framework of car distribution, comment on what the rationale behind the prospective decision, and comment on what effect the decision could have on car prices in Ireland and on competition in the car sector in that country?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The current block exemption regulation concerning car distribution (1) provides, in Article 11, that the Commission regularly evaluates the application of the regulation, with particular regard to price differentials between the different Member States and on the quality of service to final users. To this end, the Commission has, since 1993, monitored car price differences in the Community in its bi-annual report on car prices. Article 11 of the regulation also requires the Commission to draw up a report on the evaluation of the regulation before 31 December 2000. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/205

In contrast to what has been observed by the Honourable Member, the Commission’s regular reports on car prices have not revealed that car prices before tax in Ireland are particularly high in comparison with other Member States, and in particular with the United Kingdom (2). In this respect, the Commission has found that in Member States with a high taxation on car purchase, such as Ireland, prices before tax are relatively low. With regard to prices after tax, it has to be noted that taxation on car purchase has remained an issue on which the Member States decide, as they have so far excluded this issue from Community actions concerning tax harmonization in the internal market.

As far as the query of the Honourable Member about the future legal framework for car distribution is concerned, the decision is still open. The Commission is currently preparing a report on the evaluation of the regulation, which is expected to provide more evidence on the causes of price differentials and on the impact of the exempted distribution system on car prices. The impact of this regulation on consumers will be one of the key elements in the evaluation. This report will however provide an essential basis for the forthcoming discussion about the future legal framework for car distribution, after expiry of the current regulation on 30 September 2002.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. (2) See for example the most recent press release IP/00/121 of 7 February 2000 on the Report.

(2000/C 330 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Daytime running lights

Could the Commission please give an indication of the current state of play in terms of the Commission High Level Group for Road Safety’s deliberations on the issue of daytime running lights and the possible introduction of EU legislation on this matter? Is the Commission in a position to apply further pressure in order to resolve the current apparent stalemate between Member States on this issue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission has been reviewing the available research evidence concerning the effectiveness of daytime running lights as an accident reduction measure. The results of the considerable amount of research in this field are not conclusive, but they do indicate that for all road users daytime running lights would be a positive road safety measure and that the effects are directly proportional to ambient daylight levels. Estimates of the accident reduction effect vary widely and are still the subject of unresolved academic debate.

The Commission concludes that while daytime running lights are likely to be a cost-effective road safety measure they will not be as significant, for example, as the benefits to be obtained from speed reduction, less drinking and driving or increased seat belt wearing. The Commission view on the significance of these measures is described in greater detail in the road safety communication which it adopted on 18 March 2000 (1).

The Commission has also estimated that the maximum additional fuel consumption, and consequent carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, arising from daytime running lights is between 1,5 % and 2,0 % although this depends to some extent upon the technical specification for daytime running lights. C 330 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

At the last meeting of the high level group for road safety it was clear that Member States still had different views about the effectiveness of daytime running lights. In particular, there were different views about whether the consequent additional fuel consumption and CO2 emissions were a significant social cost which counteracted the estimated benefits of the measure. Consequently the Commission reported to the group that it would consider developing Community legislation for daytime running lights when there was broader support from Member States.

(1) COM(2000) 125.

(2000/C 330 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0692/00 by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Fixed-term contracts for the Fifth Framework programme

Following the Commission’s decision of 19 January 1996 concerning the new staff policy (NPPR), notices of vacancy with internal selection procedure were published. The contracts, which were concluded for two years from 15 February 1997 and extended for a further two years, expired on 15 February 2000. The extension occurred during the Fifth Framework programme which ends in 2002. As a result, some researchers whose contracts were renewed were assigned to projects longer than the duration of their contracts (for example, the four-year COCO project due to end in 2002).

Does the Commission not consider that this forced interruption of research projects caused by the expiry of researchers’ contracts is economically damaging and puts a brake on research work, highlighting the fact that the flexibility demanded of fixed-term contract workers is being applied in an inappropriate manner and with the wrong timescale, without taking into account the need for successful completion of the Fifth Framework programme?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The contracts referred to by the Honourable Member are contracts for fixed-term staff for a maximum duration of three years, as provided for by the new staff policy under the research budget adopted by the Commission in 1996. Their aim is to enable a certain flexibility to be achieved in appointing specialist staff, more particularly in the areas for which the Commission does not have any recruitment reserves. Their numbers may exceed the research payroll by 25 %.

These fixed-term staff members are selected from a database set up after a call for applications that has been widely disseminated outside the Commission (more particularly on the Cordis website). It must also be stressed, in this connection, that those fixed-term staff members are informed of the maximum three- year duration of their contracts at the point when they make their application, and also when the contract is signed.

In addition, such contracts may be entered into at any time of the year. Thus they do not all expire on 15 February 2000.

It should also be stressed that these contracts are not intended to span the duration of a framework contract, nor even that of a specific project. They correspond to a form of recruitment that supplements that for fixed-term staff appointed via selection procedures that can be treated on the same basis as open competitions, who are covered by renewable five-year contracts or contracts of unspecified length, depending upon whether they are employed as research-staff members for scientific or technical purposes or for administrative purposes.

In any case the Commission may point out to the Honourable Member that no research contract has been interrupted by the expiry of fixed-term staff contracts. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/207

(2000/C 330 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0700/00 by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Canary Islands import regulations

Can the Commission explain why the Canary Islands have different regulations for importing certified seed potatoes than other regions of the European Union and whether the present arrangements will ever change?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Community plant health regime, established by Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1) was adapted by Directive 94/13/EC (2)to accommodate the specific plant health situation in the Canary Islands. The remote and insular nature of the Islands and hence the peculiar plant health situation was acknowledged and the need for specific provisions in the Annexes to the Directive for the protection of the Canary Islands was foreseen.

However, the practical implementation of the integration of the Canary Islands into the Community plant health regime has not yet taken place, because an updated list specifying the harmful organisms of concern to the Canary Islands, with an indication of the phytosanitary measures considered appropriate, to be supplied by Spain, is still awaited.

Because of the exceptional geographical situation, which constitutes a severe handicap, the Canary Islands also benefit from the application of Regulation 1601/92 which is a regime of exemption from levies and/or customs duties on different products, including certified seed potatoes, imported directly from third countries. The quantity of goods entitled to benefit from the regime is fixed yearly based on the supply balance.

(1) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, as last amended by Commission Directive 1999/53/EC, OJ L 142, 5.6.1999. (2) OJ L 92, 9.4.1994.

(2000/C 330 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0705/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Amendments to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act

In the Netherlands, everybody is covered by the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ). Since 1 January 2000, Netherlands nationals living abroad who are not insured with a health insurance fund have no longer been covered by the AWBZ. However, Netherlands nationals residing in Belgium cannot subscribe to a health insurance fund because Belgian social legislation regards this as incompatible with the Dutch AWBZ facilities.

This is very much a Catch 22 situation: Netherlands nationals residing in Belgium must subscribe to a health insurance fund in order to be entitled to AWBZ facilities, but Belgian health insurance funds refuse to accept them as members because they are entitled to AWBZ facilities.

1. Does the decision by the Netherlands Government to exclude Netherlands nationals who reside abroad and are not insured with a health insurance fund from AWBZ facilities as of 1 January 2000 violate European law, inter alia the freedom of citizens and patients to settle in other EU Member States (ECJ, 28 April 1998, no. C-158/96)? (a) If so, what will the Council do to remedy this situation? (b) If not, does not the Netherlands Government’s measure detract from European law, inter alia the freedom of citizens and patients to settle in other EU Member States (ECJ, 28 April 1998, No C-158/96)? C 330 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

2. Does the decision by the Netherlands Government violate the principle of trust, since the persons concerned have moved abroad in good faith in the knowledge that they will continue to enjoy full cover for medical expenses under the AWBZ? If not, does not the Council consider that the Netherlands’ measure detracts from the principle of trust?

(2 May 2000)

The matter raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the Council’s powers. In accordance with the Treaty, it is for the Commission to ensure that Community law is applied and, where appropriate, to submit to the Council, or jointly to the European Parliament and to the Council, legislative proposals on matters within the Community’s sphere of competence.

(2000/C 330 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0712/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Amending Directives 98/95/EC and 98/96/EC

Can the Commission indicate whether either of these Directives 98/95/EC (1) and 98/96/EC (2) prevents the UK Government from maintaining the 1982/844 UK statutory instrument’s provision of public consultation (part 3 paragraph 21-30)?

(1) OJ L 25, 1.2.1999, p. 1. (2) OJ L 25, 1.2.1999, p. 27.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

Articles 21-30 of Part III of the United Kingdom’s Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 1982 make provision for a public consultation procedure prior to the adoption of decisions by the United Kingdom authorities concerning the registration, refusal of registration, renewal or withdrawal of registration in the National List of a seed or of a maintainer. These provisions do not derive from a Community obligation and are therefore the result of a decision by the United Kingdom legislature.

Directives 98/95/EC (1) and 98/96/EC (2) have no effect on the possibility of maintaining the provisions referred to above. In any event, the decisions adopted by the national authorities following the consultation procedure must comply with the general and specific provisions of the EC Treaty or of acts adopted by the institutions pursuant thereto.

(1) Council Directive 98/95/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, in respect of the consolidation of the internal market, genetically modified plant varieties and plant genetic resources, Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species. (2) Council Directive 98/96/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, inter alia, as regards unofficial field inspections under Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/209

(2000/C 330 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0716/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: The compliance of the payment of tuition fees in the UK with EU competition law

Following devolution in the UK, Scottish Universities now reduce and defer the payment of tuition fees for European students (with the exception of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish), whereas all other UK universities are obliged to demand the payment of fees on enrolment.

The dissimilar conditions applied to the financing of students in the UK offers Scottish Universities an unfair competitive edge over their counterparts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, most particularly in attracting international students. Could the Commission therefore confirm whether this situation fully complies with the principles of the Community’s competition law as laid down in the European Treaties?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0374/00 (1).

(1) See page 143.

(2000/C 330 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/00 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Accidents at work

Analysts and observers generally agree that, by definition, work is a risk. Obviously, the risk is greater in certain sectors than in others. Clearly, also, despite existing measures designed to prevent risks resulting in accidents, accidents do occur all too frequently.

National politicians with responsibility in this area recognise both the virtue of these laws, and the fact that they do not go far enough.

Job creation is a priority for the European Union. Those created must be quality jobs geared towards the aim of eliminating accidents at work.

Does the Commission plan to implement or coordinate new measures aimed at reducing the number of accidents at the workplace?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member’s view on the importance of the measures designed to protect the health and safety of workers in order to reduce the number of occupational accidents. The Commission’s policy in this area has always pursued this objective.

The directives in the area of ‘health and safety at work’ that have been adopted by the Council on the basis of proposals from the Commission constitute a minimum foundation of measures for protecting workers from occupational accidents and occupational diseases.

It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure appropriate monitoring and surveillance of the application of the national provisions that transpose these directives. C 330 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

In order to facilitate the application of the directives and to help to reduce occupational accidents, the Commission initiates non-legislative measures, including the drafting of non-binding practical guides, whenever this is needed.

In this connection, the Commission would also draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the activities of the Agency for Health and Safety at Work, and especially to the conference on health, safety and employability that was held in September 1999 in Bilbao. At this conference, mention was made of the links between exclusion from the labour market, employability, occupational rehabilitation, the culture of the protection of health and safety at work and equal opportunities, the adaptation of the working environment to man and the competitiveness of firms.

A copy of the conclusions of this conference is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

(2000/C 330 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0729/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: EU-Korea meeting and the European shipbuilding industry

When appearing before the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry in December 1999, the Commissioner responsible for enterprise, Mr Liikanen, said that the Commission was to meet with Korea to discuss current problems affecting the shipbuilding industry at international level and, specifically, the unfair competition practised by Korea in this sector.

Has the Commission held any meetings with Korea to discuss these problems?

If so, at what level were the meeting or meetings held, what was on the agenda and what were the results?

What strategy and what measures has it adopted or will it adopt further to the contacts it has had with Korea?

What is the schedule for future meetings with Korea, at what level will they be held and what is on the agenda?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

In line with the conclusions of the Industry Council of 9 November last year, a dialogue between the EU and Korea has got under way in an effort to find solutions to the problems of unfair competition in the shipbuilding industry. The Commission has pointed out that, in the absence of satisfactory results, the Community industry could very quickly lodge a complaint with it under the Trade Barriers Regulation which could lead in due course to proceedings in the World Trade Organisation.

Following initial contacts in Paris on 14 December last year, a Commission delegation went to Seoul on 10 and 11 February seeking clear commitments whereby the Koreans would acknowledge their responsibility in the crisis currently affecting the sector, undertake not to intervene to rescue bankrupt shipyards and promise to implement transparency rules, in particular international accounting standards ensuring that ships are priced so as to cover all costs. At this stage, Korea did not accept the EU proposal. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/211

In response to the threat of proceedings by the Community, however, Korea proposed holding a third round of discussions from 14 to 16 March to look for a way of avoiding a possible trade dispute. Finally, on 29 March, Korea agreed to give virtually all the commitments the Commission had called for.

Should an agreement be reached in the near future, the Commission together with the Community industry and the Member States would check very carefully that Korea was fulfilling its commitments. In this context, the Commission could very quickly ask for consultations with Korea to find concrete solutions to the difficulties facing our industry.

Should Korea fail to deliver on its commitments or should there be no real impact on the market, the Community industry has said that it would lodge a complaint with the Commission (under the Trade Barriers Regulation) regarding Korea’s subsidy practices. If the complaint provided sufficient evidence, the Commission would be prepared to initiate an investigation. This could end up before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, thus offering the EU the prospect of the practices being penalised.

(2000/C 330 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0731/00 by Paul Coûteaux (UEN) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: FSCs Case before the WTO

The WTO’s appeal body has recently condemned the American system of FSCs (Foreign Sales Corpora- tions) which enable exporters to avoid all tax by using fictitious bases in tax havens. This system of avoiding export duties, currently legal in the USA, will therefore have to be dismantled (Report AB-1999- 9, 24 February 2000). However, it is unlikely that Congress will be inclined to comply with the WTO’s decision in the run-up to the election.

Can the Commission say whether, if the USA does not abolish FSCs within the prescribed time limit (before 30 September 2000), it proposes to implement sanctions of the same kind as those adopted by the USA in connection with the Euro-American dispute over hormone-treated beef, in other words to impose tit-for-tat trade restrictions?

Does the Commission intend to link these two cases in the context of wider negotiations on trans-Atlantic trade disputes?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The Commission is confident that the United States will comply with their international obligations relating to Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC) and bring their legislation into line with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements before 1 October 2000. However, in the hypothetical case that the United States should fail to bring the FSC laws into line with the conclusions of the panel and the appellate body by this date, a number of options are open to the Community. These include negotiating compensation, and suspending concessions granted to the US. These are rights enjoyed by any party that brings a complaint before the WTO, should the obligations that result not be implemented as required, and are in no way peculiar to the FSC case. However, the Commission expects that the United States will indeed implement the recommendations made by the disputes settlement body of the WTO.

Concerning the second part of the question, the Commission has been working for some time now on the case of hormone-treated beef. Given the specific importance of each of these two cases in its own right, the Commission will endeavour to find an independent solution for each, in line with our international obligations under the WTO agreements. C 330 E/212 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0732/00 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: Objectivity of information provided by public broadcasters

Will the Commission say whether the broadcasts by RAI (Radio Televisione Italiana), particularly the Telegiornale news programme (TG1) on the station Rai Uno, which fails to respect the rules of parity in reporting the activities of political parties but gives certain parties special treatment, meet the requirements of European legislation regarding the reporting and dissemination of news in the multimedia sector?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Community legislation regarding the freedom of movement for services, and, in particular, the provisions of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (1), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (2), does not concern the issue of objectivity and impartiality of political programmes broadcast by television stations.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. (2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0734/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: Construction of an underground car park in Piazza Lorenzini in Rome

In the Portuense district of Rome, where a building recently collapsed, the local authorities have issued a permit for the construction of 80 underground garages in Piazza Lorenzini.

The subsoil of the whole area consists of tufa caves and galleries and is particularly unstable, but despite the collapse of the building it does not seem that the subsoil has been properly analysed or a hydro- geological inspection carried out. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a need for parking spaces in the area, since there are already sufficient numbers of them. The work will also mean cutting down some tall trees several decades old in one of the few green spaces in the district. For all these reasons the inhabitants are strongly opposed to the project and have spontaneously set up a number of committees. The Rome city authorities have, moreover, not requested a prior assessment of the project from the XVth administrative district, which is competent for that area.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether it does not consider that the project is of the kind for which an environmental impact assessment is compulsory, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and subsequent amendments;

2. whether it does not consider it appropriate to contact the competent national authorities in order to ascertain whether the project should be carried out, not least in view of the opposition from local residents?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/213

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-0243/00 (1).

(1) See page 108.

(2000/C 330 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0764/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Report by the European Round Table of Industrialists on state pensions

A working party of the European Round Table of Industrialists chaired by Carlo De Benedetti has recently submitted to Commission President Romano Prodi its conclusions on the financing of state pensions in the European Union. The members of the working party say that state pensions act as a brake on economic growth in Europe. They advocate the system of private pension schemes as an alternative.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Who are the authors of the report of the European Round Table of Industrialists on the financing of state pensions in the fifteen Member States of the European Union?

2. Who are the members of the European Round Table of Industrialists?

3. What are the final conclusions of the European Round Table of Industrialists on the financing of state pensions in the fifteen Member States of the European Union (please quote verbatim)?

4. Does the Commission endorse the final conclusions of the European Round Table of Industrialists on the financing of state pensions in the fifteen Member States of the European Union? (a) If so, is the Commission of the opinion that the existing state pensions in the fifteen Member States of the EU will eventually have to be replaced, either wholly or in part, by private pension schemes? (b) If not, does the Commission advocate maintaining the state pensions which currently exist in the fifteen EU Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

1. and 2. The Commission is not responsible for the report mentioned by the Honourable Member. Answers should therefore be obtained directly from the European round table of industrialists.

3. The report is available from the European round table’s web site (www.ert.be).

4. The design and structure of pension systems are the prerogative of Member States. The Commission set out its views on pension design and pension reform in its communication ‘Towards a Europe for all ages’ of 21 May 1999 (1). Here it was emphasised that the most effective way to counter the threat of ageing to the sustainability of pension systems is to reverse the trend towards early retirement and to raise the employment rate for all of working age. The crucial changes will be those that enable and motivate workers to work longer and to opt for a later and more gradual exit from labour markets, since this will lead to a reduction in pension costs, extra revenue and larger productive input to growth. That pension schemes are employment friendly is more important than whether they are pre-funded or pay-as-you-go. C 330 E/214 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

It is possible that funded provision for old age will become more important, but pay-as-you-go pension schemes can be expected to continue providing the largest share in the total income of pensioners in most Member States. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that funded pension schemes will remain unaffected by demographic change, although the impact of such change on asset prices and returns is more difficult to predict than the impact on the financial equilibrium of pay-as-you-go systems.

This being said, the Commission believes that actions can be taken at Community level in order to enhance the efficiency of funded pension schemes. Several concrete proposals were made in its communication ‘Towards a single market for supplementary pensions Results of the consultations on the Green Paper on supplementary pensions in the single market’ (2) of 11 May 1999 including liberalisation of investment and management rules in order to take advantage of Community-wide capital markets, possibility for pension funds to manage pension plans on a cross-border basis, and transferability of supplementary pension rights. As a first step, the Commission plans to adopt by mid-2000 a proposal for a directive on pension funds. This proposal will establish strict prudential standards in order to protect the rights of future pensioners and contain investment rules allowing pension funds to optimise the performance and security of their investments. It will also aim at the mutual recognition of national prudential systems so as to facilitate cross-border affiliation.

In its communication ‘A concerted strategy for modernising social protection’ (3) of 14 July 1999, the Commission stressed the need ‘to make pensions safe and pension systems sustainable’. This was endorsed by the Council on 17 December 1999 when it called for a group of high-level officials to be set up for the implementation of the action proposed in the communication. The group has now been established on an interim basis and pensions are one of the initial issues it has decided to focus on. The Commission has adopted a proposal for a Council decision which would formalise the group (4). The Lisbon special European Council of 23-24 March 2000 has given the group the task of exploring the long term sustainability of pension schemes.

(1) COM(1999) 221 final. (2) COM(1999) 134 final. (3) COM(1999) 347 final. (4) COM(2000) 134 final.

(2000/C 330 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0795/00

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Lucent Technologies

In mid-1999 Angela Elliot Mathis, a British citizen and a senior executive and board member of Lucent Technologies in Belgium, was dismissed without warning and with no reason given for the dismissal. She had been ‘head hunted’ from outside Belgium into the company just 13 months earlier because of her excellent record in the IT sector and her record of performance with the company offers no explanation for her dismissal. Under Belgian law she had no protection or rights against dismissal under these conditions.

Does the Commission agree that individuals will be increasingly unlikely to take advantage of the possibility to move and work wherever they like within the EU unless minimum social guarantees, such as those on individual dismissals, are put in place throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

As regards protection against individual dismissals in the context of free movement of workers, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/215

within the Community (1) provides that ‘A worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration, dismissal, and should he become unemployed, reinstatement or re-employment’.

According to the information available to the Commission, the protection against individual dismissals in Belgium depends, in some cases, on the earnings of the individual employee. For employees above a certain earnings ceiling the protection against dismissal is agreed in the individual contract of employment.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2000/C 330 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0809/00 by Harlem Désir (PSE) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Condemnation by the WTO’s body of appeal of the tax treatment of foreign sales corporations (FSCs) in the USA

On 24 February 2000 the WTO’s body of appeal published its report on the tax treatment of foreign sales corporations (FSCs) in the USA. This report upholds the condemnation of the tax arrangements under which some 50 % of American exports benefit from a tax refund which is tantamount to an export subsidy totalling some $ US 4 billion annually. Although European companies are not the only ones affected, they are among those hardest hit.

Will the Commission say why, having condemned these practices, the WTO has not fixed the amount of compensation due to the European Union and why the Commission itself which is responsible for protecting the Union’s commercial interests has failed to take any action vis-à-vis the United States to obtain compensation, bearing in mind that the latter is continuing to take retaliatory measures against the European Union over bananas and beef treated with hormones and the WTO itself has acknowledged that the commercial losses incurred by the EU are far higher?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

Under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling on Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC), the United States have until 1 October 2000 to bring their legislation into line with the conclusions of the panel and the appelate body. If, at that date, the United States have not abolished the FSC status or amended it so as to bring it into line with WTO regulations, the Community will be able to exercise its rights as laid down in article 22 of the memorandum on dispute settlement, and either obtain compensation from the United States, or suspend equivalent concessions, as the United States themselves have done in the cases of hormone-treated beef and bananas.

(2000/C 330 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0810/00 by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Situation of dentists in Italy

In 1985 Italy transposed the 1978 EU directive on dentistry by means of Law 409/85, which was to apply, inter alia, to graduates in medicine who had registered at university prior to 28/1/1980. This gab between 1978 and 1985 meant that thousands of young people took up medical studies after 1980 with the intention of becoming dentists and were retroactively denied the right to do so by the 1985 law C 330 E/216 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

transposing the directive. The rights of these young medical graduates who were working as dentists were reinstated by means of Law 471/88, which was challenged by the European Court of Justice following an appeal. On 8 October 1998 the Italian Government approved a legislative decree requiring dentists who were registered at university between 1980 and 1985 to sit an aptitude test as a precondition for continuing to work as dentists despite the fact that they had already been active in the profession for 10 years.

The dentists in question feel that they are being unjustly penalised for Italy’s failure to transpose the directive on time.

Replying to a question put to the Commission in November 1998, Commissioner Monti stated on 14 January 1999 that the aptitude test requirement had not been imposed by the Commission, but was the result of negotiations between the Commission and the Italian authorities.

Failure to pass the test leads to automatic exclusion from the dentists’ register for qualified dentists who have been practising for more than ten years.

1. Would the Commission have any objections to tackling the problem facing these dentists by organising training and refresher courses without any selective final examination (a procedure applied to other professional persons, such as psychotherapists and lawyers Law 93/16 and general practitioners Law 277/91)?

2. More generally, does the Commission not agree that the rights of qualified dentists who have been practising for more than ten years should be properly protected?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

As stated in the reply to Mrs Muscardini’s written question E-3352/98 (1), which was quoted by the Honourable Member, the aptitude test as a means of recognising those medical graduates called into question by the Court of Justice judgment of 1 June 1995 (2) was the result of negotiations between the Commission and the Italian authorities, held at the request of the latter. In the absence of such negotiations, and on the basis of Article 228 (ex Article 171) of the EC Treaty, Italy would have had to take all necessary measures to comply with the above judgment and, as a result, would have had simply to withdraw the licence to practise dentistry from all those involved.

The Commission has agreed to authorise the medical graduates concerned to practise dentistry notably on the basis of an aptitude test and has presented a proposal to amend to this effect Directive 78/686/ EEC on the mutual recognition of dentists’ qualifications (3) in view of the proposal, as part of the SLIM initiative, for a European Parliament and Council Directive of 2 December 1997 (4). This proposal is being discussed by the European Parliament and the Council under the codecision procedure. This will allow these medical graduates to retain the right to practise dentistry.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.6.1999. (2) European Court Reports 1995, page I-1319. (3) OJ C 233, 24.8.1978. (4) OJ C 28, 28.1.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0828/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Television set fire safety

Is the Commission aware that a recent report from the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute allegedly shows that, as a result of the lowering of fire safety levels for TV set enclosures during the 1990s, televisions sold in Europe pose a greater fire risk than those sold in the United States? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/217

Evidence in the report allegedly suggests that there are television sets on the European market which tend to be more susceptible to ignition and burn fiercely in the event of fire, thus severely shortening people’s potential escape time. This has implications for households across Europe, particularly for hospitals and care premises where fire codes aim to control the flammability of the contents, and therefore hazards, because of the difficulties of evacuating patients in the event of a fire.

Will the Commission urgently review the safety standards of television sets sold in Europe so as to ensure that the most vulnerable groups in society are protected from fire to the same degree as, or to a higher standard than those in the United States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission attaches a high priority to matters regarding fire safety.

The Commission has contacted the relevant Swedish authorities in order to obtain more information on the report from the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The safety of Television sets is regulated by the Low Voltage Directive 73/23/EEC concerning electrical equipment designed for use with certain voltage limits (1). Aspects relating to fire safety are more specifically addressed in Harmonised Standard EN 60065:1998, ‘Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus Safety requirements’ adopted by the European standardisation organisation Cenelec.

The Commission has so far received no information from national authorities regarding shortcomings of the above mentioned standard in relation to fire safety. However, in response to the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission will now raise the question with national authorities in charge of the enforcement of the Low Voltage Directive at their next meeting scheduled for 26 27 April 2000.

The need for further action, including the potential for a review of relevant safety standards for television sets, will then be considered on the basis of information received from Member States.

(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.

(2000/C 330 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0837/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Mining of iron-nickel at Platani in Aghia Sofia, Euboea

In May 1997 the company Larko Ltd. began operations in the region of Aghia Sofia, Euboea, including shipments of surface deposits of iron-nickel from Platani.

Given that:

the Directorate-General for the Environment of the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works approved, by ministerial decision 111249/5.8.98, an environmental impact assessment by Larko undertaken by a summary procedure, i.e. without any publication of information or notification of local bodies, in violation of Directive 85/337/EEC (1),

the director of forestry of Euboea, by decision 3243/2.11.98, ceded to the company in question 85,7 hectares of public forestry land at Platani which consists primarily of fir trees, C 330 E/218 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

the forestry inspectorate of Chalkida has granted logging rights to the company in violation of forestry prohibition No 4049/4.11.87 of the same forestry inspectorate which prohibited grazing in the fir wood of Aghia Sofia so as to allow its natural regeneration up to 2007;

local inhabitants and regional bodies have lodged a complaint and an appeal with the Council of State in this connection;

the operations of Larko Ltd in the region in 1998-99 damaged the road network Aghia Sofia-Psachna, due to the shipment of ore and the movement of heavy vehicles, and the damage has not been repaired;

problems have arisen for the local ecosystem and in particular the fir wood, an area protected by the Greek Constitution, and the coast of Limniona onto which a red mud is being discharged because no facilities exist to contain the waste, and stockbreeding and tourism in the area are affected.

Will the Commission look into this matter and examine whether the appropriate environmental impact assessments have been published in accordance with the law and whether all the other measures provided by Community law have been properly implemented? What measures does the Commission intend to take if it detects violations of Community environmental legislation such as those noted above? Does it intend to call on the relevant Greek authorities to take the necessary measures in order to protect the inhabitants of the region and to restore the natural environment?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Commission did not have any information on the activities of the Larko company in Evvia (Euboea). The type of activity described by the Honourable Member is listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (1).

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will investigate the case to check that Community law was not infringed when the environmental impact assessment presented by Larko was approved by the Greek authorities. If the Commission finds that Greece did infringe Community law, it will then decide whether infringement proceedings should be initiated 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 the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 330 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0839/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Problems in implementing the Operational Programme on Education and Initial Vocational Training as part of the Community Support Framework for Greece

In May 1998 the Greek Ministry of Education announced a competition for the modernisation of educational material for teaching chemistry for all three lycée classes under the project entitled Reformula- tion and Modernisation of the Study Programmes of Natural Sciences of the Ministry of Education which forms part of the Operational Programme on Education and Initial Vocational Training, Subprogramme A1, Measure 1.1 of the Community Support Framework.

Three educational packages were approved by the Organisation for Educational Book Publications, and instructions were given for printing to go ahead under Ministerial decision C2 6201. However, the process of assessment has far exceeded the time limit provided, so that the Pedagogical Institute has entrusted some members of the Institute and others with the task of compiling provisional chemistry books for the 1999-2000 school year at considerable financial cost; it was however decided by Act No 32/1999 of 24 November 1999 to reprint these books with improvements for the 2000-2001 school year. At the same time the books which have been officially approved remain unused. 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/219

Will the Commission say:

1. Is it aware of this matter?

2. Why have the three series of educational books which have been assessed and approved not yet been printed and distributed to pupils and teachers?

3. Why has Ministerial decision C2 6201 not yet been implemented?

4. Why has it been decided to reprint provisional textbooks, rather than use textbooks which have already been approved?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

In the framework of the operational programme on education and initial vocational training, the European social fund (ESF) co-funds actions for the reform of curricula and the modernisation of educational material.

According to the structural funds regulations, the Member States are responsible for the implementation of the programmes.

According to information provided to the Commission by the Greek ministry of Education which is in charge of the implementation of the programme in question, with decision C2/6201/31.12.99, the ministry approved and decided to proceed with the printing and use of new educational material for chemistry for the Integrated Lyceum (i.e. textbooks for the students, textbooks for the teachers, laboratory guide, transparencies). However, the above material was not ready in time to be printed and used in the school year 2000-2001. Therefore, the reprinting of the old textbooks was asked, so that they will be available for the school year 2000-2001. The reprinted old textbooks will be used in the future as alternative textbooks.

(2000/C 330 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0840/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Unemployment rate in Greece

On 4 January 2000 Eurostat, the EU’s statistics service, published very interesting data (Bulletin No 1/2000) on the unemployment rates for men and women in the EU. These data cover the period from November 1997 to November 1999 and refer to men and women below 25 years of age and above 25 years of age. It is noteworthy that no data whatsoever are given concerning Greece, although detailed information is given for all the other EU countries, as well as for the USA and Japan.

Will the Commission say whether the Greek authorities have forwarded data on the unemployment rate in Greece and, if not, what reasons they have invoked for their failure to do so and what measures the Commission services have taken, if any, to obtain information on the unemployment rate in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-0338/00 by Mr Alavanos (1).

(1) See page 131. C 330 E/220 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0933/00 by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Commission investigations against the German Land of Thuringia

1. What investigation procedures in connection with subsidies under EU programmes and directives have been or are being carried out by the Commission against the Land of Thuringia, and when did these begin?

2. What has been the outcome of the investigations under competition law which have already been completed? What is the financial scope of the procedures under investigation, and into what particular areas can they be broken down?

3. Has the Land government been involved in the investigation process or informed about the outcome, and have any specific demands for changes on specific matters been made? If so, when, and on what matters?

4. What are the possible consequences for the Land of Thuringia, and what is the Commission’s assessment of these?

5. Which investigation procedures have not yet been completed, when is this likely to happen and to what matters do they relate?

6. Is there a need to alter the customary procedures for the implementation of EU programmes and directives in Thuringia; if so, which, and in which areas?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 330 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0951/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: The Objective 2 region of Hainaut

The awarding of Objective 2 aid to the Walloon province of Hainaut is leading to the relocation of firms which have been established for many years in the neighbouring province of Western Flanders. The businesses operators in question acknowledge that the removal of their activities to Hainaut is entirely dependent on their obtaining Objective 2 subsidies. If these business operators do not obtain any European aid, they will keep their operations in Western Flanders. In order to be considered for such aid they have to have their company headquarters in Hainaut.

1. How many applications have been made since 1 January 2000 for Objective 2 aid for new economic operations in Hainaut, and to what do they relate?

2. When and where were the company headquarters of these firms registered?

3. (a) How many of these firms were formerly operating in the province of Western Flanders?

(b) How many of these firms are currently operating in Western Flanders? 21.11.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/221

4. Have the firms in question expressly been asked whether their relocation from Western Flanders to Hainaut is dependent on the award of Objective 2 aid?

(a) If so, how many ‘West Flanders’ operators would choose to move their operations to Hainaut without Objective 2 aid?

(b) If not, will the Commission ask these business operators to what extent their relocation is dependent upon Objective 2 aid?

5. Is the Commission prepared to take measures to prevent the relocation of West Flanders firms to Hainaut?

(a) If so, what measures?

(b) If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 330 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1027/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Programme for combating unemployment and exclusion from the labour market

EUR 230 million from the Social Fund appropriations allocated to the Second Community Support Framework for Greece which is now expiring had originally been approved for the programme to combat unemployment and the exclusion of vulnerable social groups, such as persons with special needs, rehabilitated drug addicts and immigrants. Owing to delays in the implementation of the programme for which this sum was intended, it was reduced by EUR 60 million which has been transferred to other programmes, although it is far from certain that this sum will in fact be taken up.

Given the urgent need to channel the funds in question to the vulnerable social groups for which they are intended, i.e. persons with special needs, rehabilitated drug addicts and immigrants, with a view to integrating these groups in the labour market, will the Commission say how it intends to address this matter and what is the reason for the delay (the excessively low take-up rate of appropriations) in implementing the programme so that it achieves to the intended objectives?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

According to recent information provided by the Greek authorities, the programme take-up rate for the period 1994-1999 was approximately 55 % in terms of expenditure incurred. The total of programme credits had been committed by the end of December 1999 and it is expected that there will be 100 % credit absorption within the deadlines imposed by the financial regulations in force.

The very low take-up experienced in particular during the 1994-1997 period was mainly due to the programme’s innovative approach, inadequate administrative and management structures, absence of appropriate implementing structures and the accreditation shortcomings.

In the meantime, significant progress has been achieved in comparison with the 1994-1997 period. The national accreditation agency was re-established and is at present functioning in a satisfactory way. There have also been improvements in programme monitoring. C 330 E/222 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21.11.2000

However further action would still be required under the 3rd Community support framework for Greece 2000-2006, underpinning in particular the individualised, preventive and active approach to promote the integration of vulnerable social groups into the mainstream labour market. In this context it is important to strengthen or develop appropriate labour market structures and mechanisms as well as support, reception and care structures with a view to facilitating participation, integration and autonomy of those exposed to exclusion, including people with disabilities.

(2000/C 330 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1095/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (7 April 2000) Subject: Aboño thermal power station (Asturias) The residents of Pervera (Carreño, Asturias) are inconvenienced on a daily basis by local industry. Several days ago the Aboño thermal power station emitted a large cloud of ash, but incredibly, the firm’s management refused to provide information concerning the cause and nature of the cloud to those affected by the incident. Can the Commission check whether this power station complies with Community environmental legislation, particularly Directive 88/609, which sets limits for emissions into the air by large combustion plants?

What action can the Commission take vis-à-vis the competent authorities to ensure that this firm adopts the measures necessary to guarantee a decent quality of life for the residents and protection of the environment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (16 May 2000) The Commission has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. It has asked the Member State concerned for information and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings.