Official Journal C 187 E Volume 44 of the European Communities 3 July 2001

ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 187 E Volume 44 of the European Communities 3 July 2001

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 187 E/001) E-2778/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Failure to maintain current job levels at a subsidised plant owned by pasta-producer MISKO ...... 1

(2001/C 187 E/002) E-2779/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Assistance for MISKO company workers forced to relocate ...... 1

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-2778/99 and E-2779/99 ...... 2

(2001/C 187 E/003) P-2531/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Projects cofinanced by the Community in Condado (Ponteveda, Spain) (Supplementary Answer) ...... 3

(2001/C 187 E/004) E-2807/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Use of an industrial site reclaimed through EU aid (Supplementary Answer) ...... 3

(2001/C 187 E/005) E-3180/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Council Subject: ERM II ...... 4

(2001/C 187 E/006) E-3396/00 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Council Subject: Irregularities and fraud during elections in Albania ...... 5

(2001/C 187 E/007) E-3421/00 by Andre Brie to the Council Subject: Situation of deserters and conscientious objectors after the end of the war in Kosovo ...... 6

(2001/C 187 E/008) E-3432/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Sergio Berlato to the Commission Subject: Supervision of employees ...... 7

(2001/C 187 E/009) E-3487/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Official approval of fire-fighting helicopters ...... 9

(2001/C 187 E/010) E-3488/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Spanish fire-fighting helicopters and failure to meet Community labour law ...... 9 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/011) E-3489/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Problems of competition in the helicopter fire-fighting sector in Spain ...... 10 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3487/00, E-3488/00 and E-3489/00 ...... 11 (2001/C 187 E/012) E-3504/00 by Jules Maaten to the Commission Subject: Independence of Commission’s services from tobacco industry ...... 12 (2001/C 187 E/013) P-3528/00 by W. G. van Velzen to the Commission Subject: Czech nuclear power station at Temelin ...... 13 (2001/C 187 E/014) E-3531/00 by Ioannis Marínos to the Council Subject: Peace process in the Middle East ...... 15 (2001/C 187 E/015) E-3539/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Council Subject: The euro crisis revising the date for replacing national currencies and reducing the staff of the European Central Bank ...... 16 (2001/C 187 E/016) P-3572/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Disclosure of EU documents ...... 17 (2001/C 187 E/017) E-3587/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Environmental pollution caused by the Chalkis Cement factory ...... 17 (2001/C 187 E/018) E-3595/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Extension of Adamas harbour, Island of Milos, Cyclades, Greece ...... 18 (2001/C 187 E/019) E-3599/00 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: Signature of Protocols by the Commission ...... 19 (2001/C 187 E/020) E-3616/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Fine imposed on Greece ...... 21 (2001/C 187 E/021) E-3620/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Wind farm in a protected area on Syros ...... 21 (2001/C 187 E/022) E-3633/00 by Marco Cappato to the Council Subject: Report on Directive 95/46/EC and its possible revision ...... 22 (2001/C 187 E/023) E-3653/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: The Dutch Media Act and competition between public and commercial radio stations ...... 23 (2001/C 187 E/024) E-3654/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: Distinction between public and commercial radio stations in planning frequencies ...... 24 (2001/C 187 E/025) E-3655/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: Distinction between public and commercial radio broadcasting in the auctioning of radio frequencies in the Netherlands ...... 24 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3653/00, E-3654/00 and E-3655/00 ...... 25 (2001/C 187 E/026) E-3658/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Extension of the Athens Underground ...... 25 (2001/C 187 E/027) E-3676/00 by Bob van den Bos to the Commission Subject: Emergency aid and relief programmes for flood-struck Mozambique ...... 26 (2001/C 187 E/028) E-3691/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Fall in agricultural production in Málaga ...... 28 (2001/C 187 E/029) E-3699/00 by Torben Lund to the Commission Subject: Porpoise by-catches ...... 29 (2001/C 187 E/030) E-3709/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Commission mission carried out in Thailand concerning poultry meat ...... 29 (2001/C 187 E/031) E-3712/00 by Paul Lannoye to the Commission Subject: Impact on Carrascosa de Henares of the road being built between GU-177 and Jadraque ...... 30 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/032) E-3713/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the Commission Subject: Research into the effects of the ban on tobacco exports ...... 32 (2001/C 187 E/033) E-3714/00 by Paul Lannoye to the Commission Subject: Access to information on the extension of Barajas airport in Madrid ...... 32 (2001/C 187 E/034) E-3718/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Terrorism, violence and black humour on websites ...... 34 (2001/C 187 E/035) E-3727/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The lack of European Business and Innovation Centres in the South West of England ...... 35 (2001/C 187 E/036) E-3728/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: BSE in France ...... 36 (2001/C 187 E/037) E-3733/00 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: Birre to Areia extension to the Lisbon-Cascais motorway (Supplementary Answer) ...... 36 (2001/C 187 E/038) P-3739/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Commission Subject: Destruction of a Kurdish town ...... 37 (2001/C 187 E/039) E-3751/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: The imposition of VAT on recombinant blood products ...... 37 (2001/C 187 E/040) E-3754/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Spatial planning in the EU: TERRA programme ...... 38 (2001/C 187 E/041) E-3756/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The European Spatial Strategy and the EU’s Objective 1 outlying maritime regions ...... 39 (2001/C 187 E/042) E-3759/00 by Gilles Savary to the Commission Subject: Commission’s position on IATA tariff consultations ...... 40 (2001/C 187 E/043) E-3761/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: European urban renewal and the ‘Bologna 2’ case (Calderara di Reno) ...... 41 (2001/C 187 E/044) E-3762/00 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission Subject: Additionality principle ...... 42 (2001/C 187 E/045) E-3764/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Spanish government subsidies for use of silver iodide for anti-hail protection ...... 43 (2001/C 187 E/046) E-4006/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the Commission Subject: Use of silver iodide ...... 43 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3764/00 and E-4006/00 ...... 43 (2001/C 187 E/047) E-3766/00 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Labelling and checking of animal skins ...... 44 (2001/C 187 E/048) E-3774/00 by Juan Izquierdo Collado to the Commission Subject: Supply of water to Zaragoza ...... 45 (2001/C 187 E/049) E-3775/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Assent for new EC-Greenland fisheries agreement ...... 45 (2001/C 187 E/050) E-3781/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Unfair competition in the tourist accommodation sector ...... 46 (2001/C 187 E/051) E-3783/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Additional rules to ensure continuing prevention of a renewed BSE infection among cattle ...... 47 (2001/C 187 E/052) P-3788/00 by Torben Lund to the Commission Subject: Scientific Committee’s evaluation of proposals conderning Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) .... 48 (2001/C 187 E/053) P-3789/00 by Cecilia Malmström to the Commission Subject: Commissioner de Palacio’s remarks regarding the Cashman report on 16 November 2000 ...... 50 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/054) E-3790/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Value Added Tax rates for the repair of buildings ...... 51 (2001/C 187 E/055) E-3792/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Public health considerations and French beef ...... 51 (2001/C 187 E/056) E-3794/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: SIDS research project ...... 52 (2001/C 187 E/057) E-3795/00 by Armando Cossutta to the Commission Subject: Mad cow disease and animal meal in Italy ...... 53 (2001/C 187 E/058) E-3799/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Deposits on disposable bottles in Germany ...... 55 (2001/C 187 E/059) E-3974/00 by Mario Mastella to the Commission Subject: Problem concerning the charge imposed by the German Government on empty drinks bottles ...... 55 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3799/00 and E-3974/00 ...... 56 (2001/C 187 E/060) E-3814/00 by John Bowis to the Commission Subject: Compliance with 1991 Pigs Directive ...... 56 (2001/C 187 E/061) E-3815/00 by John Bowis to the Council Subject: Pigs Directive ...... 57 (2001/C 187 E/062) E-3829/00 by Astrid Thors to the Commission Subject: Linguistic minorities in the applicant countries ...... 58 (2001/C 187 E/063) E-3835/00 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the Commission Subject: EU financial support for an event involving representatives of the extreme right-wing music scene .... 59 (2001/C 187 E/064) E-3838/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Refusal of the Turkish Foreign Ministry to grant visas to Cypriots ...... 60 (2001/C 187 E/065) E-3846/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Demolition of the district of Cabanyal-Canyamelar (Valencia) and infringement of Directive 97/11/EC .. 61 (2001/C 187 E/066) E-3847/00 by Riitta Myller to the Commission Subject: Promotion of public transport ...... 62 (2001/C 187 E/067) E-3848/00 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission Subject: Traffic in human organs ...... 63 (2001/C 187 E/068) E-3852/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Early retirement ...... 64 (2001/C 187 E/069) E-3854/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Enlargement and fisheries ...... 66 (2001/C 187 E/070) E-3858/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Enlargement and regional policy: European territorial strategy (ETS) ...... 67 (2001/C 187 E/071) E-3859/00 by Diana Wallis to the Commission Subject: Community-wide interception systems ...... 68 (2001/C 187 E/072) E-3860/00 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Discharge of dangerous substances in the basin of the River Segura (Spain) ...... 69 (2001/C 187 E/073) E-3861/00 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Pollution of the River Segura (Spain) by nitrates ...... 70 (2001/C 187 E/074) E-3862/00 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Opening up of third-country markets ...... 71 (2001/C 187 E/075) E-3865/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Environmental rehabilitation of Mt Mainalo ...... 72 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/076) E-3866/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: WEEE incineration of plastic ...... 73 (2001/C 187 E/077) E-3867/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: WEEE electronic waste proposal access to spare parts ...... 74 (2001/C 187 E/078) E-3868/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: WEEE electronic waste proposal spare parts and transition ...... 74 (2001/C 187 E/079) E-3869/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: WEEE electronic waste proposal spare parts and exemption ...... 74

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3867/00, E-3868/00 and E-3869/00 ...... 74 (2001/C 187 E/080) E-3872/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Mineral water from Greenland ...... 75 (2001/C 187 E/081) E-3876/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Common foreign and security policy (chemical weapons for Turkey) ...... 75 (2001/C 187 E/082) P-3878/00 by Anneli Hulthén to the Commission Subject: Resources for sufferers of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Syndrome ...... 76 (2001/C 187 E/083) E-3887/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Discrimination against workers in the nuclear sector ...... 77 (2001/C 187 E/084) E-3894/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Impact on employment of a proposal for a regulation on public services in the passenger transport sector 78 (2001/C 187 E/085) E-3901/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Substantial increase in road and rail tunnels as a means of dual land use ...... 79 (2001/C 187 E/086) E-3902/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Improved fire prevention and fire control in road and rail tunnels ...... 80 (2001/C 187 E/087) E-3906/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Measures to be taken by the EU following the discovery of cattle affected by ‘mad cow disease’ in Galicia, Germany and the Azores ...... 81 (2001/C 187 E/088) E-3925/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Brazil and retreaded tyres ...... 82 (2001/C 187 E/089) E-4014/00 by David Bowe to the Commission Subject: Export of remoulded and re-manufactured tyres to Brazil ...... 83 (2001/C 187 E/090) E-4026/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Remoulded and re-manufactured tyres ...... 83

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3925/00, E-4014/00 and E-4026/00 ...... 83 (2001/C 187 E/091) E-3926/00 by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines to the Council Subject: European Social Fund and teacher training ...... 84 (2001/C 187 E/092) E-3927/00 by Bernard Poignant to the Commission Subject: Application of ILO Convention 147 to ships using Community ports ...... 84 (2001/C 187 E/093) E-3928/00 by Bernard Poignant to the Commission Subject: Abandonment of seafarers in EU ports ...... 85 (2001/C 187 E/094) E-3929/00 by Béatrice Patrie to the Commission Subject: Non-food use of agricultural products ...... 86 (2001/C 187 E/095) E-3937/00 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the Commission Subject: Funding for European political parties ...... 88 (2001/C 187 E/096) E-3949/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact assessment ...... 89 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/097) E-3953/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Decentralisation process in Slovakia ...... 90 (2001/C 187 E/098) E-3954/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Minority languages in Slovakia ...... 90 (2001/C 187 E/099) E-3960/00 by Ioannis Averoff to the Commission Subject: Implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, and a project in the Prefec- ture of Ioannina, Epirus ...... 91 (2001/C 187 E/100) E-3967/00 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Environmental degradation of the Hondo Nature Reserve, Alicante, Spain ...... 92 (2001/C 187 E/101) E-3968/00 by Malcolm Harbour to the Commission Subject: Fiscal incentives for energy-efficient cars ...... 94 (2001/C 187 E/102) E-3971/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Transport of live farm animals ...... 95 (2001/C 187 E/103) E-3977/00 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Minimum age-limit of the working population ...... 96 (2001/C 187 E/104) E-3979/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: ’Western Landfill Utility’ (Aterro sanitário do Oeste) ...... 97 (2001/C 187 E/105) E-3980/00 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission Subject: European comparison of job descriptions and training of health and hygiene inspectors ...... 98 (2001/C 187 E/106) E-3982/00 by Carlos Carnero González to the Commission Subject: Advisability of exploratory talks between the Commission and the UN representative for Equatorial Guinea 99 (2001/C 187 E/107) E-3986/00 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission Subject: Use of funds under Law No 488 ...... 101 (2001/C 187 E/108) E-3987/00 by Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Consequences of the BSE crisis for the veal sector ...... 102 (2001/C 187 E/109) E-3991/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Swedish ban on alcohol advertising ...... 103 (2001/C 187 E/110) E-3998/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Delays in the development of organic farming in Greece ...... 103 (2001/C 187 E/111) E-3999/00 by Brian Simpson to the Commission Subject: Heritage and museum railways ...... 104 (2001/C 187 E/112) E-4000/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Clothes labelling ...... 105 (2001/C 187 E/113) E-4004/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Reform of the Commission ...... 106 (2001/C 187 E/114) E-4007/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the Commission Subject: Sewer in Borriana ...... 108 (2001/C 187 E/115) E-4009/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Greenhouses in the Cabo de Gata habitat area ...... 109 (2001/C 187 E/116) E-4021/00 by Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman to the Commission Subject: Finnish environmental rules on packaging hinder competition ...... 110 (2001/C 187 E/117) E-4022/00 by Michl Ebner and Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Council Subject: Abolition of tax privileges for staff in the diplomatic service ...... 110 (2001/C 187 E/118) E-4028/00 by Angelika Niebler to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of the law on advertising in the European Community ...... 111 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/119) E-4029/00 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: HGV driving licence qualifications ...... 112 (2001/C 187 E/120) E-4031/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Treatment of animals at markets in Belgium ...... 113 (2001/C 187 E/121) E-4032/00 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Workers’ rights on flag of convenience vessels ...... 114 (2001/C 187 E/122) E-4035/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: 133 Committee ...... 115 (2001/C 187 E/123) E-4039/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Siemens ...... 116 (2001/C 187 E/124) E-4040/00 by Sérgio Sousa Pinto to the Commission Subject: Competition policy abuse of dominant position ...... 117 (2001/C 187 E/125) E-4044/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Refurbishment of President Prodi’s office ...... 118 (2001/C 187 E/126) P-4045/00 by Giovanni Fava to the Commission Subject: Building amnesty and the 2000-2006 regional operational programme in Sicily ...... 119 (2001/C 187 E/127) P-4049/00 by Giorgio Celli to the Commission Subject: Building amnesty and the 2000-2006 regional operational programme in Sicily ...... 120 Joint answer to Written Questions P-4045/00 and P-4049/00 ...... 120 (2001/C 187 E/128) E-4050/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Support classes in Greek secondary schools ...... 121 (2001/C 187 E/129) E-4051/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Inclusion of Naousa in the URBAN initiative ...... 123 (2001/C 187 E/130) E-4057/00 by Generoso Andria, Umberto Scapagnini and Stefano Zappalà to the Com- mission Subject: Agriculture in Capaccio-Paestum ...... 123 (2001/C 187 E/131) E-4064/00 by Giorgio Celli to the Commission Subject: Environmental rehabilitation work in Emilia Romagna (Italy) ...... 124 (2001/C 187 E/132) E-4066/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Price increases as a result of the introduction of the euro and of rounding up when converting old prices 125 (2001/C 187 E/133) P-4070/00 by James Fitzsimons to the Commission Subject: VAT on solar panels and encouraging greater use of vegetable oils for fuels ...... 126 (2001/C 187 E/134) P-4071/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Commission intervention in connection with the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion (Spain) ...... 127 (2001/C 187 E/135) E-4085/00 by Gary Titley to the Commission Subject: Information campaign for enlargement ...... 128 (2001/C 187 E/136) E-4087/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Variant CJD the human form of BSE ...... 129 (2001/C 187 E/137) E-4088/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The floor coverings industry ...... 130 (2001/C 187 E/138) E-4090/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Improving the EU’s trade relations with Mercosur and Chile ...... 130 (2001/C 187 E/139) E-4092/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Lack of EU funding for the solar energy programme in Andalusia (Spain) ...... 131 (2001/C 187 E/140) E-4094/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: EU action to prevent domesticated animal species from dying out ...... 132 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/141) E-4098/00 by Toine Manders to the Commission Subject: Legal framework for providing services across borders ...... 133 (2001/C 187 E/142) E-4104/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The bonded-labour system in Nepal, Pakistan and India ...... 134 (2001/C 187 E/143) E-4114/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Bonded labour ...... 134 Joint answer to Written Questions E-4104/00 and E-4114/00 ...... 134 (2001/C 187 E/144) P-4105/00 by Frédérique Ries to the Commission Subject: The Commission’s assumption of the cost of renovating the Berlaymont Building ...... 135 (2001/C 187 E/145) P-4107/00 by Luigi Cesaro to the Commission Subject: Petty crime in the north of Naples ...... 136 (2001/C 187 E/146) E-4109/00 by Ilka Schröder to the Commission Subject: Annual report of the EMCDDA ‘pill testing’ ...... 137 (2001/C 187 E/147) E-4115/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Murders in Colombia ...... 138 (2001/C 187 E/148) E-4120/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Harmful environmental effects of air-conditioning in cars ...... 139 (2001/C 187 E/149) E-4123/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Eels and elvers ...... 141 (2001/C 187 E/150) E-4125/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Hydrogen fuel cells ...... 141 (2001/C 187 E/151) P-4131/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Atmospheric pollution in Athens ...... 142 (2001/C 187 E/152) E-4133/00 by Rainer Wieland to the Commission Subject: Right of an Israeli national to play in German handball leagues ...... 143 (2001/C 187 E/153) E-4136/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: 28th Adaptation on Technical Progress to the Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC) ...... 144 (2001/C 187 E/154) E-4140/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Sheepmeat regime ...... 145 (2001/C 187 E/155) E-4144/00 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: The position of atheists, agnostics and humanists ...... 146 (2001/C 187 E/156) P-4148/00 by Marianne Thyssen to the Commission Subject: Rules governing the funding of obligatory BSE tests on cattle aged over 30 months ...... 147 (2001/C 187 E/157) P-4150/00 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission Subject: Restructuring of the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment ...... 147 (2001/C 187 E/158) E-4151/00 by Patricia McKenna to the Council Subject: Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia ...... 148 (2001/C 187 E/159) E-4155/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Marketing of smelt, implementation of EU hygiene regulation ...... 149 (2001/C 187 E/160) E-4160/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Cotton quotas ...... 150 (2001/C 187 E/161) E-4161/00 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: European Commission’s proposed Chemical Testing Programme ...... 151 (2001/C 187 E/162) P-4163/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Structural aid for Objective 1 regions from 2006 ...... 152 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/163) P-0001/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Wages for Italian soldiers in Kosovo ...... 153 (2001/C 187 E/164) E-0006/01 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission Subject: Kerosine discharged at sea ...... 153 (2001/C 187 E/165) E-0008/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: European Defence and Security Policy and NATO ...... 154 (2001/C 187 E/166) P-0009/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Lernout & Hauspie case: financial assistance for Sensus police project ...... 154 (2001/C 187 E/167) E-0012/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: Decision on the proceedings against Spain concerning state aid to the electricity sector ...... 156 (2001/C 187 E/168) E-0014/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Mussel farming in the EU ...... 157 (2001/C 187 E/169) E-0015/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Mussel farming in the EU ...... 158 (2001/C 187 E/170) E-0017/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Mussel farming in the EU ...... 159 (2001/C 187 E/171) E-0021/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Twelfth extraordinary meeting of the ICCAT ...... 160 (2001/C 187 E/172) E-0024/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Suspension of customs tariffs on tuna loin ...... 160 (2001/C 187 E/173) E-0026/01 by Marianne Thyssen to the Commission Subject: Changeover of electronic payment systems to use of the euro ...... 161 (2001/C 187 E/174) E-0027/01 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Supply of buttermilk ...... 162 (2001/C 187 E/175) E-0034/01 by Erik Meijer to the Council Subject: Depopulation of sparsely populated rural areas in Colombia as a result of American poisoning of vegetation ...... 163 (2001/C 187 E/176) P-0035/01 by María Izquierdo Rojo to the Commission Subject: Discrimination against male pensioners as regards child allowances ...... 164 (2001/C 187 E/177) P-0036/01 by Joaquim Miranda to the Commission Subject: Application for Cohesion Fund assistance in connection with the North Alentejo Multimunicipal Water Supply and Sewage Treatment System ...... 165 (2001/C 187 E/178) P-0044/01 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Privatisation of Olympic Airways ...... 167 (2001/C 187 E/179) P-0045/01 by Christos Zacharakis to the Commission Subject: Kidnapping of a Greek Cypriot by Turkish Cypriots ...... 168 (2001/C 187 E/180) E-0046/01 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission Subject: L-cysteine from human hair ...... 168 (2001/C 187 E/181) E-0050/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Common Foreign and Security Policy and the NMD initiative ...... 169 (2001/C 187 E/182) P-0053/01 by Giuseppe Pisicchio to the Commission Subject: Situation of Carime ...... 170 (2001/C 187 E/183) P-0055/01 by Dorette Corbey to the Commission Subject: Fire retardants ...... 171 (2001/C 187 E/184) P-0069/01 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Compatibility of collective agreements between producers on the recycling costs of electrical and electronic equipment and scrap motor cars with European competition rules ...... 173 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/185) E-0074/01 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Credit Unions ...... 174 (2001/C 187 E/186) E-0078/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: ’Purchase for destruction’ of cattle aged over 30 months to prevent possible consumption of BSE-infected meat and the implementation of this rule in Galicia ...... 175 (2001/C 187 E/187) E-0082/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Compulsory BSE testing on cattle aged over 30 months killed in Galician slaughterhouses ...... 176 (2001/C 187 E/188) E-0085/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Frequent deaths off the shores of southern Spain arising from the conditions in which young African men and women are obliged to emigrate ...... 176 (2001/C 187 E/189) E-0086/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Accidental death of twelve immigrants from Equatorial Guinea in the Murcia region of Spain ...... 177 (2001/C 187 E/190) E-0090/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Cofinancing of anti-BSE measures ...... 178 (2001/C 187 E/191) E-0091/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: BSE: large-scale dumping of carcasses and fodder in Mesía (Galicia, Spain) ...... 178 (2001/C 187 E/192) E-0092/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: BSE: measures to be adopted by the Member States ...... 179 (2001/C 187 E/193) E-0093/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Dumping of cattle carcasses in Mesía (Galicia, Spain) ...... 181 (2001/C 187 E/194) E-0096/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: BSE: blood donations ...... 181 (2001/C 187 E/195) E-0098/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: BSE: incinerators ...... 182 (2001/C 187 E/196) E-0100/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Impact of storms in Galicia on fisheries and shellfishing ...... 183 (2001/C 187 E/197) E-0102/01 by Brice Hortefeux to the Commission Subject: Choice of key period for transition to euro ...... 184 (2001/C 187 E/198) E-0106/01 by Dana Scallon to the Commission Subject: Help for Honduras after hurricane ...... 185 (2001/C 187 E/199) E-0109/01 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Improved construction of livestock vehicles ...... 186 (2001/C 187 E/200) P-0115/01 by Philip Bradbourn to the Commission Subject: Restricted use of Linate airport, Milan ...... 187 (2001/C 187 E/201) P-0116/01 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Privatisation and public utility service charges ...... 188 (2001/C 187 E/202) P-0117/01 by Marit Paulsen to the Commission Subject: European legislation on animal protection ...... 189 (2001/C 187 E/203) P-0118/01 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Right to reimbursement of illegally paid interest on loan contracts in Italy ...... 190 (2001/C 187 E/204) E-0119/01 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the Commission Subject: Possible health risks of flavour enhancers E621 and E632 (glutamate) ...... 191 (2001/C 187 E/205) E-0127/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Illegal arrest of Greek Cypriot by Turkish-Cypriot regime ...... 192 (2001/C 187 E/206) E-0135/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Labour mobility ...... 192 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/207) E-0137/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Legislative discussions ...... 193 (2001/C 187 E/208) E-0138/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Timeliness of economic statistics ...... 193 (2001/C 187 E/209) E-0139/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Timeliness of economic statistics ...... 194 (2001/C 187 E/210) E-0145/01 by Toine Manders and Jules Maaten to the Commission Subject: Inflammable clothing ...... 194 (2001/C 187 E/211) P-0147/01 by Vincenzo Lavarra to the Commission Subject: Asbestos risk linked with Fibronit plant in Bari ...... 195 (2001/C 187 E/212) E-0165/01 by Nelly Maes and Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Notification under the Habitats Directive ...... 197 (2001/C 187 E/213) E-0167/01 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Moves by Turkey to press ahead with the annexation of the occupied part of Cyprus ...... 197 (2001/C 187 E/214) E-0170/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Establishment of city twinning network ...... 198 (2001/C 187 E/215) E-0188/01 by Toine Manders to the Commission Subject: Young footballers and child labour ...... 199 (2001/C 187 E/216) P-0198/01 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Mine detection and clearing ...... 200 (2001/C 187 E/217) E-0201/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Fuel stored at filling stations in Greece ...... 201 (2001/C 187 E/218) E-0219/01 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Incineration procedures for BSE-infected carcasses in all Member States ...... 202 (2001/C 187 E/219) E-0221/01 by Jules Maaten to the Commission Subject: Oil spill off the Galapagos Islands ...... 202 (2001/C 187 E/220) E-0229/01 by Roberto Bigliardo to the Commission Subject: Turkey’s application for EU membership ...... 203 (2001/C 187 E/221) P-0231/01 by Michael Cashman to the Commission Subject: Bank charges to non-residents ...... 203 (2001/C 187 E/222) E-0237/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Forcing up of house prices in Belgium by new Netherlands mortgage tax-relief option ...... 204 (2001/C 187 E/223) E-0243/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Conclusion of decision-making on accusations of fraud involving payments for flax growing in Spain and other accusations against Commission Members ...... 205 (2001/C 187 E/224) P-0246/01 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Internal Commission note of 12 October 1990 on BSE ...... 206 (2001/C 187 E/225) E-0250/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Kurdistan and separatism ...... 207 (2001/C 187 E/226) E-0251/01 by Astrid Lulling to the Commission Subject: Commission position on ‘the European capital’ ...... 208 (2001/C 187 E/227) E-0254/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Redundancies ...... 209 (2001/C 187 E/228) E-0256/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Right of Resale ...... 209 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/229) E-0260/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Right of Resale ...... 210

(2001/C 187 E/230) E-0262/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Right of Resale ...... 210

(2001/C 187 E/231) E-0264/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Right of Resale ...... 210

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0256/01, E-0260/01, E-0262/01 and E-0264/01 . . 210 (2001/C 187 E/232) P-0275/01 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Noise Regulations in the European Union ...... 211

(2001/C 187 E/233) P-0278/01 by Jean-Charles Marchiani to the Commission Subject: European Union subsidies to twinned towns ...... 211

(2001/C 187 E/234) E-0287/01 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: The welfare of broiler chickens ...... 212

(2001/C 187 E/235) E-0299/01 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Child labour ...... 213

(2001/C 187 E/236) P-0303/01 by Carlos Carnero González to the Commission Subject: Information concerning the use of EU funds for employment and training administered by the Municipal Institute for Enterprise Training and Employment (IMEFE) in Madrid ...... 214

(2001/C 187 E/237) P-0355/01 by Carlos Carnero González to the Commission Subject: Important new information on the misuse of Community funding for training and employment managed by Madrid City Council’s IMEFE ...... 214

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0303/01 and P-0355/01 ...... 215

(2001/C 187 E/238) P-0306/01 by Giorgio Celli to the Commission Subject: Transmission of BSE ...... 215

(2001/C 187 E/239) E-0318/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Termination of the europartenariat scheme ...... 216

(2001/C 187 E/240) E-0323/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: The European Year of Languages and the planned closure of the Frisian language and literature department at the Arts Faculty of the University of Amsterdam ...... 217 (2001/C 187 E/241) P-0344/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Extension of the Athens underground railway ...... 218

(2001/C 187 E/242) P-0346/01 by Helena Torres Marques to the Commission Subject: Distribution of euros before January 2002 ...... 218

(2001/C 187 E/243) P-0348/01 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the Commission Subject: Contract awarded by the municipality of Messina for a tramway to be financed with European funding . 219

(2001/C 187 E/244) P-0354/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Moroccan fisheries agreement negotiations ...... 219

(2001/C 187 E/245) P-0359/01 by Eryl McNally to the Commission Subject: Cat and dog fur trade ...... 220 (2001/C 187 E/246) E-0380/01 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Freedom of establishment in the Netherlands ...... 221

(2001/C 187 E/247) E-0387/01 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Galapagos Islands ...... 222

(2001/C 187 E/248) P-0417/01 by Jillian Evans to the Commission Subject: Job losses at Corus plants in the United Kingdom ...... 222 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 187 E/249) P-0418/01 by Francesco Speroni to the Commission Subject: Absence of an index in the selected instruments taken from the Treaties ...... 223 (2001/C 187 E/250) P-0443/01 by Georges Berthu to the Commission Subject: Activities of the Racine association ...... 224 (2001/C 187 E/251) P-0449/01 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: EU-Turkey partnership ...... 224 (2001/C 187 E/252) P-0480/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Availability for questioning of Commission official by Swedish legal authorities ...... 225 (2001/C 187 E/253) E-0483/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Illegal detention of a Greek Cypriot by the Turkish Cypriot authorities ...... 226 (2001/C 187 E/254) P-0505/01 by Gerard Collins to the Commission Subject: Free movement of workers ...... 226 (2001/C 187 E/255) E-0522/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Lower employers’ contributions ...... 228 (2001/C 187 E/256) E-0532/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Independence referendum in the Faeroe Islands ...... 229 (2001/C 187 E/257) P-0536/01 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the Commission Subject: EU assistance to Hungary ...... 229 (2001/C 187 E/258) E-0578/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: European Union aid for a tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar ...... 230 (2001/C 187 E/259) P-0586/01 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the Commission Subject: Birth defects in Sicily ...... 230 (2001/C 187 E/260) E-0618/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Defence budgets of European NATO countries ...... 231 (2001/C 187 E/261) E-0655/01 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: German chemical weapons in Turkey ...... 231 (2001/C 187 E/262) E-0675/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Fishing-licence fees in the EU’s international fisheries agreements ...... 232 (2001/C 187 E/263) P-0750/01 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Intervention buying of beef and the BSE crisis ...... 232 (2001/C 187 E/264) E-0944/01 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Poultry imports to the EU ...... 233 (2001/C 187 E/265) P-1157/01 by Francesco Speroni to the Commission Subject: Protected designation of origin (PDO) products: use of additives and preservatives in cheese-making . . . 233

EN 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/1

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 187 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Failure to maintain current job levels at a subsidised plant owned by pasta-producer MISKO

MISKO, the pasta-producing subsidiary of the Italian company Barilla, has received funding under Greek development law 1892/90 to set up a new production plant at Thiva on condition that it maintains the present number of 275 permanent jobs. Before completing construction of the new plant, the company closed down its pasta factory in Patras, compelling the current workforce either to resign or agree to being transferred to other company plants. However, the company has not informed those workers who agree to a transfer of the exact place or starting-date of their employment, the type of work, level of pay or the cost of relocating. It did not even inform them of where they would be employed after the closure of the Patras factory which occurred on 10 September 1999 until the new plant was opened at Thiva.

Since the company’s decision to close down the Patras factory is in breach of the requirement to maintain the present number of jobs and was taken without prior consultation of the workers, which is expressly prescribed by Directive 94/45 (1), will the Commission say:

1. whether it will check that the company has complied with the condition of maintaining the present number of jobs in receiving subsidies for its new plant, and

2. whether it will examine whether there has been compliance with the provisions laid down in Directive 94/45 concerning the obligation to inform, consult and negotiate with the workers, and the participation of the MISKO workers’ union in the European Works Council of Barilla, MISKO’s parent company?

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

(2001/C 187 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2779/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Assistance for MISKO company workers forced to relocate

closed down its pasta factory in Patras, compelling the current workforce either to resign or agree to being transferred to other company plants. The workers who agree to be transferred, however, are faced with an expensive relocation bill and they are therefore forced to leave their jobs and run the risk of remaining unemployed.

Is it possible to assist these workers to cover the expense of their enforced relocation? Which programmes and procedures may be used to provide such assistance?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-2778/99 and E-2779/99 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2001)

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), the central management of the undertaking or group of undertakings at Community level is responsible for putting in place the necessary conditions and resources for setting up a works council or a transnational information and consultation procedure for employees. It can either do this on its own initiative or at the written request of at least 100 employees from at least two different Member States.

In other words, the Directive does not stipulate that these mechanisms should be created automatically; it merely grants employees the right to call for such mechanisms to be set up.

Having submitted an initial request of this kind, a special negotiating body will be set up; it will be composed of representatives of employees from all the undertakings and organisations which are members of the group of undertakings. The representatives should be elected or appointed according to criteria relating to geographic distribution and proportional representation according to the number of employees in each Member State.

The main task of this special negotiating body is to negotiate and conclude an agreement with the central management on the setting up and mode of operation of a European works council or of an alternative information and consultation procedure.

According to the information supplied to the Commission, it would appear that a European works council has not yet been established for Barilla. Negotiations are currently under way and it would seem that these are likely to result in an agreement being signed in the near future.

Finally, it should be noted that as regards collective redundancies and the acquired rights of employees in the event of transfers of undertakings, covered by Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (2), and Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (3), amended by Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 (4) respectively, the Community provisions applicable in this case are transposed by national law.

Co-funding of comprehensive measures to prevent and combat unemployment, particularly as regards companies undergoing restructuring, could be considered under the European Social Fund (ESF). This could be done as part of the Operational Programme (OP) of the 3rd Community Support Framework for Greece, which is currently being drawn up, particularly the ‘Employment Promotion and Continuing Training’ OP. In this event, the Greek authorities should devise and submit a relevant integrated plan in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1262/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 21 June 1999 on the European Social Fund (5) and the rules on State aid.

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994. (2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998. (3) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977. (4) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998. (5) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/3

(2001/C 187 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2531/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (25 July 2000)

Subject: Projects cofinanced by the Community in Condado (Ponteveda, Spain)

On 4 August 1997 an agreement was signed between the district of Condado, comprising the municipalities of Ponteareas, Salvaterra, Salceda and Mondariz, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and the Galician Regional Government, under which Condado would receive ESP 500 million from the Proder programme (a programme for the development and economic diversification of rural areas), cofunded by the Community, for a series of projects to be carried out between 1997 and 1999. The agreement provided for a number of projects connected with the development of the rural heritage, agri-tourism, rural tourism and small businesses, and included the renovation of the Pazo de Picoña in Salceda and the Casa del Conde in Salvaterra, the redevelopment of the area around Vilasobroso castle, the construction of a ‘castro’ to provide accommodation for rural tourism, the establishment of a Wine Museum in the Doña Urraca cellars in Salvaterra castle, the creation of an archaeological information centre at the Castro de Troña in Ponteareas and the construction of a golf course at Pías.

Democracy demands transparency, and information for citizens, and sometimes the European Community must compensate for the lack of information from some local administrations, which conceal facts from inhabitants of the area. Withholding information in this way runs counter to the public information requirement laid down by the regulations on the Structural Funds.

Will the Commission give details of projects cofinanced by the European Community during the period 1994-1999 in Condado, in the province of Pontevedra?

What amount of joint funding did the Community provide for these projects? What was the total cost of the projects?

Have all the projects for which Community cofinancing was requested been completed? If not, is there any provision for an extension to enable the projects to be completed? Until what date would an extension be possible?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (19 April 2001)

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.

(2001/C 187 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/00 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission (4 September 2000)

Subject: Use of an industrial site reclaimed through EU aid

The European Development Area (EDA) situated between Longwy, Athus and Pétange/Rodange, and straddling the borders between France, Belgium and Luxembourg, has unquestionably contributed to the economic growth of this former steelmaking area.

The expenditure on infrastructure to create the Development Area, and also some other operations in this cross-border area, have been heavily dependent on the Community Structural Funds. It seems that the Luxembourg Government has just decided to allocate four hectares of industrial land, reclaimed with European Union funding, for the rebuilding of the Mathias Adam lycée in Pétange.

Does the Commission regard this decision as being compatible with the objectives of the European Development Area? Did the European funds involved at the time also intend this industrial site to be used for educational activities? C 187 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The European Development Area (EDA) was set up in response to closures and restructuring in the steel industry located in the cross-border industrial area of Longwy-Rodange-Athus and to offset their serious social and economic impact on that area.

In their joint declaration in 1985, the Belgian, French and Luxembourg governments stated that the main aim of the EDA was to promote the conversion of the area and to provide 8 000 jobs there over 10 years. They set as the sole aim of the EDA the redevelopment of the region on the three frontiers and allocated a variety of resources to achieve that goal. These included the establishment of an international business park, the creation of a joint management structure and the promotion of education and research (European college of technology). The aims of this Area are relatively broad and do not exclude the construction of a secondary school.

However, it should be noted that the project to rebuild the Mathias Adam Lycée is located in the business park to be precise, in the Rodange national industrial area, where Community funds have been used to prepare for the establishment of new firms.

The Luxembourg Ministry of Economic Affairs has stated that the site where it is planned to be build the school was equipped as part of the Resider I programme (1989-1992) and that the four hectares form part of a larger area, the improvement of which was 50 % part-financed by a contribution of € 4,48 million from the European Regional Development Fund. As the text of the programme (1) says, the aim of the infrastructure works was to complete improvements to the central EDA site in order to attract the investment required and reach by the 1995 deadline the target of 1 000 new jobs in the Luxembourg part of the EDA.

It should be stressed that this target was achieved and indeed substantially exceeded since some 1 561 jobs had been created by the end of 1997. Now that the programme has been closed and the targets set achieved, the choice of whether to retain or alter the use to be made of the improved land is a matter for the Luxembourg authorities in the light of their priorities or constraints.

(1) Priority 2: completion of improvements to the central EDA site, Rodange national industrial area.

(2001/C 187 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3180/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: ERM II

1. Should the UK decide to join the euro, does the Council believe that the Treaty would require the UK to join ERM II prior to joining the euro and, if so, for how long?

2. If membership of ERM II is not a pre-requisite of membership, how would the UK be expected to fulfil the exchange rate stability requirements contained in the Treaty?

(24 April 2001)

In accordance with the Resolution of the European Council of 16 June 1998 on ERM II and the agreement of 1 September 1998 between the ECB and the national central banks of Member States outside the euro area, participation in ERM II of these Member States is voluntary. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/5

The decision whether a Member State not participating in ERM II but wishing to adopt the euro fulfils the exchange rate stability criteria will be taken by the Council on the basis of reports by the Commission and the ECB, after consultation of the European Parliament and discussion in the Council meeting at Head of State or of Government level.

(2001/C 187 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3396/00 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 November 2000)

Subject: Irregularities and fraud during elections in Albania

Six Greek MPs, together with other international observers monitoring the municipal elections held in the Chimara region of Albania on 15 October which were being reheld following complaints from the Omonoia-Kead party of violence and fraud during the first round held on 1 October 2000 have reported irregularities and fraud on a large scale.

1. Is the Council aware that, on the pretext of naval exercises and routine procedure, the Albanian authorities closed their sea and land borders on 14 October 2000, which meant that much of the population of Chimara was unable to go to the polls and vote? Is the Commission also aware that the Albanian police arrested and terrorised inhabitants of Chimara and that, on polling day, they savagely beat up voters in front of the observers and the group of MPs, stuffed the ballot-boxes with ballot-papers, drove off the election supervisors, altered the electoral registers and made multiple arrests, prompting Mr Vasilis Bolanos, a candidate, and the Omonoia-Kead party to declare that they would not recognise the result?

2. What is the Council’s position regarding these flagrant violations in the second round of the municipal elections, which occurred with the support of Mr Nano’s government and the complicity of Mr Berisha’s opposition party, and what representations will it make to the Albanian Government to hold the elections in the area again?

3. Is it possible to suspend the Council’s decision providing macro-economic financial assistance to Albania (1) because of that country’s violation of the criteria concerning the establishment of the rule of law and respect for human rights?

4. Will relations with Albania be reviewed, with particular reference to the Council’s decision authoris- ing the Commission to negotiate a stability and association agreement with Albania?

(1) OJ L 110, 28.4.1999, p. 13.

(24 April 2001)

1. The Council has noted the comments made in the Preliminary Statement published on 16 October 2000 by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organisa- tion for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the final report of the OSCE/ODIHR of 11 December 2000 and the report of the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of 10 November 2000 concerning the conduct of the local elections in Albania.

2. In the statement which it made on the local elections in Albania in the OSCE’s Permanent Council and in the Council of Europe, the Union deplored the serious irregularities and incidents noted in the first and second rounds of balloting, especially those which affected the voting of a substantial number of Greeks in Chimara. C 187 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

3. The Council Decision of 22 April 1999 providing macrofinancial assistance to Albania entrusted the application of the decision to the Commission; that application is therefore no longer in the Council’s hands. However, discussions between the Albanian authorities and the Commission on the conditions of economic and institutional policy under which the loan will be granted have not yet been completed, and so no disbursements have yet been made.

4. The Honourable Member refers to the conclusions of the Council of 21/22 June 1999, which asked the Commission to make recommendations on the negotiating directives for a stabilisation and association agreement following the Council’s examination of a feasibility study on the negotiating of such an agreement. However, following the Commission’s presentation of that study, the Council concluded on 24 January 2000 that Albania should first resolve certain economic, political and institutional weaknesses so that its participation in the stabilisation and association process would be fruitful. Lastly, the Feira European Council asked the Albanian Government to continue the efforts made in response to the questions raised in the abovementioned feasibility study. There is therefore no Council decision as yet to begin negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement.

5. The EU noted in the final declaration of the Zagreb Summit, in which the EU and the countries of the Western Balkans took part on 24 November 2000, that the stabilisation and association process was based on respect for the conditions defined by the Council on 29 April 1997 concerning democratic, economic and institutional reforms as well as establishment of the rule of law and the protection of human rights and the rights of minorities.

The Council has set up an EU-Albania high-level steering group which will assess progress, recommend the necessary reform measures and provide advice and guidance in all areas of concern set out in the 1999 Commission feasibility report, namely macro-economic stabilisation and accelerated structural reforms, strengthening of security and public order and improvement of governance and law enforcement (such as public administration reform, judiciary, rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities). The group may look at any other issue relevant to the stabilisation and association process. The Council will thus be able to monitor closely the Albanian government’s implementation of concrete measures in these areas.

6. In a Declaration of 1 December, the Presidency reiterated, on behalf of the European Union, that the European Union sees the increasing use of violence in the pursuit of political aims as a worrying development. The European Union therefore made a forceful appeal for the rule of law to be respected. The desire of the Albanians to move towards a closer relationship with the European Union implies observance of shared fundamental values, chief among which are respect for institutions and legality, non- recourse to violence, and a spirit of tolerance and dialogue.

(2001/C 187 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3421/00 by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Situation of deserters and conscientious objectors after the end of the war in Kosovo

On 6 May 1999 Parliament adopted a joint resolution on the situation in Kosovo (1) in which it called on the Member States to take in Yugoslav army deserters and conscientious objectors and grant them a temporary right of abode in the EU. Furthermore:

thousands of deserters are still being denied the legal status that the European governments promised to accord to them,

most of the deserters (especially those in Hungary) are living in refugee camps in conditions unfit for human beings,

the vast majority of the deserters are being refused asylum in the Member States and many of them, indeed, are likely to be deported. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/7

Can the Council therefore say:

whether it is aware of this problem and what efforts have been undertaken to date?

whether there was any point at all in appealing to Yugoslav servicemen to desert when the only action taken to follow up that appeal has been to close the borders to the deserters, deny them legal status, and in some cases even threaten them with deportation?

whether the necessary financial assistance has been provided, in particular to Hungary, where most of the deserters have found temporary shelter?

whether it intends to raise this matter in future talks with the new Yugoslav leadership and, if so, what attitude it will take?

(1) OJ C 279, 1.10.1999, p. 411.

(24 April 2001)

1. The Council is fully aware of the situation of deserters and conscientious objectors from the FRY army after the end of the war in Kosovo and has duly noted the European Parliament Resolution of 6 May 1999.

2. As the Honourable Member will recall, the Resolution was addressed to the Member States, which have certainly followed the European Parliament’s recommendations on those matters which come within their sovereignty.

3. The Council has therefore not dealt specifically with the question, but considers that the new situation emerging in Belgrade might be conducive to a positive solution to the situation of Yugoslav deserters and conscientious objectors. The Council will actively work towards that end. In this context it has welcomed the Amnesty Bill which the Government of the FRY submitted recently to its Parliament and which could apply to deserters and conscientious objectors.

(2001/C 187 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3432/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Supervision of employees

The Blair Government has authorised, as from 24 October 2000, all companies based in the UK to carry out checks on their employees’ e-mails and phone calls without their prior agreement.

Given that Belgian law also authorises employers to check that their employees use communication equipment provided by the company solely for professional purposes, albeit subject to their agreement, does the Commission not consider that such methods are a blatant infringement of the principle of protection of human rights which the same governments so often like to brandish?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The Honourable Members are referring to UK Statutory Instrument 2000 No 2699 entitled ‘The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000’ which transposes Article 5.2 of Directive 97/66/EC (1). The UK has recently notified this legal instrument to the Commission. We understand that the Honourable Members are also referring to Belgian law. C 187 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

In addition to the individual consent, it provides for different conditions to be fulfilled to ensure the lawful surveillance of the employees by the employers (information, proportionality and necessity …). In particular, the individual’s consent cannot be considered valid if it is given as globally as in the context of the general employment relationship. The Belgian data protection authority has issued advice on this issue along the lines indicated above on 3 April 2001.

In general, Article 5 of the Telecommunications data protection Directive requires Member States to ensure confidentiality of communications by means of public telecommunications services and networks. The Article therefore does not cover communications transmitted entirely over private networks, but it does cover communications originating on private networks and terminating on public networks or vice versa. For the recording of such communications consent of the users is required.

However, as it may be difficult to obtain explicit prior consent of both users for recording of communications which businesses need in order to keep proof of transactions, for instance of orders by telephone or e-mail to buy shares, an exemption has been created in the same article for this type of recording that is part of normal, lawful business practices.

Directive 95/46/EC (2) provides for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data. This Directive does not contain any specific rules for the protection of employee data at the workplace but the general principles for lawful processing of personal data must be respected. Surveillance of workers’ communications by their employers could be lawful, but only in restricted circumstances where the consent of the parties is obtained or the legitimate interests of the employer override the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the worker. In such cases the monitoring should be limited to what is strictly necessary for a defined and legitimate purpose and for example be able either by technical means or a classification of calls or e-mail to exclude private communications from such practices and the information obtained must not be used for other incompatible purposes. In such cases the employer should inform the workers of the surveillance.

Moreover, national regulations must comply with the general principles of Community law which, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, also comprise fundamental human rights as laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to privacy.

In accordance with its Social Policy Agenda (3) the Commission is currently preparing a consultation of the social partners on data protection in the employment context and related issues (monitoring of workers, for example). This will provide guidance to the Commission in determining how this matter could be dealt with at Community level.

The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Members’ attention to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which provides for respect for private and family life, home and communication in Article 7 and for the protection of personal data in Article 8. In addition, Articles 21, 26 and 31 have specific relevance to workers and the protection of their private data.

The Commission will examine whether the new UK regulations and any similar legislation in other Member States are in line with Directives 95/46/EC and 97/66/EC.

(1) Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ L 24, 30.1.1998). (2) 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 (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995). (3) COM(2000) 379 final. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/9

(2001/C 187 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Official approval of fire-fighting helicopters

In Spain, helicopters from former Eastern European army stocks are being used to put out forest fires, and the contracts are being extended to non-authorised uses such as reconnoitring, first aid, life-saving and transporting injured persons. The use of these helicopters, which are banned in the rest of the European Union because they are considered unsafe, was allowed in Spain on condition that their use was merely temporary, although it has been going on since it began in 1989. The crews of these helicopters (many of them foreign workers) work interminably long hours and their salary conditions fall far short of what is laid down in Spanish law. The use of these inadequate machines, and the poor working conditions of their crews mean that between 1990 and 1997, the accident rate has been 17,5 accidents per 100 flying hours; worse still, most of these accidents have not been investigated.

Having regard to the provisions of:

Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (1) on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation,

the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) of the Joint Aviation Authorities,

Directive 89/655/EEC (2) concerning the minimum health and safety requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work, Article 3(1) whereof stipulates that ‘the employer shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the work equipment made available to workers (…) is suitable for the work to be carried out (…) and may be used by workers without impairment to their safety or health’,

Directive 94/56/EC (3) establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents, which lays down that the causes of accidents must be investigated within one year,

does the Commission not believe that given the increasing number of accidents, Community legislation is required on the authorisation of fire-fighting helicopters, in order to prevent Member States using machines which should have been disqualified on safety grounds?

Does the Commission believe that the case described above comes under the provisions of Directive 89/ 655/EEC?

What measures does the Commission intend to take in this instance with regard to the clear infringement of Directive 94/56/EC, given that the accidents which have taken place have not been investigated?

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4. (2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 13. (3) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 14.

(2001/C 187 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3488/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Spanish fire-fighting helicopters and failure to meet Community labour law

The crews of these helicopters, many of them foreign workers, work interminably long hours:

44 days without a break, with working days which far exceed eight hours, and

are, in the case of foreign pilots, paid lower salaries and are frequently not covered by social security;

face greater risks and a higher accident rate, due to the fact that they are working with old helicopters.

The International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations (Ifalpa) publicly denounced the situation in Spain at its annual meeting in Tokyo last April. The Spanish trade unions which belong to Apythel have, for their part, approached the relevant Spanish ministries and the Transport Commissariat without obtaining any solution to their demands.

In view of:

the scope of Directive 104/93/EEC (1) on certain aspects of the organisation of working time, applicable to civil aviation,

Directive 71/97/EEC (2) on the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, Article 1 whereof states that ‘undertakings established in a non-Member State must not be given more favourable treatment than undertakings established in a Member State’,

Directive 188/86/EEC (3) on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work, which includes air crews, and which, in the present case of long working days, is severely infringed in terms of maximum levels of exposure,

can the Commission tell me whether Spain has correctly transposed these Directives into Spanish law?

Does the Commission not believe that on the basis of the facts set out above, the Community legislation cited is clearly being violated? Is the Commission prepared to open an inquiry into the case under consideration?

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18. (2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1. (3) OJ L 137, 24.5.1986, p. 28.

(2001/C 187 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3489/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Problems of competition in the helicopter fire-fighting sector in Spain

In Spain, helicopters from former Eastern European army stocks are being used to put out forest fires, and the contracts are being extended to non-authorised uses such as reconnoitring, first aid, life-saving and transporting injured persons. Many of the crew of these helicopters are non-Community citizens who mostly also come from Eastern Europe. These workers work interminable hours, up to 44 days without a break, and with working days far longer than eight hours, and furthermore, they are on worse salaries than pilots working for Spanish companies. All this means that certain administrations choose to contract these foreign workers because they cost less.

Is the Commission aware of the demands made on various occasions by Ifalpa and Apythel?

Does the Commission believe that given the facts set out, the situation constitutes a violation of Community legislation on competition?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3487/00, E-3488/00 and E-3489/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2001)

The fight against forest fires, which every year threatens several regions in Spain, requires the use of many helicopters in order to put fires out and to carry the fire fighters themselves. Currently all Spanish public administrations responsible for these tasks are using around 100 helicopters during the annual campaign to prevent and fight forest fires. In order to do so they have concluded contracts with private helicopter operators, applying the rules governing the letting of public contracts covered by the provisions of the Royal Decree No 2/200 of 16 June 2000.

In the main these helicopters are registered in Spain. However, the Spanish fleet contains a limited number of craft and does not contain certain specialist types of craft. It can therefore not meet every need. Thus the companies employed by the public administration to fight fires temporarily hire civil helicopters registered in other Member States. The helicopters are registered (either) in other Member States of the European Community (Germany, Sweden) or in non member countries (Chile, the United States, Russia, Poland, etc.). They are hired either without a crew (dry lease) or with a crew (wet lease).

So far the Community has not adopted common rules which apply to the technical operation of helicopters. It is thus up to each Member State to take appropriate action to ensure that airborne operations are safe, including special operations such as forest-fire fighting. According to the information available to the Commission it would seem that that is indeed the case in Spain. Only companies holding an air operator’s certificate (AOC) certifying their fitness to perform fire-fighting tasks are contracted to do such work. Where they charter helicopters registered in other states there is a prior inspection by the Directorate General for Aviation in order to check, as required by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on the licensing of air carriers (1) that they display a level of safety equivalent to that required to carry out this type of operation using helicopters registered in Spain.

When proposing harmonised technical specifications for commercial operations using aircraft (2), the Commission recently informed the Council and Parliament of its intention to extend Community law in order also to cover the safety aspects of helicopter operations which will involve, inter alia, forest-fire fighting, assistance, and the rescue and transport of casualties.

Moreover, the Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that Directive 94/565/EEC (3) establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents, was transposed into Spanish law by Royal Decree 389/1998 of 13 May 1998, thus setting up the commission for investigating civil-aviation accidents and incidents. That commission has been made responsible for the technical investigation of all serious civil-aviation accidents and incidents taking place on Spanish territory and enjoys full operational independence. It is thus competent to investigate any helicopter accidents taking place during fire fighting operations, even if the craft involved are registered in other countries. The Commission is not aware of any such accidents taking place since that in 1993, and involving a helicopter from an east-European country. It is therefore not possible for it to call into question the correct implementation of that directive by the Spanish authorities.

Council Directive 86/188/EEC of 12 May 1986 on the protection of workers from the risk related to exposure to noise at work (4) only applies to air-transport workers, as provided for in Article 1(2) thereof. C 187 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment laid down by Directive 89/655/EEC (5) (and not 89/665/EEC) have been transposed by Royal Orders 1215/1997 of 18 July and 773/1997 of 30 May. Those requirements apply to helicopter crews provided that their employer is established in Spain or another Member State.

The Spanish authorities have informed the Commission of the means of transposing Directive 93/104/ EEC (6) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, and the Commission is now in the process of examining their compliance with the directive.

This directive has been extended to the ‘excluded sectors’ which includes civil aviation) via Directive 2000/ 34/EC (7) which must be transposed by the Member States before 1 August 2003.

Moreover, on 27 November 2000, the Council adopted Directive 2000/79/EEC concerning the organisation of working time of mobile workers in civil aviation (8). Once this new directive enters into force, the provisions of Directive 93/104/EC will no longer apply to civil aviation.

As regards Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (9), the Spanish authorities have notified the Commission of the means of transposition used. The Commission is currently in the process of examining their compliance with the directive.

Moreover, the Commission is in no position to assess the soundness of the criticisms made by the international airline pilots federation (Ifalpa) and by the private Apythel association.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992. (2) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000. (3) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994. (4) OJ L 137, 24.5.1986. (5) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989. (6) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. (7) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000. (8) OJ L 302, 1.12.2000. (9) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2001/C 187 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3504/00 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Independence of Commission’s services from tobacco industry

1. Can the Commission confirm that there are staff regulations regarding employees of the legal services taking up a position upon retirement which has a link with their former duties?

2. Can the Commission confirm that a member of its legal services, responsible for internal market issues, immediately upon retirement took up employment with the tobacco industry campaign to stop adoption of the tobacco advertising directive, using his former employment as a credential?

3. If so, can the Commission explain why the staff regulations were not applied in this case?

4. With a view to the above questions, can the Commission guarantee that the independence of its services from the tobacco industry is guaranteed, particularly as regards its legal services, its customs and tax department and its agriculture department and what measures if any were taken to ensure this independence? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/13

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to Articles 16 and 17 of the Staff Regulations which cover all former officials of the Community and not just those from its legal services. Article 16 in particular provides that, after termination of service, the official must respect obligations of honesty and discretion in relation to the acceptance of certain duties or functions.

The Commission can confirm that it was aware that one of the former members of its legal service has been working for the tobacco industry in connection with the industry’s opposition to the ban on tobacco advertisements.

The case has been examined by the Commission to make sure that the person concerned has complied with the relevant rules of the Staff Regulations (Articles 16 and 17). In considering such cases the Commission expects its officials to refrain from accepting employment if this could lead to a conflict of interest with their former post in the Commission. Such a conflict arises if the new activity is related to a dossier for which the official was responsible in the Commission, and if it involves him/her in intervening against the position of the Commission with regard to this dossier.

The same situation occurs where the official might profit from confidential information gained during his/ her previous functions.

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission concluded that, since the official did not deal with matters linked to tobacco or the single market whilst working in the Commission, there is no breach of the rules of the Staff Regulations.

All services are independent from the tobacco industry (and from all other industries). Where the Commission suspects a violation of its professional rules, it acts immediately to check the matter and, if necessary, takes measures to penalise such a violation.

(2001/C 187 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3528/00 by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Czech nuclear power station at Temelin

A serious disagreement has recently arisen between Austria and the Czech Republic on the start-up of the Czech nuclear power station at Temelin.

1. What legal possibilities does the Commission have, pursuant to the Treaty of Amsterdam, to compel the Czech Government to carry out a cross-border environmental impact assessment, with a view to the Czech Republic’s forthcoming accession to the European Union?

2. Does the Commission have any legal instruments to compel the Czech Government to carry out a safety check before Temelin actually comes into operation? If not, and if it has not been able to resolve this point satisfactorily in the accession negotiations with the Czech Republic, what diplomatic representations has the Commission made to the two governments, and with what result?

3. The Austrian Government has recommended that the EU adopt EU standards in the field of the safe use of nuclear energy at an early date. Is the Commission able to comply with this recommendation at short notice; if so, how will these standards be developed and who will be involved in this process? C 187 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

4. Does the Commission consider that public acceptance of nuclear energy could be increased if EU safety standards existed, and if there were an EU policy on the safe processing and storage of nuclear waste?

5. In the light of the current oil crisis, and based on the notion of an energy diversification policy which would also embrace the safe use nuclear energy, is the Commission prepared to make the greatest possible efforts to put the proposals in point 4 above into practice as quickly as possible? What measures does the Commission propose taking to this end?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission has no legal means to compel the Czech government to carry out a cross-border environmental impact assessment (EIA) with regard to the Temelin nuclear power plant (NPP). This issue has been the subject of bilateral contacts of Austria and Germany with the Czech Republic. On 16 November 2000, a public environmental impact assessment hearing was held in the Czech town of Tyn, with the participation of interested foreign parties. On 1 December 2000, a similar hearing, however outside the scope of current Czech law, on a building of the Temelin NPP will be held in Linz (Austria). On the basis of current Czech EIA legislation, the Czech authorities are already submitting 78 design changes at the Temelin NPP to an EIA and have provided documentation to the German and Austrian governments.

The Czech authorities are expected to adopt new EIA legislation compatible with the acquis as a short- term priority under the 1999 Accession Partnership. A draft law is currently being debated in Parliament, with a view to adoption by the end of 2000 and entry into force in mid-2001. This legislation will also foresee cross-border EIA procedures. A motion for the Czech Republic to adhere to the United Nations (UN) Espoo Convention is also underway in the Czech Parliament. In line with basic legal principles, this new legislation will not apply retroactively to the Temelin NPP construction procedure.

However, on 12 December at a bilateral meeting in Melk between the Austrian Chancellor Schüssel and the Czech Prime Minister Zeman in which the Commission provided its good services, the Czech authorities agreed to extend, on a voluntary basis, the ongoing environmental impact assessment of 78 design changes into a comprehensive and full-scope environmental impact assessment of the whole plant taking fully into account the expertise that was done up to now.

Nuclear safety is the responsibility of the operator of the Temelin NPP acting under the supervision and licensing authority of the Czech national nuclear safety regulatory body (SUJB). This body has submitted the power plant to an orderly licensing procedure. The Commission therefore does not see any basis to call on the Czech Republic to carry out additional safety checks. For the purpose of the accession negotiations, the Commission is currently participating in the efforts of the Council to draw up the parameters of a high level of nuclear safety. This exercise will result in the evaluation of the situation and perspective in the candidate countries. The issue of nuclear safety is part of the regular dialogue of the Commission with the Czech Republic.

Furthermore, in the above mentioned meeting of 12 December in Melk it was agreed that a ‘trialogue’ would be conducted and that an expert mission with trilateral participation would be dispatched by the Commission to Vienna and Prague to facilitate the dialogue between the government of Austria and the Czech Republic on the issue of nuclear safety and to find solutions to identified problems.

As the Euratom Treaty does not offer a specific legal basis for the establishment of common Community standards on nuclear installation safety, Member States have successfully developed national regulations ensuring a high level of nuclear safety within their respective jurisdictions over the past three decades. Since 1975, work conducted under the auspices of the Commission has resulted in a very well developed Community perspective on nuclear safety. Although there are common principles, due to the variety of regulatory approaches and different technological developments in Member States, it is not at all certain 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/15

that Community legislation would provide added value compared with the current situation. A precipitous approach would put at risk an agreement on the lowest common denominator of design and operational safety. The goal of regulatory efforts needs to remain the assurance of a high level of nuclear safety within each State. Within the enlargement process, the objective of the Commission is to ensure that candidate countries achieve a high level of nuclear safety.

The public acceptance of nuclear energy is determined by a variety of factors other than the existence of common Community standards. Progress on the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and radioactive waste management is undoubtedly a key element in this respect.

The need for a high level of nuclear safety is independent of the level of oil prices and the extent of energy diversification. Safety is a key element of nuclear energy production whatever its scope within the applied energy mix.

(2001/C 187 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3531/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Peace process in the Middle East

On 5 September 2000 the Speaker of the Knesset, Mr Avram Burg, and Mr Ahmed Qurie, his counterpart in the Palestinian Legislative Council, spoke at Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg on the situation in the Middle East, the future status of Jerusalem and the hopes for definitive peace in this troubled region of the planet. The speeches by the two Speakers were models of constructive attitudes, they were full of suggestions and ideas and revealed that at any rate majorities in the legislative bodies of both Israel and the Palestinian administration wished to advance along the road to reconciliation. A highly significant element in these speeches was the suggestion that Jerusalem should become a global capital, a centre for monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), so that instead of being a city of hatred it would become known as a city of love. Paradoxically, the suggestion by the Speakers of the two legislative bodies of Israel and Palestine did not appear to attract the interest of the Council or the Commission, who could adopt and promote it in order to eliminate the stalemate on the status of Jerusalem, thus increasing the European Union’s prestige in the area and making a real contribution to consolidating peace.

Since the future of Jerusalem is at the heart of the Palestine issue and is a question that prompts fanatical acts, and even death, on both sides, is the Council looking at the possibility of the European Union promoting the suggestion that Jerusalem should be made into an international city and turned into a global capital for the three monotheistic religions, along the lines of a suggestion made by the parties involved in the region which could put a stop to the constant bloodshed which we are unfortunately witnessing once again in this region? If so, does the EU intend to use a military presence to guarantee smooth implementation of the proposal?

(24 April 2001)

The question of Jerusalem and that of the Holy Places will probably remain one of the most difficult issues to resolve in the context of the Middle East peace process. Many ideas have been put forward on all sides to break the deadlock concerning Jerusalem, including the idea of ‘internationalisation’ of the city. The Council is in principle prepared to encourage any solution that takes into account the legitimate expectations of each Party and of the rest of the world. The Council is prepared to make its contribution to working out such a solution if the Parties so wish. C 187 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3539/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: The euro crisis revising the date for replacing national currencies and reducing the staff of the European Central Bank

In view of the fact that:

the independence of the European Central Bank (ECB) means that its directors should be responsible for the results of efforts to preserve the purchasing power of the euro;

the value of the euro is falling against not only the dollar but also the other major currencies;

the transition from the virtual to the cash euro is a delicate process;

the launching of the final stage may be seriously compromised by the ‘crisis of faith’ currently affecting public opinion;

a strong signal must be given to the markets in order to bring about a reversal of the trend. 1. Does the Council not consider that it should ask the Governing Council, the Executive Board and the General Council to submit to the European Parliament a detailed report on the state of the euro, in particular indicating whether it might be appropriate to revise the dates envisaged for replacing national currencies with the euro? 2. Does it consider that the staff of the ECB should be reduced from 770 to 300 people, which would be enough to carry out the work required? 3. Does the Council not feel that the nations in the euro zone, who are the victims of inappropriate policies, might be able to demonstrate their dissatisfaction by means of referenda?

(24 April 2001)

1. Art. 113 § 2 (ex art. 109 B) of the Treaty provides that the ECB shall annually report on its monetary policy of both the previous and the current year to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European Council.

In accordance with the Treaty, since the start of the third stage of EMU on 1st January 1999, national currencies of participating Member States have been replaced by the euro at the irrevocably fixed conversion rates laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 of 31 December 1998.

2. The Council has no role to play in determining the number of staff employed by the ECB.

3. In accordance with the Treaty, the ESCB, which is composed of the ECB and the national central banks and which primary objective is to maintain price stability, has exclusive competence in order to define and implement, in full independence, the monetary policy of the Community.

The Treaty thus obliges the ECB and the national central banks to refrain from taking any instructions for the exercise of this basic task of the ESCB, either from Community institutions or from Member States, even if they were to be formulated in a possible national referendum on the matter. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/17

(2001/C 187 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3572/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Disclosure of EU documents

Over the summer, a working party of senior Coreper officials drafted a proposal for reducing the degree of disclosure of EU documents. The decision to do so was apparently prompted by a specific request from a citizen which the Council did not wish to grant.

1. When was this request submitted to the Council?

2. Who submitted it?

3. To what documents did it relate?

4. Why did the Council not wish to grant the request?

5. In what sense did the request and the subsequent refusal to grant it result in the Council’s resorting to an expedited procedure to reduce the degree of disclosure of European documents?

(24 April 2001)

Should the Honourable Member of Parliament refer in his question to Council Decision 2000/527/EC amending Decision 93/731/EC on public access to Council documents, which was adopted by the Council on 14 August 2000 concerning access to highly classified documents concerning the European security and defence policy, the Council can only repeat what it already stated in its reply to his Written Question E-2846/00 of 11 September 2000. In case he refers to another question, the Honourable Member is requested to give more details.

The Council wishes to point out that in its replies to requests from the public for access to documents the Council always states the grounds on which documents are refused and informs the applicant of the remedies open to him, namely instituting court proceedings or making a complaint to the European Ombudsman, under the conditions laid down in Articles 230 and 195 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

(2001/C 187 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3587/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Environmental pollution caused by the Chalkis Cement factory

The Chalkis Cement factory lies very close to the town of Chalkis and has, since its construction, discharged large amounts of cement dust over many districts of the town. Protests by the local authorities and inhabitants have failed to have any effect.

The factory has undertaken certain improvements by installing filters in its chimneys. However, a significant part of the entire production process still takes place in the open (transport and storage of materials, etc.) so that a gust of wind is enough to carry the dust into the town. Most estimates agree that if the appropriate investments were made it would be possible to carry out the entire process under cover, and indeed the factory claims to have such a programme in place. If this is true, implementation has long been delayed and the outlook for the future is uncertain. C 187 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Since the above clearly constitutes a breach of Community legislation, will the Commission say whether it intends to look into the question and take whatever steps are appropriate to put an end to the pollution of the town of Chalkis by cement dust as rapidly as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission wrote to the Greek authorities on 13 September 1999 asking for information about how the Chaldis cement factory operates. In particular, with reference to Directive 84/360/EEC (1), it asked for precise information about emissions of SO2,NOX and dust from the company’s various units. At the annual meeting on the introduction of Community environmental legislation in Greece on 9 and 10 December 1999, the Greek authorities promised to send detailed information on how the company works. In February 2000, the Greek authorities sent information about the company’s unit D.

The Commission will write to the Greek authorities again to ask for information about the company’s other units. It will ask for more extensive information about NOX emissions from the company’s unit D.

(1) Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants (OJ L 188, 16.7.1984).

(2001/C 187 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3595/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Extension of Adamas harbour, Island of Milos, Cyclades, Greece

By joint order 69269 of 30 March 1998 the Minister of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works and the Minister of the Merchant Maríne of Greece approved the above projected works. In November 1999 the Greek Government decided to go ahead with the work which was described as harbour works in order to benefit from Community funding. In fact the works are fundamentally transforming the urban and regional planning of the island by embankment of the entire length of the marine parade where the road runs along the beach, thus creating carriageways and additional areas allowing various bars and restaurants to set up tables beside the sea.

The environmental impact assessment does not seem to have been carried out in accordance with the relevant law (Law 1650/1986, Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and joint ministerial orders Nos 69269/5387/ 1990). The Council of State, to which an appeal was made on 11 November 1999 for suspension of the works, rejected the appeal on 18 January 2000 under a recently adopted provision, Article 35 of Law 2721/1999; the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Council of State merely invoked the concept of ‘public interest’, without giving any reasons, and thus authorised resumption of the works (2). An appeal to annul the administration’s decision was also lodged on 8 November 1999. When considering this appeal the Council of State deemed it admissible and thus contradicted itself by casting doubt on the public- interest argument advanced in its judgment of 18 January 2000. However, the appeal has been pending since it was lodged, and this has enabled the promoters of the works to complete them.

The possibility of widespread application of the above provision under Law 2721/1999 is dangerously restricting Greek citizens’ right to temporary protection by the courts and is likely to allow the completion of works financed from Community funds that will have irreversible environmental consequences.

Can the Commission consider the above question and take the necessary measures with regard to the Greek authorities to ensure compliance with Community law, particularly the rules on environmental impact assessments? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/19

Does the Commission not consider that there is a need to ask the Greek authorities to refund the Community funds granted for this project, if Community rules are not being complied with?

What, in the Commission’s view, would be the risks caused by widespread application of the above provision under Law 2721/1999?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. The assessment provides no details of the works or environment affected, no assessment of the consequences in all their possible forms, no detail of proposed pollution prevention, reduction or compensation measures, no consideration of advantages and disadvantages, no justification according to purely environmental criteria of the solution chosen and no analysis of alternative solutions to protect the Bay of Milos and its ecosystem, the second largest natural bay in the Mediterranean. The Island of Milos is already severely affected by mineral extraction activities and plans to extend such activities, which are seriously affecting the environment (see Written Question E-0318/2000). The inclusion of the region on the west coast of Milos in the Natura 2000 network, under Directive 92/43/EEC, published in OJ L 206, 22.7.1992) is being held up by the local authorities who are mainly responsible for the works concerned. (2) The main reason for the works is to enlarge the area available for restaurants and bars.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Member States do not regularly inform the Commission on the application of Council Directive 85/337/ EEC of 27 June 1985, as amended 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). Consequently, and in response to the Honourable Member’s question, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities to ascertain whether all procedures laid down in the legislation have indeed been carried out.

Where the Commission finds non-compliance with Community law, it may require national authorities to remove all spending on the project in question from the statement of expenditure bringing to a close the 1994-1999 Multifund Operational Programme for the South Aegean.

As regards Article 35 of Law 2721/99, the Commission would point out that, as things currently stand, since this is a national law detailing the procedures for third parties to take a case to court, it does not come under the Community’s jurisdiction.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 187 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3599/00 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Signature of Protocols by the Commission

The Alpine Convention, which the European Union signed in 1991 and ratified in 1996, entered into force in 1998 (while the subsequent protocol on Monaco’s accession entered into force in 1999). The European Union has also signed three implementing protocols (regional planning and sustainable development, mountain farming, conservation of nature and the countryside), but has not signed the four other protocols (mountain forests, tourism, soil conservation, energy) and, by the end of October, had not yet signed the new transport protocol. At the Sixth Alpine Conference in Lucerne (Switzerland) on 30 and 31 October 2000, the Commission was notable by its absence.

What was the significance of the Commission’s failure to attend the conference? What is the explanation for the Commission’s failure to sign any protocols since 1994? Is the Commission interested in the Alpine Convention? Does the Commission anticipate that the protocols that have already been signed will be ratified? In future, will the Commission be actively involved in the work of the standing committee and of the Conference? What is the Commission’s opinion of the European Charter of Mountain Regions? C 187 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

The Community has not signed the protocols on tourism, mountain forests, soil conservation and energy as it believes that implementing the Alpine Convention and in particular, the above protocols, should be carried out by the Alpine Member States and regions involved rather than at Community level.

However, the Community has played an active role in negotiating the transport protocol, which was only opened to signature by the parties to the Alpine Convention at the most recent ministerial meeting held on 31 October 2000. It was unable to add its signature during that meeting since the procedure for signing the protocol by the Community had not yet been completed.

The Commission’s absence from work carried out in the context of the Alpine Convention and from the last ministerial meeting should not be attributed to a lack of interest in the implementation of the Convention. Budgetary and human resource limitations mean that the Commission cannot attend every meeting convened by the Standing Committee of the Convention and the Commission does not have any immediate plans to ratify the protocols that have been signed. Nonetheless, issues regarding mountain life are taken into account in the EU’s structural policies and the regional and rural development programmes.

Regions facing difficulties and economic conversion are the main priority of European regional policy, which allocates Community aid to most mountainous regions on this basis. Moreover, certain Community initiatives such as Interreg II and Leader+ take special account of mountain issues. Leader+ in particular represents an opportunity for mountainous rural regions.

During the new programming period (2000-2006) for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), there will be for the first time a programme for the Alpine region covering the whole Alpine area and areas covered by the Alpine Convention. France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Slovenia and Liechtenstein are all involved in the programme. The overall budget is expected to total at least € 120 million, 60 million of which will come from the ERDF to build on the cross-border cooperation that began in the previous period.

Concerning rural development, the general framework proposed by the Commission appears to be suitably adapted to the multi-functional role and diversity of mountainous regions. Reorganising rural development policy should foster enhanced integration of existing instruments and considerable decentralisation of the ways in which these instruments are used. Setting up specific regional programmes will be particularly important in terms of focusing on the specific needs of regions in the EU, and mountainous regions should especially benefit from this on account of their distinctive characteristics.

Moreover, the Commission’s participation in the first World Mountain Forum (1) in June 2000 confirms its interest in tackling the specific needs faced by these regions.

Lastly, a booklet on structural policies and mountain areas was published recently. It is the first document for eleven years produced by the Commission exclusively dedicated to mountainous regions.

The European Charter of Mountainous Regions was drawn up by the Council of Europe with the aim of encouraging the development of specific policies for these areas. Representatives of Member States and non-governmental organisations are involved and have approved the Charter. The Commission encourages such initiatives but is not actively involved.

(1) ISBN No 92-828-8977-7. Catalogue No OPOCE KN-28-00-204-FR-C. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/21

(2001/C 187 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3616/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (22 November 2000)

Subject: Fine imposed on Greece

Further to the Commission’s response on 16 October to my Question (P-2843/00) (1) regarding the fine imposed on Greece: 1. Is the daily penalty payment due with effect from the judgment of 7 April 1992 or the judgment of 4 July 2000? 2. Has the Commission now sent a letter to the Greek authorities setting out the conditions? If not, why not?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 107.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (9 February 2001)

In its judgment dated 4 July 2000 (1) the Court of Justice ordered Greece to pay into the Commission’s ‘EC own resources’ account a fine of € 20 000 for each day’s delay in taking the action needed in order to comply with the Commission/Greece judgment of 7 April 1992 dating from the handing down of that judgment, and up to compliance therewith. Therefore Greece must pay the daily fine of € 20 000 as of 4 July 2000.

As required by the existing rules (2) the Commission sent a letter to the Greek authorities on 20 October 2000, asking them to pay, by the latest, at the end of the second month following receipt of the letter, € 1 760 000, an amount representing the daily fine of € 20 000 due for July-September 2000. Moreover the Commission announced in its letter to the Greek authorities that it would send a letter each month requesting payment of the amount of the fine for the current month. A new letter was sent to the Greek authorities on 9 November 2000 requesting that € 620 000 be paid, this representing the amount due for October 2000.

(1) Case C-387/97. (2) Decision of 14 December 1994 on the provisions of the internal procedure for recovering lump sums or fines imposed by the Court of Justice in pursuance of Article 171 of EC Treaty.

(2001/C 187 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 November 2000)

Subject: Wind farm in a protected area on Syros

In the Mount Syringa area of north west Syros, which is included in the Natura 2000 Network (Priority B) and is included in the European Corine Biotopes list, the Aegean Regional Administration and the Prefect for the Cyclades, with funding under the second CSF, are planning to construct a group of four wind powered turbines each 60 metres high, producing 2,64 MW. Environmental organisations and the local population have made representations expressing their concern over the disastrous effect the project would have on protected resident and migratory birds in the area and the damage to the landscape.

However desirable wind powered electricity generation may be, it should not be at the expense of sensitive and important protected areas. 1. Does the Commission intend to intervene to have these wind turbines located in other parts of the island where there would be no environmental impact? 2. Have any studies been carried out into the siting and installation of this plant? C 187 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

Mount Syringa in Syros is part of the area that the Greek authorities nominated for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). As such, it is important to protect the area from commercial activities that may undermine its conservation value. However, despite its importance for the local and migratory bird population, this area is not listed as a special protection area under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and does not fulfil the ornithological criteria to be listed.

An environment impact assessment must be carried out for the project and alternative solutions must be looked into.

In this context, and on the basis of data submitted by the Honourable Member, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities to ascertain whether the impact assessment for the project in question fully took into account the site nominated for the Natura 2000 network and alternative solutions.

The project in question was selected by the Greek authorities for co-financing under measure 3.2 of the Energy Operational Programme of the Community Support Framework for the period 1994-1999. This programme was set up, inter alia, to co-finance energy projects in the private sector to develop wind energy in Greece.

According to information received by the intermediary body responsible for the above-mentioned measure, the project has not yet been carried out following a complaint lodged by a group of citizens to the Greek government concerning the location of the wind turbines.

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission will not intervene concerning the location of a public or private infrastructure in a Member State, provided that Community legislation on environmental and other aspects is respected. Moreover, again for reasons of subsidiarity, the Commission is not always informed of the location of projects, but it contacts national authorities when third parties bring to its attention infringements of Community law.

The Commission has not carried out any studies on the siting of wind turbines. Information is, however, available from the Greek authorities who have had several studies carried out into the most suitable sites in terms of energy yield.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2001/C 187 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3633/00 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Council

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Report on Directive 95/46/EC and its possible revision

Article 33 of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data reads: ‘The Commission shall report to the Council and the European Parliament at regular intervals, starting not later than three years after the date referred to in Article 32(1), on the implementation of this Directive, attaching to its report, if necessary, suitable proposals for amendments. The report shall be made public. The Commission shall examine, in particular, the application of this Directive to the data processing of sound and image data relating to natural persons and shall submit any appropriate proposals which prove to be necessary, taking account of developments in information technology and in the light of the state of progress in the information society.’ 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/23

Does the Council believe it is necessary to amend the directive? If so, in what respects and when? What is the timescale envisaged by the Council for examining, and stating a position on, proposal for a directive COM(2000) 385?

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

(24 April 2001)

The Council has not yet discussed whether it is necessary to amend general Directive 95/46/EC and if so, in what respects. It will do so when it receives the first report from the Commission on the implementation of the Directive, together with any proposals the Commission may make. Under Articles 32 and 33 of the Directive, the report is due to be presented by the end of October 2001.

Moreover, on 28 August 2000 the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a Directive concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (COM 2000 (385)). The aim of the proposal is not to make major changes to Directive 97/66/EC, but merely to adjust and update its content to take account of technical developments and ensure that the rules are technology-neutral and afford a high level of protection. The proposal is part of the legislative package which the Commission forwarded to the Council at the end of August 2000 in the context of the review of the regulatory framework for telecommunications. The Council began its examination of four of the proposals in the package without delay. As regards the proposal in question, and on the basis of the current scheduling of meetings, it is planned to include this item on the agenda for the Council meetings on 5 and 6 April and 27 and 28 June 2001, with a view to holding a debate whose content will be dictated by the stage reached in the technical work by the Council Working Party.

(2001/C 187 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3653/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: The Dutch Media Act and competition between public and commercial radio stations

In order to prevent media concentration in (commercial) radio, Article 82f of the Dutch Media Act prohibits commercial suppliers from participating in more than one frequency package simultaneously. In contrast to public broadcasting, they are not allowed to offer combinations of air time for advertising. However, because of combination sales the public radio stations receive 42 % of the market’s total spending on advertising. This is because the five radio stations combine to sell advertising time and they offer advertisers combinations of air times on the different stations. Public broadcasting receives most revenue on the popular radio 3 station which is used to subsidise other public stations.

1. Does the Commission think that determining dominant market positions depends not only on the position of commercial radio stations but also on that of public stations?

2. Does the Commission agree that the distinction made by the Media Act between public and commercial broadcasting in respect of advertising sales results in uneven competition between the public and commercial radio stations? If so, is this compatible with the EC Treaty and/or the Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States?

3. Does the Commission think that investing one public broadcasting station’s profits from advertising revenue in another public station, via cross-subsidisation, changes the terms of competition between public and commercial broadcasting in such a way as to harm the public interest? C 187 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3654/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: Distinction between public and commercial radio stations in planning frequencies

The Dutch Telecommunications Act is structured in such a way that a decision has to be taken on the frequency requirements for public broadcasting before any frequencies can be allocated to commercial broadcasters. To achieve an efficient replanning of the FM band the Dutch government has arranged for zero-base research to be carried out with a view to increasing the frequencies of commercial broadcasting.

On the basis of the results of this research it has been decided to make available FM frequencies for one additional commercial station and to make a considerable increase in the listening range of almost all frequency packages to more than 70 %. The frequency range for public broadcasting (national, regional and local) has priority and is planned on conventional lines which do not result in additional frequency requirements for public broadcasting.

For commercial broadcasting planning involves new methods which considerably increase the frequency range.

Can the Commission look into whether the distinction that is made between public and commercial broadcasting for planning frequency range can have the effect of distorting competition in the commercial market?

(2001/C 187 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3655/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: Distinction between public and commercial radio broadcasting in the auctioning of radio frequencies in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands there are plans for an auction in 2001 to achieve an efficient distribution of radio frequencies amongst commercial radio broadcasters. It will be a simultaneous multi-stage auction with bids. Licences will be granted for eight years, a period similar to the one applicable to national public broadcasting. In contrast to commercial broadcasters, public stations will receive frequencies free of charge and on a priority basis.

1. Can the Commission look into whether making frequencies available to public broadcasting free of charge is a form of state aid incompatible with the Treaty?

The cabinet’s opinion on the auction completely ignores public broadcasting. Mention is merely made of creating a ‘level playing field’ between commercial stations, but not between commercial and public stations. With regard to the frequency range for commercial broadcasting the Dutch government envisages two important tasks: promoting access to the market for different types of commercial broadcasting bodies and healthy competition between market operators. The latter means an equal starting position (as far as possible) and avoiding the creation of market concentrations.

2. Does the Commission agree that creating or maintaining a ‘level playing field’ and promoting fair competition on the radio market involves not only healthy competition between commercial broadcasters but also between public and commercial broadcasters? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/25

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3653/00, E-3654/00 and E-3655/00 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

As decided by the Court of Justice, public television broadcasting falls within the terms of the EC Treaty and the common market principles, including the rules on competition and state aid. In particular, Article 87(1) (ex-Article 92) of the EC Treaty could apply to public radio broadcasting if all the conditions mentioned therein are met. A State aid may nevertheless be found compatible with the EC Treaty provisions. Furthermore, Article 86(2) (ex-Article 90) of the EC Treaty provides that a State aid can be declared compatible when it is necessary for the realisation of a service of general economic interest.

The importance of public service broadcasting is stated in the Protocol on public service broadcasting, introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Commission has to take into account this interpretative Protocol. According to the Protocol it is the competence of Member States to define the public service and to provide for the funding for this public service, insofar as the funding does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that would be contrary to the common interest.

The Commission is not able to give a precise opinion at this stage on the specific questions of the Honourable Member but will in due time and in the light of the above assess all implications of the requirements of the EC Treaty for the broadcasting sector. As far as the State aid aspect is concernend, the Commission plans to clarify its position in this context in a communication in the course of this year.

(2001/C 187 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3658/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Extension of the Athens Underground

The Greek Government has decided to extend the existing line of the Athens Underground from the present terminal ‘Ethniki Amini’ to ‘Stavros Aghias Paraskevis’ in order to improve links with the new airport in Athens. According to reliable sources the Government has decided, in order to save money and speed up the project, to cancel 4 of the 5 stations originally planned on the new section of the extension which would have served the districts Cholarghos, Aghia Paraskevi, etc.

In order to finance this extension it is planned to use the Community funds already approved for the Underground extension to Aigaleo, a typical working-class area of Athens. A link with a run-down area of the City is thus being sacrificed in an attempt to improve links with the airport, a line which is of very questionable value, given that the scheduled station at Stavros is located many kilometres from the airport. Is the Commission aware of these significant changes and if so what view does it take of these developments?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Community support framework (CSF) for Greece for the 2000-2006 programming period contains finance from the European Regional Development Fund for extensions of the new lines 2 and 3 of the Athens underground railway and construction of a rail link from the centre of Athens to the new Spata airport. C 187 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The draft operational programme (OP) ‘Main roads, ports, urban development 2000-06’ submitted to the Commission by the Greek authorities includes:

for line 2: the ‘Sepolia-Thivon’ extension of 2,8 km comprising three stations and the ‘Dafni-Ilioupolis’ extension of 1,1 km comprising one station;

for line 3: the ‘National Defence-Stavros’ extension of 5,4 km comprising five stations and the ‘Monastiraki-Egaleo’ extension of 4,7 km comprising four stations.

Several studies carried out during the period of preparation of this OP showed that these extensions are the ones which will best serve a major part of the population of the city of Athens, especially in the most densely populated districts.

This OP should be approved by the Commission at the beginning of 2001 and the last date for payments regarding the work part-financed is the end of 2008. The Greek Ministry of Public Works may give priority to construction of the tunnel for the ‘National Defence-Stavros’ extension, with a reduced number of stations, in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games. The complete extension with all the stations envisaged will, however, have to be completed by the end of 2008.

Moreover, in the future the Greek authorities may undertake the construction of other lines, extensions or stations on the Athens underground railway, not included in the CSF for 2000-2006.

(2001/C 187 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3676/00 by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Emergency aid and relief programmes for flood-struck Mozambique

More than six months have passed since massive floodings struck Mozambique and it is time to make an assessment of the aid provided by the European Union to date.

1. How does the Commission assess the cooperation with international organisations and NGOs through which aid projects are being carried out in Mozambique? What needs to be improved?

2. Has the experience of the natural disaster in Mozambique led the Commission to revise or improve its cooperation with the Member States in emergency situations? For example, has the Commission now taken measures to improve the practical cooperation with EU Member States with regard to the transportation and distribution of emergency assistance products? Is there an agreed framework with the Member States on, for instance, the assistance of an army/navy of an EU Member State based in the proximity of a disaster area in respect of transportation or eventual evacuation activities?

3. In the direct aftermath of the floodings in Mozambique international aid, including European aid, was much criticised for having come about too slowly (with the exception of the aid provided by the neighbouring country of South Africa). Does the Commission intend taking measures in order to improve action by the EU in situations similar to the one in Mozambique? If so, what are those measures?

4. Could the Commission provide a report on the structural reform of the Commission delegation in Maputo, as announced in July 1999? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/27

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

1. The Commission’s response to the flood situation in Mozambique in 2000 reflects a high level of cooperation with international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This included excellent co-ordination with the United Nations (UN) Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and with the Mozambique government’s National Disaster Management Institute (INGC) in Maputo. It involved careful partner selection by the Commission in collaboration with its Delegation in Mozambique in the early stages of the flood response, using only partners with a long-term presence in Mozambique and a proven capacity to implement relief programmes. This was facilitated by the immediate deployment of an ECHO expert to Mozambique for field-based strategic programming and project appraisal, implementation monitoring & evaluation. The Commission strategy envisaged a phasing out of emergency relief after nine months, working towards ECHO’s withdrawal by the end of 2000 and DG Development’s pursuit of longer-term rehabilitation projects from 2001.

The above approach has produced excellent results, as observed by several Members of the European Parliament during recent visits to Mozambique.

2. The large-scale aid response to the Mozambique disaster involved four phases. The first consisted of Search and Rescue, occurring during the first week. The second was the Relief phase, during the first six months. The third was Resettlement, from the second to ninth months, whilst the fourth phase of Rehabilitation lasts from the sixth to the eighteenth month. Development aid is, of course, ongoing. Concerning the first phase, Search and Rescue activities can only be carried out by immediately available capacity. In Mozambique, this meant South African helicopters, which coped admirably. It is impossible to make such capacity available from overseas in time to make a difference. Concerning the second phase, logistical capacity for Relief was more than adequate, and nobody died from lack of aid. The resettlement and rehabilitation aid (the third and fourth phases) are progressing well, ensuring that flood victims are rehoused in safer areas, with clean water supplies, assistance with re-establishing crop and livestock production, plus adequate health protection.

In conclusion, the Commission’s prompt and effective response to the natural disaster in Mozambique did not give rise to a need for improved co-operation in emergency situations. Close co-ordination was organised by the authorities in Mozambique, assisted by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. All Member States and international NGOs participated in this co-ordination. In addition to this, numerous meetings were held on a daily basis, between the Commission and Member States’ representatives, at the level of Ambassador or Head of Delegation, in view of the scale of the disaster.

3. There were three stages to the Mozambique disaster, which began with the heavy rains in early February 2000 in Maputo, and continued with Cyclone Eline on 21 and 22 February 2000 in the provinces of Sofala and Inhambane. Finally, on 25 February 2000 the floodgates of major dams on the Limpopo, Save and Buzi rivers were opened to relieve the pressure, provoking widespread flooding and displacement. The Commission was in constant touch with its Delegation in Maputo from the start, and appropriate funding was made available from 6 February 2000. However, the situation only became critical from the third stage. Within forty-eight hours of its onset (on 27 February 2000), a senior field expert was present at the scene of the disaster, having been dispatched immediately from ECHO’s regional support office in Nairobi. This timeframe compares favourably with the response of other donors, such as the US Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance, whose Disaster Assistance Response Team only arrived on 4 March 2000.

All interim evaluations and external observations concur that the Commission’s response in Mozambique was timely, appropriate and cost-effective and, thus should serve as an example.

4. The Commission has been allocating resources for delegations in third countries according to approved plans, which take into account specific local needs. The Commission is unable to identify the specific reform to which the Honourable Member refers. C 187 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Fall in agricultural production in Málaga

According to the annual report for that year on the agricultural sector in Andalusia, agricultural production in the Spanish province of Málaga slumped by a massive 19 % in 1999.

This extremely disappointing result was brought about by a combination of factors including drought, the poor performance of subsectors such as forestry, and the movement of labour away from the countryside to economically more attractive areas for young people.

At all events, however, given the alarming figures, it is essential to determine what remedies can be employed to prevent a repetition this year.

Does the Commission believe that it should provide material support to enable steps to be taken to investigate the contributory factors involved in Málaga’s disappointing agricultural performance in 1999 and lay the foundations for revitalisation of the agricultural sector in the province?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2001)

The data to which the Honourable Member refers concerning the fall in agricultural production in Malaga province in 1999 would appear to have been taken from the annual report on agriculture in Andalusia, published by Unicaja.

The report states that final agricultural production fell by 18,7 % and final forestry production by 17,4 %, while final stock-farming production rose by 16,69 %; final agricultural production as a whole thus fell by 11,36 %.

A point to bear in mind when examining these macroeconomic figures is that a single set of annual data should not be viewed in isolation, since agricultural production inevitably fluctuates each year because of varying weather conditions.

The data for the period 1990-1999 given in the report show that the reasons for last year’s sharp fall were the two previous years’ abnormally high figures and the effects of the drought during this latest marketing year.

Compared with the previous marketing year, the figures for agricultural production in 1997 and 1998 rose by 51,46 % and 12,71 % (ESP 63 606 million and ESP 71 692 million respectively, inflation-adjusted); those levels are appreciably higher than the averages for the previous years (around ESP 40 000- 50 000 million) and the figure for 1999 (ESP 58 287 million).

An examination of the various subsectors during the last year shows that the fall clearly results from weather conditions: for crops such as cereals and industrial crops (e.g. oilseed) in non-irrigated areas, the figure for agricultural production fell to roughly 40 % of the previous year’s; forestry production fell by 17,4 %; all these forms of production were severely affected by the decrease in precipitation during the marketing year.

The report fully substantiates those figures by giving the weather profile for the crop year, which shows that in all Andalusia’s weather stations total combined precipitation in 1999 was below the average for 1961-1998; it was below 50 % of that average in almost all areas.

The operational programme for rural development in Andalusia, which has been submitted for approval, sets out a framework of measures designed to enhance agricultural activity and to sustain the rural population. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/29

(2001/C 187 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3699/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Porpoise by-catches

It appears from its answer of 16 October 2000 to my Question E-2584/00 (1) that ‘In general, very few facts on population dynamics and by-catch issues [influence?] on the harbour porpoise are known to the Commission’.

Will the Commission then review the Ascobans assessment of the situation of porpoises in the North Sea and the Baltic respectively?

Will the Commission also describe its cooperation with Ascobans and indicate whether it sits in as an observer at the meetings of the Ascobans Advisory Committee?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 125.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The lack of information about this species is a regrettable situation that the Commission shares with the scientific community. Therefore, it is not surprising that even highly specialised bodies such the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (Ascobans), continue to call for new researches on the subject.

The Commission welcomes all the efforts to maintain at a favourable status of conservation the species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, as it is the case for all cetaceans the Commission regularly meets regional environmental organisations to exchange views and information. A meeting with representatives of Ascobans was scheduled on 8 December 2000 but, due to unforeseen circumstances, it has had to be postponed.

As for the participation at Ascobans’ work, the Community is what the agreement’s text calls ‘regional economic integration organisation’ and therefore is qualified to send observers to the meetings.

Until now, the Community has signed up the Final Act of the meeting at which the text of the Agreement was adopted and the Agreement itself. However, the latter is not yet ratified. Taking into account the current workload of the Commission and its shortage of human resources, the participation at Ascobans meetings is decided on a case by case basis.

(2001/C 187 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3709/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Commission mission carried out in Thailand concerning poultry meat

The Commission has published a report of a mission carried out by its Food and Veterinary Office in Thailand from 6 to 17 December 1999 concerning the production of poultry meat (DG (SANCO)/1214/ 1999-MR Final). Paragraph 3.6.3. states that the handling in the slaughterhouse of crates containing live birds and the unloading of the crates and the hanging of the birds on the shackle line was done carefully. However, the paragraph then states that the stunning equipment was ‘not properly adjusted in most of the establishments’ and that the central competent authority ‘did not define the electrical parameters to be used for stunning’. Paragraph 5.6 states that there should be more detailed supervision of stunning. C 187 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Would the Commission explain in what way the stunning equipment was not properly adjusted? What steps is the Commission taking to urge the central competent authority of Thailand to remedy the deficiencies in respect of stunning referred to in the Commission’s report?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

Particular attention is paid to the stunning of poultry slaughtered for human consumption during the missions carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission. Such missions have been carried out in all the Member States and a number of third countries. Deficiencies have quite often been noted, which can be categorised as follows: deficiencies in supervision; deficiencies in construction of the water stunner (too short, too wide, wrong direction of dueflow, etc.); deficiencies in adjustment (too low amperage, no indicator for the amperage, only for voltage).

As the Honourable Member quite correctly states, those deficiencies were noted during the mission to Thailand (6-17 December 1999).

The management of the different establishments have reacted immediately, sometimes overnight, in adjusting or even repairing the stunning equipment, or if that was not possible, by ordering new stunning equipment. Moreover, information was received on action taken during the period of the mission in relation to training and advice to competent staff.

The competent authority of Thailand has informed the Commission, following the mission, that the electrical parameters for stunning of the different species have now been defined officially and a more detailed supervision during the time of operation of the establishment has been implemented. It is the Commission’s intention to check these assurances during a future follow up mission to Thailand.

(2001/C 187 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3712/00 by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Impact on Carrascosa de Henares of the road being built between GU-177 and Jadraque

The Castilla-La Mancha Government has given its technical approval to the scheme to upgrade the road link between GU-177 and Jadraque in Guadalajara, which is already underway. ERDF funds are being used for this scheme, whose environmental impact on the Carrascosa de Henares locality is proving considerable. The entirely new road under construction, has buried the only good quality springs left in the area, feeding the River Henares aquifer, under a veritable mountain of earth. The destruction of these springs directly affects the ‘Ribera del rio Henares’ protected area, where the water flow is being severely reduced thanks to the disappearance of these aquifers. This area was put forward as an area of Community interest (ES424003) by the Castilla-La Mancha Government for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. The destruction of the springs is also causing the loss of flora of major ecological interest, particularly centuries-old Holm oaks in the midst of unirrigated farming land; this represents significant deforestation and has grave implications both in terms of loss of habitat for local species and the destruction of the natural beauty of the landscape.

There was a much cheaper and environmentally friendly alternative to the scheme, which was to upgrade the existing flat, straight road, which had no obstacles in its path. Moreover, the road now being built was not the subject of an environmental impact assessment in keeping with Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EEC (2), despite the fact that it falls squarely under the heading of the type of projects and the criteria set out in the annexes to these Directives. Environmental impact assessment is also covered by both Spanish state legislation on roads (Ley de Carreteras 25/1988, of 29 July), and the laws of the Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha (Ley de Carreteras y Caminos de Castilla-La Mancha, No 9/1990 of 28 December). 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/31

Does the Commission not believe that the Spanish authorities have failed to comply with the Directives on environmental impact associations, including the obligation to consult the public interest concerned and take account of alternative proposals? What measure does the Commission intend to take to ensure that Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EEC are applies? Does the Commission intend to open infringement proceedings against Spain for failure to comply with the Directives? Can the Commission confirm that this project is being funded with European monies, and if so, will it withdraw European funding for this project?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Article 2 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), 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 projects covered by 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.

It should be pointed out that Directive 85/337/EEC was amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2). However, under the terms of Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC, if applications for development consent were submitted before 14 March 1999, the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to these amendments apply.

The site ‘Ribera del río Henares’ has been 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 flora and fauna (3).

The Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities in order to ask them for their observations on the application of Directive 85/337/EEC in this particular case and also to determine whether the project in question is likely to have a significant effect on the site mentioned, with regard to the objectives of Directive 92/43/EEC, in which case the procedure provided for in Article 6 must be applied.

According to the information received from the Spanish authorities, the CN-101 (formerly GU-117) road improvement project received co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the 1994-1999 Castilla-La Mancha operational programme. The total investment amounts to ESP 441 794 852, of which 65 % is supported by ERDF. At present, this project is the subject of a complaint to the Commission.

In any case, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is respected in the case in question and, in the event of non-compliance, it reserves the right to demand the reimbursement of any co-financing from the national authorities.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1995. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. C 187 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3713/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Research into the effects of the ban on tobacco exports

According to the tobacco industry, the restrictions on the preparation and export of tobacco products proposed in the new tobacco directive will lead to the loss of jobs in the EU. What detailed research material does the Commission possess on the effects of the new tobacco directive on the employment situation of the tobacco industry in the various EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

It is unclear to what extent the Community production of cigarettes for export exceeds the proposed ceilings for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields. According to information provided in the course of meetings between the Commission and representatives of the tobacco industry, cigarette exports from the Community would equal approximately 15 % of total Community cigarette production but of course only a fraction of the exported cigarettes would exceed the proposed ceilings.

Thus, it is difficult to estimate what percentage of Community production would be concerned if the measures proposed are adopted, what possibilities exist for diversification, and what effect a transitional period could have. In general terms, as regards the employment characteristics of the tobacco manufacturing industry, a report was published by the European Confederation of Cigarette Manufacturers in 1997 (1), and on page 11 of this report, the following statement is made: ‘Based on the information provided by the tobacco manufacturing associations in the Member States, full-time employment in tobacco manufacturing has declined since 1990. For the EU12, the number of full-time jobs fell 23 % to 64 184 in 1994 from 83 419 in 1990. The decline is in common with the trends exhibited across most manufacturing sectors in the EU. This trend towards lower employment is mainly due to continued improvements in labour productivity, which are associated with the industry’s investment in more efficient equipment.’

Thus, the origin of the decline in employment, according to the relevant industry federation, is due to sources outside the control of the Community legislator.

Attention is also drawn to the current negotiations for a World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which envisages the creation of internationally agreed product standards, which would be complementary to those being discussed at the level of the Community.

The Commission is not in possession of detailed research material of the type referred to by the Honourable Member.

(1) ‘The tobacco industry in the European Union 1997’, Pieda plc.

(2001/C 187 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3714/00 by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Access to information on the extension of Barajas airport in Madrid

In its reply of 5 July 2000 to our Question No E-1518/00 (1) regarding the implementation of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 (2) on freedom of access to information on the environment, the Commission stated that the authorities had acted on the requests, although they had replied late. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/33

That statement is incorrect, since the relevant information has still not been supplied to the people who requested it.

In a letter of 17 July 2000 to the Commission (for the attention of Mr G. Kremlis), the Entidad de la Moraleja provided evidence proving that AENA (the Spanish Airports Authority) had not given a proper reply and was in breach of Directive 90/313/EEC. The data on average hourly noise emissions had in fact been supplied in the wrong format. This restriction on access to such information places a question mark over the thoroughness of the environmental impact assessment procedure and reduces the capacity of citizens to exercise their rights to environmental and health protection.

What action has the Commission taken to date with a view to ensuring the above directive is complied with in full, and what will be its next step?

Would it not agree that it should open infringement proceedings against the Spanish State for failure to comply with the directive?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 22. (2) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Article 4 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC (1) of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment stipulates 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.

The Directive was transposed into Spanish law by Law No 38/1995 of 12 December 1995 on the right of access to information on the environment, recently amended by Law No 55/1999 of 29 December 1999, which established the right to seek reviews in such cases.

If Entidad de la Moraleja believes there has been an infringement of Directive 90/313/EEC in relation to its requests for information from the Spanish authorities, it has the option of going through the appropriate review channels at national level to bring in the Spanish administrative and legal authorities, which have prime responsibility for the official enforcement of Community law in Spain.

To check that Directive 90/313/EEC has been properly applied in the case in hand, the Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities several times for explanations of the potential infringement situation reported to it.

The Spanish authorities’ response shows that they have already replied to several requests for information and are continuing to respond to Entidad de la Moraleja’s many requests. Albeit with occasional delays, the Spanish authorities are making the information they hold available to the requestor. It should also be noted that Directive 90/313/EEC makes no provision regarding the form in which requested information is to be made available to the requestor.

With specific regard to instituting infringement proceedings for improper application of Directive 90/313/ EEC in this instance, it should be noted that the Court of Justice has consistently held that the Commission is not bound to institute infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, but may do so at its own discretion. Exercising that discretion, the Commission does not systematically take up every single reported case of alleged improper application of this Directive. Only where consistent poor administrative practice can be identified, or where one-off cases of improper application can be grouped together by virtue of a common link, will the Commission generally decide to institute infringement C 187 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. However, the information available to it in the present case suggests that neither of these categories applies in this instance.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2001/C 187 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3718/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Terrorism, violence and black humour on websites

The Internet is increasingly becoming a meeting place for every possible kind of evil. Alongside sites carrying paedophile images and scenes of pornographic violence, there is a proliferation of sites showing harrowing scenes of attacks and explosions caused by various international terrorist organisations, with a marked preference for ideological or fundamentalist movements. Another series of sites involves animated cartoons and extremely violent black humour, with characters shot in the head and another character called Ricky Martin who is tortured and cut into pieces, fat chicks dancing until they explode and sweet little puppies that have their heads kicked off.

Although this type of communication admittedly involves the exercise of freedom of expression,

1. Does the Commission not consider that this continual transmission of violence, failure to respect human dignity and absolute contempt for the slightest degree of self-regulation, should be subject to internationally agreed standards?

2. Does it not think that it should take advantage of the forthcoming world communications forum organised by the United Nations to put forward proposals on the need for regulation of the Internet and to prevent, inter alia, unfortunate situations similar to those caused by the ‘European union’ site?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2001)

The approach of the Commission to dealing with illegal and harmful content on the Internet has remained consistent since the adoption of the Communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet (1) and the green paper on protection of minors and human dignity in October 1996 (2). Significant progress has been made thanks to a concerted approach by Member States and the institutions of the Union.

The primary responsibility for dealing with illegal content is with the appropriate law enforcement and judicial authorities. Industry can provide assistance to law enforcement in particular in removing illegal content from circulation and in providing information and expertise in accordance with applicable legal rules.

However, the Internet is a global instrument and does not recognise national frontiers. International cooperation involves law enforcement collaborating in appropriate ways including the existing channels of communications, such as Europol and Interpol. Co-operation is being reinforced as a result of work in the group of eight most industrialized countries (G8) and the draft Council of Europe convention which the Commission is following closely.

Harmful content means both content which is allowed but whose distribution is restricted (adults only, for instance) and content which may offend certain users, or which responsible adults (parents and teachers) consider potentially harmful to children in their care, although its publication is not restricted because of the principle of freedom of expression. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/35

Action at an international level needs to take account of divergent approaches in different countries to what is harmful and how far free speech can be restricted. It is not likely that agreement could be reached on a single set of rules for Internet content.

The best approach to deal with harmful content is a combination of industry self-regulation within a legal framework, encouragement of technical tools to protect children and services offering suitable content for children, and education and awareness-raising.

The action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet (3) supports four areas: a European network of hotlines (to take reports about illegal content), self-regulation by industry, filtering and rating and education and awareness-raising. 20 projects are currently under way.

Member States are also committed under the Recommendation on protection of minors and human dignity (4) to provide the appropriate framework for self-regulation.

(1) COM(96) 487 final. http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/internet/communic.html. (2) COM(96) 483 final. http://europa.eu.int/en/record/green/gp9610/protec.htm. (3) Decision 276/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999 adopting a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks (OJ L 33, 6.2.1999). http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/iap/decision/en.html. (4) Council Recommendation 98/560/EC of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity (OJ L 270, 7.10.1998). http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/avpolicy/new_srv/recom-intro_en.html.

(2001/C 187 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3727/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: The lack of European Business and Innovation Centres in the South West of England

Could the Commission please explain why European Business and Innovation Centres currently exist in relatively affluent areas of the UK such as Birmingham and Cambridge, when there is no Centre at all in the South-West of England, a region that contains areas such as Cornwall which are among some of the poorest areas in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

European business and innovation centres (BICs) are private companies or not-for-profit associations set up by local or regional public-private partnerships. They are founded on the Community concept of business support services under a Community brand name but are legally and financially independent.

The decision to set up a BIC does not depend on the Commission but on the local partnerships of public and private bodies having an interest and responsibility for business development in the local and regional community. Such was the case, for example, in Cambridge.

In areas assisted by European regional policy, such as Birmingham, the launching of new BICs may in addition be supported financially by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for a strictly limited period of time. Such a project should be presented to the competent bodies at regional level. C 187 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

As to the South-West of England, which is included in Objective 2 areas of the ERDF, the Commission is informed that in November 2000, the ‘South West of England Development Agency’ undertook discussions with the EBN (European BIC Network) for the creation of a centre in Cornwall.

(2001/C 187 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3728/00 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: BSE in France

Will the Commission ensure that all measures taken by France in response to the recent BSE crisis be taken and implemented without reference to nationality?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Commission has followed closely the national measures taken by France and other Member States in response to recent developments with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). These unilateral measures have been referred to the Scientific Steering Committee, and their opinion on the merits or otherwise of these measures is currently being considered by the Commission. It is the intention of the Commission to act on these opinions in order to bring about harmonisation of these measures. Any discrimination on grounds of nationality would be an infringement of Community law and treated as such.

(2001/C 187 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3733/00 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Birre to Areia extension to the Lisbon-Cascais motorway

It is reported in the local press that Cascais council is paying landowners PTE 10 000 per square metre to buy their land for the construction of this motorway, while normally land in the area would not fetch more than PTE 500 per square metre.

Can the Commission state whether this motorway extension is being built with the help of funding from the EU budget, and if so what steps it is taking to ensure that the money is not being used to pay inflated prices to landowners?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

According to information from the Portuguese authorities the Birre-Areia extension to the Lisbon-Cascais motorway has not received Community co-funding. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/37

(2001/C 187 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3739/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Subject: Destruction of a Kurdish town

What grounds are there for giving any support for the GAP (South-East Anatolia Project) which would dam the Tigris and Euphrates and submerge large parts of south eastern Turkey, including an ancient Kurdish town of great historical significane to the Kurdish people?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission has no intention to use Community budget funds for the financing of dams on the Tigris and Euphrates.

But it plans to co-finance a regional development programme in the GAP region, whose specific objectives are to increase employment opportunities, to support income generating activities for the rural population, to renovate and restore important cultural heritage sites and to promote cultural and touristic potential, as well as to improve the environmental conditions in the region.

(2001/C 187 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3751/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: The imposition of VAT on recombinant blood products

Will the Commission investigate the imposition of VAT on recombinant blood products in each Member State? Is the Commission aware that this is a matter of concern for people suffering from haemophilia?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Under the present rules of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, of 17 May 1977, on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), the tax liability of recombinant blood products will vary according to the exact nature of what is being provided.

Whilst there is an exemption (provided by Article 13(A)(1)(d)) which applies to whole human blood, this does not include supplies of products derived from human blood. However, blood products treated as medicinal products, in accordance with the concepts defined by Council Directive 89/381/EEC of 14 June 1989, extending the scope of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products and laying down special provisions for medicinal products derived from human blood or human plasma (2) may be taxed at a reduced VAT rate, under Article 12(3)(a) and category 3 of Annex H of the 77/388/EEC Directive. The reduced rate would also apply to the recombinant blood products developed by means of biotechnological processes, included in part A of the Annex to the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, of 22 July 1993, laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal products (3). Blood products other than those mentioned above must be taxed at the standard rate. C 187 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The Commission is aware that a lack of consistency in this matter exists and intends to address this in the near future, in the context of its new VAT strategy for the improvement of the operation of the VAT system within the Internal Market (4).

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. (2) OJ L 181, 28.6.1989. As a result of this Directive, products based on blood constituents, which are prepared industrially by public or private establishments are considered to be medicinal products derived from human blood or human plasma. This is the case with albumin, coagulating factors and immunoglobulins of human origin. (3) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993. (4) COM(2000) 348 final, available on the Europa site at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/publications/official_doc/com/com.htm.

(2001/C 187 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3754/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Spatial planning in the EU: TERRA programme

TERRA was one of the programmes adopted in the framework of the innovatory measures regulated by Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation for the period 1994-1999, under which a number of projects were financed in the period 1997-1999. The TERRA programme was conceived, together with the Community initiative Interreg II C, as a laboratory for testing new instruments and methods of spatial planning and evaluating the options proposed by the European Spatial Strategy (ESS).

Can the Commission provide information on the results of TERRA and the conclusions it has drawn from those results, as well as their relationship to and influence on the ESS, especially regarding the outlying maritime regions of Objective 1 as it applies to the existing EU?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The TERRA programme was conceived as a laboratory for testing new spatial planning approaches and procedures. Various orientations emerged that can serve as guidance for other projects at local, regional, national and Community level, such as the need for new approaches to spatial planning itself, prioritisation of sustainability in local development, the importance of partnership between local people and local administrations, the synergies yielded by interregional cooperation, and development of new instruments such as support observatories for integrated development policies.

A number of TERRA projects involved outlying maritime regions.

The LORE project, coordinated by the local authority for Ikaria in Greece in partnership with Alcamo and Ragusa in Sicily and Iraklio and Magnisia in Greece, permitted establishment and operation of local observatories tasked with setting up a coordination and control mechanism for spatial planning hitherto the province of local authorities and other local agents.

The DIAS project, coordinated by the Cretan regional authority in partnership with Siracusa in Sicily, is concerned with spatial planning focused on protection, management and promotion of the natural environment and cultural heritage of zones displaying common features and problems. Development strategies have been proposed for certain Mediterranean, mountain and coastal zones with great environmental and cultural richness but at serious risk owing to population pressure. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/39

The strategic framework provided by the European Spatial Development Prospective gave the appropriate political context and the necessary orientation to TERRA, which has taught local officials to ‘look beyond’ the limits of their administrative and geographical responsibility and tackle wider questions. It has confirmed the relevance of the ESDP political options for local action by drawing attention to the problems posed by networking of divergent spatial planning cultures and administrative competences.

(2001/C 187 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3756/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: The European Spatial Strategy and the EU’s Objective 1 outlying maritime regions

At the informal Council of Ministers responsible for spatial planning held in Potsdam in May 1999, the Member States and the Commission adopted a document on the ‘European Spatial Strategy’ (ESS), embodying a strategic vision of spatial planning at Community level and incorporating perspectives in this area with a view to EU enlargement.

In its resolution of 7 February 1998 on spatial planning and the European Spatial Planning Perspective, Parliament emphasised (in paragraphs 17 and 18) the need to adopt policies for the development and renewal of the Union’s ports, especially those situated in the remote and outermost regions, as well as the need to encourage a global maritime policy aimed at developing communications within and outside Europe by promoting maritime transport, as an environment-friendly mode which contributes to reducing land transport congestion but is at present insufficiently developed, especially in the remote and outermost regions.

Can the Commission comment on the form in which these positions of Parliament have been taken up in the ESS?

What options are put forward in the ESS with a view to furthering economic, social and spatial cohesion in the EU’s Objective 1 outlying maritime regions?

Does the Commission not consider that a global maritime policy on the EU’s part could make a decisive contribution to economic, social and spatial cohesion in the EU’s Objective 1 outlying maritime regions in the context of those regions’ particular characteristics, in the same fashion as the EC Treaty currently recognises the particular characteristics of the Union’s outermost regions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) was approved in May 1999 at the meeting of ministers responsible for regional planning in Potsdam. It provides a guidance framework for the sectoral policies of the Community and the Member States.

With regard to the role of ports, the ESDP states that ‘setting up a European network of large sea ports, including regional sub-systems of ports, would be in the interests of all regions.’ With more specific reference to the outlying and outermost regions, the ESDP notes that ‘access to the networks should be improved, particularly by connecting insular, landlocked and peripheral areas to the central areas.’

A feature of the Community’s territory is the very high concentration of economic activity and population in the central area. One of the main options of the ESDP is to promote the balanced and polycentric development of the Community. To achieve this, it notes that ‘the creation and enlargement of several dynamic global economy integration zones provides an important instrument for accelerating economic growth and job creation in the EU, particularly also in the regions currently regarded as structurally weak (Objective 1 and 6 Areas of the current regional funds).’ C 187 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

A large number of maritime regions in the south of the Community are eligible under Objective 1. Through this Objective and the Interreg Community Initiative, which gives cooperation among maritime regions and important role, the Community conducts an active policy to help those regions. In other fields, such as the policy on short-distance transport, the PACT programme and policy on sea ports, including its position on the trans-European transport networks, the Commission also takes into consideration the needs of these regions, which have a vital role to play in promoting the more balanced development of the Community.

(2001/C 187 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3759/00 by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Commission’s position on IATA tariff consultations

The system operated by IATA for tariff consultations (on passenger fares and freight shipment rates) is an essential element in its inter-line arrangements, enabling air transport worldwide to operate on a coordinated and integrated basis, with long-recognised benefits to the consumer. This system has always been supported by both the Member States and the Commission; the latter has taken the view that the practices concerned are eligible for classification as group exemptions to the application of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to the provisions of Article 81(3).

Despite the above, under Regulation (EEC) 1617/93 as amended by Regulation (EEC) 1523/96 (1) and Regulation (EEC) 1083/1999 (2), this group exemption is now limited to consultations on passenger fares alone. In 1997 IATA deposited a request with the Commission for an individual exemption for consultations on freight shipment rates, but it has to date received no reply.

What are the Commission’s intentions concerning renewal of the group exemption for consultations on passenger fares? Do these intentions reflect the positions of the industry, consumers and Member States?

What are the reasons for the Commission’s failure to date to rule on the request for an individual exemption for consultations on freight shipment rates, given that it was deposited more than three years ago? What are the Commission’s intentions in this respect?

(1) OJ L 190, 31.7.1996, p. 11. (2) OJ L 131, 27.5.1999, p. 27.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2001)

The system of the International air transport associations (IATA) tariff consultations was set up after World War Two at a time when competition in air transport was very limited. The air transport market is now very different, with liberalisation in the Community, the United States and elsewhere leading to effective competition on many routes.

The Commission is currently considering whether to exempt the IATA passenger tariff consultations under Article 81(3) for a further period and if so under what conditions. DG Competition will be publishing a consultation paper within the next few weeks seeking the views of industry, consumers and other interested parties on the usefulness of the IATA passenger tariff consultations in a competitive air transport market and on possible alternatives to them.

The Commission confirms that IATA applied for an individual exemption for the cargo tariff consultations in 1997 and that they are therefore protected from fines for these arrangements. When the Commission withdrew the block exemption for the cargo consultations in 1996 the reasons given were that the consultations were no longer necessary to enable interlining and that they resulted in high tariffs being set at the expense of users. The Commission is currently examining IATA’s request for an individual 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/41

exemption. This is a complex case and fact-finding has taken some time. The facts presented so far have not been sufficient for the Commission to grant an individual exemption. A final decision on this matter will be taken in the first half of 2001.

(2001/C 187 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3761/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: European urban renewal and the ‘Bologna 2’ case (Calderara di Reno)

In the commune of Calderara di Reno (Bologna), Emilia-Romagna region (Italy), there is a huge housing estate, known in local news and gossip as ‘Bologna 2’, which is in unremitting structural and social decline. Bologna 2 and the surrounding area are in the hands of criminal gangs who run prostitution rackets, push drugs, traffic in arms, and the like.

Residents and members of the business community are fighting to reclaim the area at constant risk of their lives. Action by the police and the courts is failing to produce lasting results.

Because it is a small commune of about 10 000 inhabitants, Calderara di Reno does not have sufficient resources to regenerate the area in question on its own.

Can the Commission say: what steps are being taken at European level to revitalise decayed urban areas, especially those in medium-sized towns and cities and/or small communes, possibly working in partnership, as the case may be; are there any Community measures to finance urban renewal plans and activities aimed at unifying the social fabric of the most decayed urban neighbourhoods and areas?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (25 January 2001)

The European Union can give financial assistance to urban areas facing socio-economic problems through the URBAN II Community initiative programme. Areas undergoing restructuring are also eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds.

As regards URBAN II, on 28 April 2000 the European Commission adopted the communication laying down guidelines for this initiative concerning economic and social regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable urban development (1). The total contribution from the European Regional Development Fund over the 2000-2006 programming period for this new initiative will be € 700 million.

The urban areas to be covered under this initiative should have a population of at least 20 000, however, this figure can be lowered to 10 000 in duly substantiated cases. In this case, areas will have to meet at least three of the characteristic conditions of precariousness mentioned in item II-11 of the communication such as, for example, a high rate of long-term unemployment, crime or delinquency or a particularly rundown environment.

The Commission points out that under the terms of the provisions laid down in the communication, it is the responsibility of the Member State concerned to submit proposals for programmes under the URBAN initiative.

As the commune of Calderara di Reno not itself located in an area covered by Objective 2, it is not entitled to receive appropriations available under this objective.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000. C 187 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3762/00 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Additionality principle

The additionality principle, one of the basic rules governing the use of the Structural Funds, prohibits regional authorities and national governments from using Community resources as a substitute that dispenses them from their obligations to overcome regional imbalances and inequalities in development.

Only if European, national, and regional measures operate in synergy will it be possible to pursue a comprehensive, effective policy to promote cohesion and growth in the different parts of the Union.

The spirit and the letter of the additionality principle have not always been observed in the past, although it is only fair to recognise that almost all national, regional, and local authorities have taken an extraordinary qualitative leap forward and, in overall terms, improved the effectiveness of the operations financed in part by European resources.

Stricter procedures need to be laid down to ensure compliance with the additionality principle and incorporated into the implementing provisions for Community support frameworks and single programming documents.

Authorities should be punished if they fail to observe the additionality principle.

Can the Commission, and specifically its President, Mr Romano Prodi, say what steps the Community will take to deal with the points set out above?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

On a Commission proposal the Council simplified verification of compliance with the additionality principle during the 2000-2006 programming period. Changes were made in both certain procedural rules and the monitoring timetable. Before launching the new programming the Commission drew up a working document setting out uniform criteria for use in additionality verification for Objective 1 and Objectives 2 and 3. This document is being sent to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.

Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) requires verification for additionality at mid-term (before 31 December 2003) and before 31 December 2005. The Commission will inform Parliament of the situation following each exercise.

The above Regulation does not include any specific penalty for failure to meet the additionality requirement. When it was adopted the Member States were strongly opposed to this. Article 11 does however impose obligations on Member States: no Community support framework (CSF) or single programming document (SPD) can be approved by the Commission unless an ex ante additionality verification has been carried out. The Commission has also when approving CSFs and SPDs stipulated that it will not approve mid-term reprogramming that includes assignment of the performance reserve unless the Member State has sent the data required for the mid-term additionality verification.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/43

(2001/C 187 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3764/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Spanish government subsidies for use of silver iodide for anti-hail protection

The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture recently introduced a new category of subsidies to finance anti-hail protection measures based on silver iodide, a substance which farmers’ organisations and others believe to be extremely harmful both to the environment and to crops. This Spanish government measure has been introduced with the assent of the insurance companies, who favour the use of this heavy metal since it avoids them having to pay compensation for possible hail damage.

It has been proven that anti-hailstorm protection by means of fumigation with silver iodide (spreading it by means of light aircraft or launching rockets into the air) provokes serious environmental damage and can also lead to a reduction in rainfall as a result of the crystallisation of the water condensed in the clouds (see data supplied by Seprona, the Spanish Nature Protection Service).

Despite these considerations raised by the farmers’ organisations, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture approved, in August 2000, the subsidies for anti-hail protection measures based on silver iodide.

What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent the use of this metal, given its highly damaging impact on agriculture and the environment in the Community?

(2001/C 187 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4006/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Use of silver iodide

Dry farming crops (dried fruit and olives) in the El Maestrat and Els Ports districts of the Valencian Community have recently been suffering as a result of a peculiar lack of summer storms. Without these storms, it is almost impossible to save the harvest. The drought in question may be being caused by the unnatural manipulation of the weather; every time a storm threatens, various small planes fumigate the area with silver iodide so as to prevent hail storms.

This substance, according to farmers’ collectives and ecologists, would appear to be toxic and extremely harmful to the environment and to the crops.

The Spanish Government’s State Official Gazette No 28 790 of 11 August 2000 records that the Ministry of Agriculture gave the go ahead for subsidies for anti-hailstorm systems employing silver iodide.

Is the Commission aware of these facts?

Can the Commission tell me whether the use of this substance is banned, and if it is, what steps it intends to take?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3764/00 and E-4006/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

To the Commission’s knowledge silver iodide is produced in and/or imported into the Community at a rate of no more than 10 tonnes per year. Information is collected on such substances and there is a risk assessment in each individual case in pursuance of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1) i.e. those substances that were on the C 187 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Community market before September 1981 and which are set out in the European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances (EINECS). Given the high number of substances set out in the EINECS (more than 100 000), the regulation is introduced an order of priority. Four lists of priority substances have been published, for which the risk assessment has been or will be carried out. The Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member that silver iodide is not contained in any of those four lists. Nevertheless, the Community could decide in future to ask for information on that substance in order to assess it under Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 or other Community legal instruments, and with a view to the possible adoption of risk-management measures. Those measures could include a marketing and use restriction.

Moreover, the silver iodide used against hail is not considered to be a plant protection product (agricultural pesticide) within the meaning of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) governing the marketing of such products.

Moreover, in accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (3), manufacturers, distributors and importers of a chemical substance must comply with the provisions of the Directive with regard to the classification, packaging and labelling of that substance. These provisions also apply to silver iodide, even if it is currently not included in Annex I to that Directive.

The Spanish authorities have not notified the Commission, as required by Article 88 (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty of the subsidised use of silver iodide against hail as provided for in the Spanish Official Journal, issue No 28790 of 11 August 2000. The Commission will ask the Spanish authorities to give notification of that subsidy in pursuance of said Article 88 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993. (2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. (3) OJ B 196, 16.8.1967.

(2001/C 187 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3766/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Labelling and checking of animal skins

In reply to a recent question on the labelling of animal skins, Commissioner Lany said that the trade in cats and dogs is not prohibited in the Community under the CITES convention. Such a ban has been announced in the USA, partly because it is not easy to distinguish between the skins of endangered species and those of cats and dogs. University research has also confirmed that the visual checking of skins is a totally useless measure.

Is the Commission considering stricter checks in order to prevent the skins of protected animal species being imported into the EU as cat and dog skins?

Is the Commission considering announcing a ban on cat and dog skins, both in order to improve the protection of these animals against commercial exploitation, and in order to close the loopholes in the CITES convention and to improve compliance with the ban on the trade in the skins of endangered species?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

The Commission’s responsibilities towards animal protection have increased under the recent amendments of the Community, which includes a Protocol requiring the European institutions and Member States to pay full regard to animal welfare when drawing up policies concerned. Therefore, Commission’s policies 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/45

tend to further the objective of improving protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient beings. However, as already recalled in the Commission’s answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2654/00 (1), the commercial exploitation of fur-bearing animals is not against the law in the Community or its Member States.

The Commission has no data on fraudulent imports of protected fur-bearing animals covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

With regard to more stringent controls on the import of animal skins, the Commission confirms that under the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2), which implements CITES in the Community, appropriate controls of imports of specimens of endangered species are being carried out by customs officers, equiped with the necessary identification materials.

In the light of public concern about the commercial exploitation of cat and dog furs, including in international trade, the Commission will follow up this question in order to examine whether it should propose measures at European level, taking into consideration the principle of subsidiarity. The Commis- sion will report back to the Parliament on progress on this issue.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 69. (2) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2001/C 187 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3774/00 by Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Supply of water to Zaragoza

What decision has the Commission taken concerning possible financing from the Cohesion Fund for the period 2000-2006 for the project to supply Zaragoza and the surrounding areas with water from the Pyrenees?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

In January 2001, the Commission proposed adoption of a decision on the part-financing by the Cohesion Fund of a project to supply water to Zaragoza and 22 municipalities in the Ebro valley at a total cost of € 70 901 365. The work concerns pipes from the La Loteta dam to Zaragoza and the other localities but does not include the transfer of water from the Pyrenees as originally planned.

(2001/C 187 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3775/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Assent for new EC-Greenland fisheries agreement

On 14 September 2000 the Commission concluded negotiations with Greenland for a new fisheries agreement, which provides for an annual contribution from the EU of € 42,82 million for the period 2000-2006. The agreement makes no distinction between the two types of funding involved, namely that for fishing rights and that for development aid, in spite of the Commission’s undertaking that the C 187 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

agreement would distinguish between both concepts. In accordance with the Commission’s own unilateral declaration, the total breaks down into € 28 million for fishing rights, with the remainder earmarked for development aid.

In addition to this budgetary peculiarity, this agreement is among those with the largest amounts of funding, for which reason Parliament ought to be asked for its assent.

Does the Commission consider that the EP ought to give its assent to the agreement reached with Greenland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The Commission would like to recall that the question of the assent procedure first came up in connection with the conclusion of the 3rd Protocol with Greenland in 1994. However, the matter was not pursued on account of lack of clarity concerning the exact meaning of the terms ‘important budgetary implications’ in the 2nd sub-paragraph of Article 228(3) (now Article 300(3)) of the EC Treaty.

It should also be recalled that, in connection with the conclusion of the 1996 Fisheries Agreement with Mauritania, the Parliament introduced an appeal for annulment of the Council Regulation approving that agreement (case C-189/97). In its judgement of 8 July 1999, the Court of Justice ruled that the financial compensation due under this agreement, i.e. amounts between ECU 55,16 million and ECU 51,56 million per annum, did not have ‘important budgetary implications for the Community’ within the meaning of the 2nd sub-paragraph of Article 228(3) (now Article 300(3)) of the EC Treaty. This judgment was based on the facts that the budgetary amounts involved represented around 1 % of the credits for external relations and 5 % of the credits for fisheries, which was considered not to be important.

The new 4th Protocol with Greenland will provide for a financial compensation of € 42,82 million per annum, clearly below the amounts which were at issue in Case C-189/97. Nor do these amounts exceed the percentages of the year 2000 credits for external relations and for fisheries mentioned in the judgement. Therefore, the Commission is not of the opinion that the EC Treaty requires the assent of the Parliament.

(2001/C 187 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3781/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Unfair competition in the tourist accommodation sector

The Antwerp Provincial Administration intends to invest BEF 440 million in the renovation of the campsite on the Province’s own land at Zilvermeer Mol. The Commission is to bear BEF 110 of this amount through the ERDF. This ERDF subsidy could be regarded as unfair competition with private campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp.

Does the Commission regard ERDF support for the renovation of the campsite on the Province’s land at Zilvermeer Mol (BEF 110 million) as constituting unfair competition with private campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp?

If so, will the Commission withdraw the ERDF aid for this project in order to prevent unfair competition with private campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp?

If not, what are the Commission’s arguments for not regarding the use of ERDF aid for the renovation of the campsite on the Province’s land at Zilvermeer Mol (BEF 110 million) as unfair competition with private campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/47

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

On the basis of information provided by the Flemish authorities, the possibility of renovating the Zilvermeer camping ground was suggested in the context of local discussions to prepare the objective 2 programme for the province of Antwerp, which is still under negotiation. No application for a project to be realised in this area has yet been submitted.

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general provisions on the structural funds (1), in particular Article 8, paragraph 3, the implementation of assistance is the responsibility of the Member States, at the appropriate territorial level. Therefore, if the Zilvermeer project would eventually be submitted, its appraisal for funding via the future objective 2 programme for the province of Antwerp is first and foremost a matter for the Flemish managing authority.

In accordance with Article 34, paragraph 1(g) of the above mentioned Regulation, the managing authority has to ensure that all operations funded in the context of the programme are in compliance with Community policies, including in particular Community legislation in the area of State aid. If the managing authority has any doubts as to whether a particular operation is in conformity with Community State aid, it would be prudent for it to seek advice from the department dealing with State aid issues in the regional or national administration or from the Commission.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 187 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Additional rules to ensure continuing prevention of a renewed BSE infection among cattle

1. In the light of the recent discovery of more cows suffering from BSE in France and the Netherlands, within what timescale does the Commission expect the existing regulations to bring about a final end to the continuing problem of ‘mad cow disease’?

2. Are parts of slaughter animals now still being used in any way whether legally or illegally in the Member States of the European Union for feeding to (originally herbivorous) cattle.

3. Are checks aimed at preventing relatively cheap offal from being used in feedstuffs adequate to ensure that any new use of animal-based feeds can be ruled out on a lasting basis?

4. By what additional measures relating both to animal feed and to the import of cattle from outside the European Union is the Commission currently proposing to ensure that Europe is fully protected from any new BSE infection as soon as possible and from the risk of further groups of consumers eventually contracting Creutzfeld-Jacob disease?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Given that the average incubation period of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is five years, the Commission expects to see a reduction in the clinical incidence of BSE approximately five years after the introduction of effective control measures.

Since August 1994, the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants has been banned. This prohibition has been extended from 1 January 2001 to the feeding of any processed animal protein to any farmed animal, as a temporary measure. Rendered animal fat is still allowed for incorporation in ruminant feed provided it has been processed in the specified manner. The safety of tallow in such feed has recently been assessed by the Scientific Steering Committee, which recommends an additional heat treatment to increase its safety. C 187 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The enforcement of the Community regulations governing the formulation of animal feedstuffs and testing for the absence of prohibited substances is the responsibility of the Member States. This enforcement is monitored by the Food and Veterinary Office, whose programme of inspections has recently been stepped up. The reports on these inspections are circulated to the Parliament and are published on the internet.

The temporary extension of the list of proteins banned from animal feeds to include substances such as poultry offal meal will greatly facilitate the use of microscopic testing to detect infringements of the legislation. However no currently available test is capable of detecting all prohibited animal protein. For that reason very stringent Community control provisions on labelling, separation and treatment applicable to the production, transport, storage and on-farm utilization of animal protein in animal feed are in force.

Since 1 January 2001 the importation from third countries of processed animal proteins intended for the feeding of farmed animals has been prohibited by Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (1). This Decision will apply until 30 June 2001. On 1 April the Community rules on the absence of specified risk material from products imported from non-BSE free third countries will enter into force. Until that moment comparable national rules may remain in force. Finally, it is hoped that on 1 July 2001 the proposal for a Parliament and Council Regulation laying down rules for the prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2), as amended (3), on the prevention and control of this group of diseases will enter into force. It lays down a wide range of rules including those on the importation of bovine animals and products from third countries.

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000. (2) OJ C 45, 19.2.1999. (3) COM(2000) 824 final.

(2001/C 187 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3788/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Scientific Committee’s evaluation of proposals conderning Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs)

In September this year, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity (CSTEE) and the Environment published its opinion on the BKH report which proposed a priority list of substances to be assessed as potential EDCs: ‘Towards the establishment of a priority list of substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption preparation of a candidate list of substances as a basis for priority setting’ (BKH report MO355008/1786Q).

Is the Commission aware that this CSTEE opinion relies heavily on the views of the chemical industry CEFIC and that these appear to be the only outside comments to have been used, apart from other EU scientific bodies? Does the Commission agree that this gives the Scientific Committee’s opinion the appearance of a biased consultation procedure in which views of only certain parties have been taken into account?

In these circumstances, does the Commission intend to rely heavily on the CSTEE opinion when assessing actions to be taken on the basis of the BKH report, and how does it intend to balance its final conclusions so that it takes account of submissions from other stakeholders including Member State authorities and an international environmental NGO?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Regarding the opinion of the Commission scientific committee for toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment (SCTEE) on the BKH report ‘Towards the establishment of a priority list of substances for further 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/49

evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption preparation of a candidate list of substances as a basis for priority-setting’ (5 September 2000), it must be stated at the outset that this report does not identify a priority list of substances but, as the report name indicates, a candidate list of substances as a basis for priority-setting.

Concerning the process of consultation of the SCTEE, the committee was, on this occasion, requested by the Commission to comment on the BKH report only. While the outside comments considered by the committee, relative to the BKH report, came only from the European chemical industry council (CEFIC) and the European crop protection association (ECPA) (the SCTEE commented specifically on this additional information at the end of its opinion) other sources of specific Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) information were considered, as stated by the SCTEE in its opinion on the BKH report (see below a transcription of the relevant bit of the SCTEE opinion), some of which were also received from the outside:

… the SCTEE has also made use of the Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants (SCP) on Endocrine Disruption relevance in the context of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (Opinion expressed by the SCP on 2 December 1999). Further, reference is given to the previous SCTEE Opinion on Human and Wildlife Health Effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, with Emphasis on Wildlife and on Ecotoxicology Test Methods, expressed on 4 March 1999. The SCTEE has also received information on the classification and labelling on 66 prioritised substances from the EC Joint Research Centre (SCTEE/2000/12 Add. 5A) … and Cantox Health Sciences International has provided the SCTEE with documentation on the thyroidal effects of resorcinol (SCTEE /2000/12 Add. 3).

It must be noted that some of those individual submissions do include several other references made available to the committee. The SCTEE secretariat alone provided the SCTEE with well over 120 different ones received from several different sources, including Industry and non-governmental organisations (NGO’s), and one must also consider the extremely large list included in the SCTEE opinion on Human and Wildlife Health Effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, with Emphasis on Wildlife and on Ecotoxicology Test Methods; this publication alone has 438 different scientific references.

Concerning the question of how the SCTEE opinion will be taken into account, the Commission has clearly indicated that there are two steps in the process of establishing a priority list of substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption first the preparation of the candidate list contained in the BKH report and second a priority -setting exercise involving consultation of the SCTEE and the stakeholders. While the SCTEE as well as industry have been critical of the BKH report, the majority view of Member States and NGOs is that the BKH approach is a pragmatic one which is reasonable for a first cut of the data and that it can be used as a first step in developing the priority list.

On 8/9 November 2000, the Commission hosted a stakeholder consultation meeting in Brussels at which there was broad support for a priority list of actions aimed at addressing different segments of the candidate list. Examples of priority actions include (i) the further evaluation of substances for which there is evidence of endocrine disruption or potential endocrine disruption in the BKH report and which are not currently addressed in existing legislation, and (ii) the gathering of basic data on the many substances in the BKH report which were deemed to have insufficient data to decide on endocrine disrupting potential.

The Commission is now preparing a progress report on the implementation of the Community strategy for endocrine disrupters (1) in which it will set out in detail the actions to be taken in specific timeframes. These actions comprise a balance between the need for immediate action and the need for further evaluation of individual substances, taking into account the specific comments of the SCTEE on the scientific shortcomings of the BKH report.

(1) COM(1999) 706 final. C 187 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3789/00 by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Commissioner de Palacio’s remarks regarding the Cashman report on 16 November 2000

In the remarks she made regarding the Cashman report at the sitting of 16 November 2000, Commis- sioner Loyola de Palacio del Valle-Lersundi made a reference to the sterilisation of people in Sweden and, with regard to the debate on that subject, considered that problems can arise even in a country which seeks to ensure maximum openness.

The principle of public access to official documents is enshrined in the Swedish constitution and means that documents are in the public domain and may be requested by members of the public unless they are covered by any of the exceptions that have been specified. This principle, which dates back to 1766, has ensured that Sweden enjoys a transparent system of government. There is also clear evidence that a high degree of openness reduces corruption.

Like Commissioner de Palacio, we, too, were dismayed when we learnt that people had been sterilised without their consent in Swedish clinics and hospitals. However, we do not agree with her assertion that the use of sterilisation had been a secret and that it may thus be concluded that there is no perfect system when it comes to ensuring openness. In fact, it is thanks to Sweden’s open system of government that it was possible to discover that people were being sterilised and to debate the issue.

We find it offensive that a Member of the Commission has chosen to single out an individual Member State for criticism in a parliamentary debate, especially when the assertions she made are ill-founded. Does the President of the Commission consider it appropriate in a debate on openness to make thinly veiled references to a specific country and a tragic part of its history in an attempt to argue that the democratic credentials of that country are dubious? What does the sterilisation issue have to do with the current debate on public access to EU documents?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

The Member of the Commission has clearly explained that her comment in the Parliament was not meant to hold back efforts to strengthen transparency in the Community institutions nor to criticise any particular Member State. Quite the contrary. The sole purpose of it was to stress that in the Community there are different legislations and traditions to what is commonly known as ‘transparency’, and all of them have to be respected. There is not a single model of transparency. Furthermore, all the Member States and Members of the Parliament, can and must contribute with their experience to improve transparency in the Community institutions.

In those circumstances, the best way to make progress on the Commission’s proposal on access to documents, is dialogue and trying to understand each others’ concern rather than trying to impose its own point of view. That was the only purpose of her words.

She understands however that if her words are taken out of context, they can easily be misinterpreted which she regrets. The Commission hopes nevertheless that this reply makes the point clear. Indeed, the Commission and Sweden share many common views on how to improve transparency in the institutions. The Commission is therefore confident in that respect, that the Commission’s proposal on access to documents, currently under examination, will receive a great political input from the Parliament and the incoming Swedish Presidency since Sweden has a well deserved reputation of being a Member State with a long tradition in this field and that has taken the lead in the task of improving transparency in the Community. The Commission is looking forward to it. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/51

(2001/C 187 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3790/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Value Added Tax rates for the repair of buildings

Does the Commission believe it is desirable that pressure for new housing should be met, wherever possible, through modification or renovation of existing housing stock rather than through the construction of new housing on virgin greenfield sites, and is it prepared to accede to Gordon Brown’s request to reduce VAT to 5 per cent on converting properties into multiple dwellings and to allow any EU government which so desires to introduce a zero rate of VAT on renovation of existing building stock in order to encourage conservation and protection of the countryside?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The situation under current Community VAT legislation is that category 9 of Annex H of the 6th VAT Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) covers the ‘supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing provided as part of social policy’. Member States may therefore apply a reduced VAT rate of not less than 5 % to these services. Any repairs or modifications to housing stock which does not fall within this definition attracts the standard rate of VAT.

As far as zero rating is concerned, only those Member States which applied a zero rate of VAT on 1 January 1991 are permitted to maintain this rate for a transitional period. It is therefore not possible, under current Community law, to introduce a new zero rate.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2000/65/CE of 17 October 2000 (OJ L 269, 21.10.2000).

(2001/C 187 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3792/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Public health considerations and French beef

Has either the Scientific Veterinary Committee or the Veterinary Standing Committee considered whether French beef poses a threat to public health? Is so, what are their conclusions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

The question of the safety of cattle meat in general has been addressed in several opinions of the Commission’s independent Scientific Steering Committee (SSC). The safety of meat is of primary concern for the Commission and extensive measures have been put in place to safeguard public health in the Member States, including in France. A number of issues arising from measures introduced in France, or in relation to measures introduced in other Member States relative to French beef, were addressed by the SSC at its meeting of 27/28 November 2000. C 187 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

At that meeting an opinion was adopted on:

the scientific basis for import bans proposed by three Member States with regard to BSE risks in France and Ireland;

the scientific basis for several measures proposed by France with regard to BSE risks;

the scientific basis for banning animal protein from the feed for all farmed animals, including pig, poultry, fish and pet animals.

This opinion is available on the internet website http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc. The safety of French meat-on-the bone is addressed in section 2.a. The SSC agrees that some risk reduction can be considered in France by means of the removal from human consumption of the meat-on-the-vertebrae (‘T-bone steak’).

The Scientific Steering Committee re-assessed on 12 January 2001 the safety of the vertebral column and T-bone steak, in the light of the additional risk reduction measures coming into force in 2001. This opinion is also available on the above-mentioned website under the title ‘Opinion on the questions submitted by EC-services following a request of 4 December 2000 by the EU Council of Agricultural Ministers regarding the safety with regard to BSE of certain bovine tissues and certain animal-derived products’.

(2001/C 187 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3794/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: SIDS research project

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), also called ‘cot death’, and stillbirth, the unforeseen death of a foetus, are two of the biggest problems from the scientific point of view and where State health services are concerned that modern medicine has yet to solve.

In sudden infant death syndrome, an apparently healthy infant between a month and a year old dies out of the blue and without warning. The condition affects 1 in 500 to 1 000 infants born and is the most frequent cause of death in the first year of life. The unexpected death of the foetus at the final stage of pregnancy is five times as common, despite the latest advances in maternity care. The emotional consequences for the relatives are devastating, and medical and psychotherapeutic support entails very substantial costs to society, without considering the untimely loss of a large number of potentially productive individuals.

A fuller understanding of these syndromes, which occur in the perinatal and neonatal periods both still shrouded in such deep mystery would undoubtedly lead to immense scientific and financial benefits. There is as yet no standard systematic approach to the conditions at clinical level. Further, extremely delicate research on a microscopic scale is accordingly required, but this could be carried out only in highly specialised centres.

In the light of the foregoing and of the social repercussions can the Commission say whether it has made provision in its research programmes for projects to probe into the subjects referred to above? If not, would it be willing to support research projects focusing on the neurocardiac disorders associated with SIDS and foetal death? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/53

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is seen as a serious problem in all Member States. There is a distinct variation in the diagnosis (identification of at risk infants) and also attribution of the causes of infant death.

With this in mind the Commission, under the Biomed 1 (1990-1994), supported a project involving 15 centres from 12 Member States. The main objective was to harmonise clinical protocols in this network. By combining data from these centres and with analysis exploiting differences between the Member States, the network resulted in providing data which contributed to improving the effectiveness of child care. Additional factors considered also included clothing, bedding, heating and co-sleeping. This project has contributed, both at national and European level, to providing guidelines for the identification of ‘at risk’ families, surveillance procedures for ‘at risk’ infants and support groups for parents who have lost an infant.

Currently, no project on this subject is being funded, however should a new application be submitted which expands upon the existing knowledge and is innovative, it could be submitted to the quality of life and managing of living resources programme of the Fifth framework programme for Research and technological development (RTD), under public health research.

(2001/C 187 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3795/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Mad cow disease and animal meal in Italy

On 16 November 2000 the Turin Public Prosecutor, Mr Guariniello, charged a Turin-based firm on the grounds that it had slaughtered cattle posing a high risk from the point of view of BSE and consequently circumvented the ban on the sale of meat from such animals. This practice seems fairly widespread not least because it is apparently easy to tamper with barn books and the ban on using animal meal as cattle feed does not apply throughout the Union. The fact is that it is perfectly possible for dangerous meat to be sold and hence dished up on the table.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether it has been informed by the Italian authorities of the facts set out above and what steps it has taken or will take to protect citizens from the movement of dangerous foodstuffs in the Union;

2. what practical measures it has taken or will take to substantially reduce the risk that contaminated meat might find its way on to the market;

3. whether it does not consider that the legislation on farm animal feed is an issue that needs to be dealt with and finally resolved as a matter of the utmost urgency so as to enable the public to benefit from wholesome foodstuffs;

4. whether it does not think it odd that the use of animal meal was permitted in France until a few days ago but has been prohibited in Italy for several years, well before the first cases of mad cow disease were discovered in the United Kingdom? C 187 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The Commission did not receive information from the Italian authorities on the specific case on the slaughter of cattle posing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risks under investigation by the Public Prosecutor of Turin, Mr Guariniello.

The Commission has already put in place a very comprehensive series of Community measures as regards public health.

These measures include notably:

generalisation of the ban on feeding mammalian protein to ruminants of July 1994, to a temporary ban on the use of processed animal protein from all terrestrial species in feed for all farmed animals, as of January 2001;

processing standards for the treatment of animal waste (133 degrees, 3 bars of pressure for twenty minutes), as of 1 April 1997, reinforced as of 1 January 2001;

prohibition on dead animals unfit for human consumption to be used for animal feed as of 1 March 2001;

active surveillance measures for the detection, control and eradication of BSE, as of 1 May 1998 and the introduction of rapid diagnostic testing of cattle over 30 months of age targeting high-risk animal categories from 1 January 2001, and all healthy cattle from 1 July 2001;

exceptional market support measures which provide that no untested cattle over 30 months of age are released for human consumption after 1 January 2001;

removal from the human and animal food and feed chains of specified risk material (SRM) accounting for over 95 % of infectivity, from cattle, sheep and goats throughout the Community from 1 October 2000. These materials, mainly brain, spinal cord, eyes, tonsils, and parts of the intestines, were already being removed in several Member States prior to this ban on the basis of the first Commission Decision on SRMs dating from July 1997. Extension of the list of SRMs to be removed with the entire bovine intestine as of 1 January 2001;

embargoes on the dispatch of live bovines, meat-and-bone meal and bovine products from Portugal and the United Kingdom.

All Community measures are based on scientific advice and are regularly reviewed by the Community’s Scientific Steering Committee.

A number of other important Commission proposals are currently under consideration by the Council and Parliament:

proposal for a Regulation on the prevention and control of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopa- thies (TSEs) (1). The Agricultural Council of December 2000 reached a political agreement on its Common Position;

proposal for a Regulation on animal by-products (2) ensuring that only material from animals fit for human consumption are used in animal feed;

proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Food Safety Authority responsible for risk assessment and communication on food safety issues (3).

The Commission’s ongoing response to BSE must also be judged in the wider context of the White Paper on Food Safety (4) which sets out a very comprehensive range of proposals aimed at ensuring food is safe from farm to table. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/55

The Community measures, where correctly applied, substantially reduce the risk for consumers. However, effective implementation and enforcement of Community legislation on BSE is the competence of the Member States. The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carries out inspections to audit the enforcement by the Member States and its reports are regularly published on the Commission website.

Despite reported shortcomings, it can be concluded that the overall situation has significantly improved since the first BSE crisis. The FVO inspections are being stepped up and particular attention will be given to a correct implementation of the feed ban and recently approved measures on SRMs and testing.

Following the latest scientific advice from 12 January 2001, and the conclusions of the Agriculture Council on 29-30 January 2001, the Commission is preparing draft proposals to ban the use of mechanically recovered meat and to apply additional restrictions for the use of rendered ruminant fat for animal feed, and concerning the removal of the vertebral column.

(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.1999. (2) COM(2000) 574 final. (3) COM(2000) 716 final. (4) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2001/C 187 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3799/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Deposits on disposable bottles in Germany

Germany’s environment ministers recently agreed to introduce a statutory deposit on cans and disposable bottles. The regulation is to take effect in the summer of 2001, so as to control the quota of re-usable products and the flood of cans. It will encourage consumers to return their bottles to the the company that sells its products in disposable bottles. This is in fact creating difficulties for companies which import disposable bottles into Germany, and then have to take the bottles back although the legislation of their own country does not provide for this.

Is a regulation passed by a single country in this way not setting in train a market mechanism that runs counter to the free internal market and free trade? Is action of this kind compatible with EU principles?

(2001/C 187 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/00 by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Problem concerning the charge imposed by the German Government on empty drinks bottles

As of 19 January 2001, the German Government plans to place a deposit of DM 0,50 on all non- returnable bottles or containers which contain drinks (including wine, beer, mineral water etc.).

As a result of this charge, German consumers would obviously be able to return the empties (glass bottles and cans) to the retailer where they had bought the various products. The retailer would be obliged to take back the empties and in turn return them to the supplier from whom he had bought the products. In addition to imposing an incredible workload on German importers in planning and organising transport to and from suppliers, this deposit charge would also raise imported product costs in comparison with domestically-produced products, with serious consequences for the whole market. In fact, those supplying the German market would find themselves having to face insoluble problems as regards empties returned in unimaginable states, which would of course be unusable. C 187 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Therefore,

does the Commission not consider that a provision of this type might constitute a more or less open breach of Community regulations concerning the single market and the principle of free competition?

If so, does it not intend to take any initiatives designed to eliminate, or at least to restrict, possible discrimination which could result for drinks suppliers from other Member States operating in the German market?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3799/00 and E-3974/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Conference of German Environment Ministers, in October 2000, adopted a common communication calling for an amendment of the existing German packaging ordinance. They asked the Federal Minister, Mr Jürgen Trittin, to draft a proposal of an amendment, which would introduce an obligatory deposit for a number of beverage packagings.

The Federal Environment Ministry has not yet produced this draft. Therefore, the amendment of the ordinance is, at this stage, merely a political objective of the Conference of German Environment Ministers, which is likely to be subject to modifications following the completion of the formal consultation process, which is not yet underway.

It would therefore be premature, at this point in time, to presume conflicts between a possible amendment of the German packaging ordinance and existing Community law. However, the Commission is closely following this issue and will examine the draft proposal once it is produced.

As far as the existing German packaging ordinance is concerned, which foresees inter alia a minimum refill quota of 72 % for beverage packaging, the Commission issued in July 2000 a Reasoned Opinion to Germany. The Commission believes that the German legislation infringes the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (1) in conjunction with Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty as far as natural mineral waters are concerned, which are to be filled at source, as the appropriate balance between free movement of these goods and environmental protection has not been clearly struck.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 187 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3814/00 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Compliance with 1991 Pigs Directive

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that all Member States comply with the 1991 Pigs Directive?

Will it confirm that, to date, only Sweden, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands have implemented or have drafted legislation for implementing the Directive?

When will new proposals be brought forward by the Commission?

What support is being given to the Polish Government’s resistance to the introduction of intensive farming of pigs? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/57

Does the Commission agree that too many sows spend nearly all their adult lives pregnant and in sow stalls?

Does the Commission further agree that minimum humane pig farming standards should include adequate space, the provision of straw, an alternative to tail docking, and an end to castration?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

The Commission has adopted a report on the situation of intensive pig farming in the Community and the proposal to amend Directive 91/630/EEC with a view to improving the welfare conditions of pigs (1). The report and the proposal were transmitted to the Council and to the Parliament on 29 January 2001.

The Commission proposal addresses the following aspects: the rules for keeping sows in social groups thereby providing them with more living-space, the rules for the proper enrichment of the environment and improvements in the quality of flooring surfaces, and the prohibition for the worst types of routine mutilations.

As mentioned by the Honourable Member information is available to the Commission confirming that in recent years five Member States have adopted legislation for the protection of pigs providing for additional measures beyond those required under Council Directive 91/630/EEC.

To ensure proper enforcement of the Community animal welfare legislation on pig farming, inspections by the Food and Veterinary Office are carried out and infringement procedures against Member States which fail to implement the rules are actively pursued.

The Sapard plan for Poland (2000-2006) provides a total Community contribution amount of € 205 170 000 for investments in agricultural holdings. This may be allocated to farmers who carry out pig production based on 100-250 stands for fattening pigs, or 10-25 sows in cases of closed loop production, if the farms fulfil Community hygiene and animal welfare standards.

(1) COM(2001) 20 final.

(2001/C 187 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3815/00 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Pigs Directive

Is the Council aware that the Pigs Directive was supposed to be implemented from 1991 but that, to date, only the United Kingdom and Sweden have implemented its provisions for the welfare of pigs, while Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands plan to do so?

When will non-complying Member States bring forward appropriate legislation?

(24 April 2001)

On 19 November 1991 the Council adopted Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs confined for the purposes of rearing and fattening. C 187 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Under Article 11 of the Directive, Member States must bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive not later than 1 January 1994 and must forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

Beyond those legislative references, it is not for the Council to monitor the implementation by the Member States of its own acts, such competence having been devolved by the Treaty upon the Commission.

However, it should be pointed out that the Directive to which the Honourable Member refers is in the process of being amended. On 16 January the Commission adopted a communication and an accompanying proposal on the subject of pig welfare.

(2001/C 187 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3829/00 by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Linguistic minorities in the applicant countries

The studies produced by the EU on the applicant countries clearly show the need for greater and more precise knowledge of their linguistic minorities.

How does the Commission intend to tackle this aspect, in order to persuade the applicant countries to devote more specific attention to their linguistic as well as their ethnic minorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2001)

As of 1997, the Commission has regularly assessed progress made by the candidate countries in meeting the criteria for membership laid down at the Copenhagen European Council, including the political criterion of ‘stability of institutions guaranteeing, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities’. The Commission has first done so in its 1997 Opinions, and subsequently in the Regular Reports that the Commission has adopted in the autumn of respectively 1998, 1999 and 2000.

The political criterion laid down by the Copenhagen European Council makes no distinction between the various elements that may make up the identity of persons belonging to a minority, be it their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious heritage. In assessing progress made by the candidate countries in ensuring respect for and the protection of minorities, the Commission devotes particular attention to the respect for, and the implementation of, the various principles laid down in the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, including those related to the use of minority languages.

In order to help the candidate countries remedy the specific weaknesses and shortcomings identified in the Regular Reports, the Community establishes an Accession Partnership for each of the candidate countries (1). These Accession Partnerships put forward short and medium-term priorities for each country to fulfil the accession criteria. They also indicate the financial assistance available from the Community in support of these priorities and the conditions attached to that assistance.

The regular assessment of progress made by the candidate countries in meeting the requirements set by the Copenhagen political criteria, supported by the Accession Partnerships, has led to positive developments in all candidate countries, also as regards respect for minority rights and the protection of minorities, including the use of minority languages. The Commission continues its work in this direction.

(1) COM(1999) 521 final to 532 final. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/59

(2001/C 187 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3835/00 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: EU financial support for an event involving representatives of the extreme right-wing music scene

In the light of the growth of racist, extreme right-wing and xenophobic trends in Europe, researchers have particularly warned of the dangers posed by right-wing music, as it has an impact on young people who have not yet come into close contact with extreme right-wing organisations.

1. Is the Commission aware that on 14 and 15 July 2000 a Dark Wave concert weekend with the title Arcana Europa took place in Tarancon (80 km south-east of Madrid), at which a number of leading representatives of the European extreme right-wing music scene performed, and that according to the web- pages of the organiser, Los Cantos de Maldoror, the event was subsidised, inter alia, by the European Union and Spanish regional authorities?

2. Is it true that the European Union helped to fund this concert?

If not, what measures will the European Union take against the organisers, who unlawfully advertised their concert using the EU logo and a link to the EU’s home page?

If so, how can the Commission account for the decision to fund an event featuring performances by such musicians as the Austrian Gerhard Petrak (who uses the pseudonym Kadmon), belonging to the group Allerseelen, who has for some years been publishing material in extreme right-wing magazines in Germany and produces a pamphlet of his own entitled Aorta, in which he does homage to representatives of National Socialism, such as Karl-Maria Wiligut (SS brigade commander, creator of the SS death’s head, Himmler’s advisor on esoteric issues)?

Does the Commission agree that these are clearly expressions of racist and extreme right-wing ideologies and that under the general non-discrimination clause in Article 13 of the EC Treaty and the Commission’s communication of 25 March 1998, An Action Plan against Racism (1), one of the aims of which is to promote anti-racism projects, they must be combated?

3. At the beginning of July 2000, I informed the Commission’s representation that this concert had been announced on the Internet and asked it what subsidies the European Union was providing. Despite repeated inquiries (19 July, 3 August, 22 August, 7 September) as to whether the concert had received EU funding, I still have not had any reply.

Did staff at the Commission’s representation in Berlin inform the appropriate departments in Brussels of my concern, and what measures have since been taken with regard to this case?

4. If the European Union provided funding for this concert without initially being aware of its content, what conclusions has it drawn, or decided to draw, from this?

Has repayment of the funding been demanded?

Has the Commission checked who was responsible for the decision to provide financial support?

(1) COM(98) 183 final.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

1. The project ‘Arcana Europa’ received Community funding in 1999 of € 22 070 under the ‘youth initiatives’ (local initiatives) of the ‘Youth for Europe’ programme; this was paid to the association ‘Los Cantos del Maldoror’ once the agreement governing the grant had been signed. C 187 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The dossier on which the selection of this project was based was proposed by the Spanish National Agency for this programme (1). It contained no racist or xenophobic content to exclude it from receiving Community funding.

2. The Commission’s Representation in Berlin informed the relevant departments in Brussels of the Honourable Member’s comments.

An investigation has been carried out in the Spanish National Agency and the activity report submitted has been analysed in depth. On the basis of the information it has available, the Commission was legally obliged to comply with the terms of the above contract.

3. The Honourable Member’s written question provides additional information relating to activities carried out under a pseudonym by one of the musicians involved in the concert which was part of the project. The Commission was not in possession of this information when examining the dossier and was not able to take it into account when assessing its eligibility.

4. The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns regarding the fight against racism and xenophobia. It condemns racism and intolerance of every kind and is committed to combating them. It notes the comments made by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia concerning the dangers related to music and new technologies as vehicles for racist and xenophobic messages and the importance of positive educational measures, particularly for young people.

For this reason, even though in this specific case it does not feel that it is possible to go back on its legal obligations, the Commission has decided to give priority in the Youth Programme to projects promoting respect for human rights and combating racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. This theme was has been selected as one of the priorities for the year 2001 in agreement with the programme’s Committee. It is planned to organise a major conference on this issue in Berlin in the course of 2001, in cooperation with the German Government.

In addition, the Commission will try, even more so than in the past, to put in place as many guarantees as possible concerning projects receiving financial support under the Youth Programme, and will make recommendations to this effect to the National Agencies.

(1) The National Agencies are responsible for implementing the programme at national level.

(2001/C 187 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3838/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Refusal of the Turkish Foreign Ministry to grant visas to Cypriots

The third Conference of Left-Wing Parties (Turkey, Greece and the two communities in Cyprus) in Istanbul which was intended to make progress with the peace process and promote mutual understanding between the two communities in Cyprus has been postponed because the Turkish Foreign Ministry refused to grant a visa to representatives of AKEL which is the second largest party in the Cypriot Parliament. It should be borne in mind that the first conference of the same parties scheduled to take place in Istanbul in 1998 had had to contend with similar problems.

Does the Commission intend to intervene to persuade the Turkish Government not to hinder free communications between parties of neighbouring countries in future? How does it view the fact that a country which is a candidate for accession to the EU refuses to recognise another candidate country? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/61

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

The question raised by the Honourable Member should be addressed in the context of the political settlement of the Cyprus problem.

The Union position on this problem has been reconfirmed recently at the Nice European Council in December 2000. In its conclusions, the European Council ‘welcomed and strongly supports the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to achieve an overall agreement on the Cyprus problem consistent with the UN Security Council Resolutions and to arrive at a positive conclusion of the process initiated in December 1999. It appeals to all the parties concerned to contribute to the efforts made to this effect’.

(2001/C 187 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3846/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Demolition of the district of Cabanyal-Canyamelar (Valencia) and infringement of Directive 97/11/ EC

In its answer to Written Questions E-2416/00, E-2417/00 and E-2418/00, the Commission expressed the view that the redevelopment of the district of Cabanyal-Canyamelar in Valencia could be classified as an urban development project and that it was therefore the sole responsibility of the Spanish authorities to decide whether or not a study of its impact on the cultural heritage was needed.

However, the Commission failed to take into account the fact that Annexes I and II to Directive 97/11/ EC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment include constructions such as ‘car parks’ and ‘shopping centres’ among the projects subject to an impact assessment. Clearly, the project to extend Blasco Ibánez Avenues to the sea includes constructions of this kind, which are mentioned in the annexes to the above directive.

As the Commission will recall from the questions tabled previously, if the project were to go ahead, it would involve the demolition of 1 500 19th century buildings in the historic centre hitherto afforded protection by the Valencian Government owing to their ‘unique characteristics and cultural relevance’. For instance, one of the buildings earmarked for demolition, the Lonja de los Pescadores (fish market), the oldest of its kind in Spain and one of the oldest in Europe, ranks among the most symbolic examples of European cultural heritage.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not consider that the project to extend Blasco Ibánez Avenue, and the effects this will have on the places of cultural and historical interest in the district of Cabanyal-Canyamelar, represents an infringement of Directive 97/11/EC?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

On the basis of the information supplied by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the project mentioned could come under Annex II to 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), provided that the application for approval was introduced before 14 March 1999. If it was, it is up to the Member State to determine whether an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is necessary or not. C 187 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

If the application was introduced after this date, this project would be among those included in Annex II to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), which amends Directive 85/337/EEC. If that is the case, the decision to carry out an EIA or not is still up to the Member State, which may apply thresholds or criteria, or take a decision on a case by case basis but which, in all cases, will apply the criteria laid down in Annex III.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 187 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3847/00 by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Promotion of public transport

The promotion of public transport is a central factor in attempting to achieve a transport policy compatible with sustainable development. Mass transport reduces the burden on the environment and creates social equality, and must therefore be seen as a social service which may justifiably be subsidised with public funds. The Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the principles of public service contracts in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterways has raised concerns that the operational possibilities of public transport will be reduced. Opening rail traffic to competition would reduce the level of services in countries such as Finland where there are long distances to be covered. In the same way, restricting public support to particular groups of travellers would threaten the competitiveness of public transport in commuter traffic and increase the use of private cars correspondingly. How does the Commission intend to ensure that the EU’s transport policy encourages the principle of sustainable development, is environmentally sound and promotes regional and social equality?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

The Commission is in full agreement with the view that greater use of public transport is one of the essential factors in sustainable development, the preservation of the environment and social and regional cohesion, as mentioned in article 161 (ex Article 130d) of the EC Treaty.

It agrees, too, that in this sector an approach based on a pure open market is not appropriate. Among other problems, this approach would certainly carry the risk of operators cutting back socially and environmentally important services.

However, the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on public services in public transport (1) has a quite different approach, based as it is on the principle of controlled competition rather than a pure open market approach.

Experience in Member States that have introduced controlled competition shows that, properly managed, it is an effective way to make services more attractive and more efficient. It is true that some operators that do not face competition provide excellent services. However, others do not and costs are generally high. Closed market regimes seem to make change hard to achieve where it is most needed.

The basic objective of the Commission’s proposal is to promote quality and efficiency in public transport. It takes the widespread necessity of public financial support as its main starting point.

Under this approach, public authorities have wide powers to fix the service levels and quality standards that are needed, and select the operator that will fulfil these standards in the way that offers the best value for money. Authorities are encouraged by a specific provision in the draft regulation to guarantee continuing support for socially necessary services in lightly populated areas. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/63

The Commission recognises that keeping fares at an affordable level has an important part to play in making public transport more attractive and accessible to everyone. There is nothing in the draft regulation to rule this out. If an authority decides to reduce fares for all passengers, the regulation simply proposes that this fare reduction should be incorporated in a public service contract. In this way, authorities can ensure that the services are provided with an adequate level of quality and reliability.

It is also important to consider the question of legal uncertainty. Over the past ten years, operators providing public transport in more than one Member State have emerged for the first time. This has created a strong Community dimension to the question of the award of state aids and exclusive rights in this sector and has led to legal uncertainty. The proposed regulation, by establishing a clear regulatory framework, will provide an effective solution while ensuring full respect for transport policy objectives and strengthening public transport operators’ ability to compete with private cars.

For these reasons, the Commission considers the draft regulation to be an important contribution to the task of developing local and regional transport systems that are able to respond effectively to the challenges they face today. But regulatory action is only one part of the Commission’s activities in this area. At the same time, the Commission has put in place practical tools to support action by local and regional authorities and operators. These include a computerised database of good practice, a programme to enable localities to benchmark the quality of their transport systems, and extensive research and development programmes. All have their part to play in lessening the environmental impact of transport and promoting regional and social cohesion.

In order to develop strategies to promote environmental integration and sustainable development in the wake of the 1998 Cardiff European Council, the Commission has set up an expert group comprising members from the Ministries for Transport and for Environment of the Member States. This group has produced a report to the Commission with a number of recommendations for actions towards sustainable transport, in order to support the Commission’s input into the revision of the transport Council integration strategy. The report is available on the Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/environment/trans.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3848/00 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Traffic in human organs

Noting that:

in recent days, various reports have appeared in the European press concerning the warning issued by the Moldavian Minister of the Interior on trafficking in organs, most of which come from poor countries (including Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Paraguay, but also North Africa and eastern Europe) and are destined for the West and the Middle East;

in India, meanwhile, the sale of organs from living persons is legal; in the period from 1990 to 1993, over 2000 kidneys were sold to wealthy patients in the West or the Middle East;

according to reliable published statistics, some 960 patients in the Gulf States have bought kidneys in India, Egypt, Iraq or the Philippines at prices which ranged, in 1998, from USD 30 000 for a heart to USD 20 000 for a kidney purchased over the Internet; in 1999, prices rose to USD 100 000 for a heart or pancreas and USD 30 000 for a kidney;

to tackle this and other alarming trends, we must achieve closer international cooperation and enhance the role played by Europol in combating crime by means of specific, consistent action to ensure surveillance and policing at frontiers. C 187 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

What official information can Mr Romano Prodi, President of the Commission, provide on this subject, and what action has been taken, or is planned, to prevent the growth of this distressing trade?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The Commission is aware, in general terms, of the information provided by the Honourable Member.

Trafficking in human organs constitutes a serious crime, which can only be addressed effectively through close co-operation at international level. Removal of organs also forms part of the United Nations (UN) protocol on prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons, which supplements the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime. The protocol was signed by the Commission on behalf of the Community in Palermo on 13 December 2000. Until now the subject of trafficking in human organs has, however, not been discussed in the Council Working Structures in the field of Justice and Home Affairs.

Furthermore, since July 1999 Europol has become fully operational. Its mandate includes trafficking in human beings, of which trafficking in human organs forms a part.

The Commission is of the opinion that it is necessary for Member States and Europol to improve their cooperation in this area as a first step towards a more effective policy to combating this crime.

In addition it should be mentioned that Article 152 of the EC Treaty must be recalled in this context. It requires the Community to adopt measures setting high standards of quality and safety of organs and substances of human origin, blood and blood derivatives.

Under the new health strategy (1), which has been set up inter alia to apply these requirements, objectives in the field of transplantation (see Annex 2.1) have been defined. One of the proposed aims is to develop and operate a Community network on organs and substances of human origin. Whether such a network could also have a role in the fight against illegal organ trade will be looked at in close collaboration with Member States.

(1) COM(2000) 285 final.

(2001/C 187 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3852/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Early retirement

It has been reported in the press that, at the Ecofin meeting of 8 November, the conclusions of an interim report drawn up by the Economic Policy Committee (’EPC progress report on the impact of ageing populations on public pensions systems’, Ecofin 303, 12791/00) were noted and endorsed. One of those conclusions is that, throughout the European Union, the retirement age will have to be raised and early- retirement schemes will have to be restricted if pension schemes are to be sustainable.

This statement had enormous public impact, especially since most of the European (and in particular the Portuguese) press described it as coming from the ‘European Union’.

On 22 November I received a Communication (1) which contains a proposal for a Council regulation on early-retirement schemes within the Commission. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/65

To my horror, the purpose of the proposal for a regulation is not to restrict Commission officials’ existing access to early-retirement schemes but, rather, to promote an early-retirement scheme for 600 officials.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

(a) At the Ecofin meeting, did the Commission express any disagreement with the report?

(b) Is it true that the Commission was not represented on the working party which approved the report?

(c) Does the Commission not consider that contradictory statements and proposals such as these undermine the credibility of the European Institutions?

(1) SEC(2000) 2025 final.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

The need to limit generalised access to early retirement as a means to mitigate the economic and budgetary impact of ageing populations has been recognised for some time. It forms part of the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and is also recommended in the report of the High Level Working Party on Social Protection to the Nice European Council on safe and sustainable pensions elaborated by a working group of the Economic Policy Committee. The latter report concludes that to raise employment rates to the targets agreed by the Lisbon European Council, it will be necessary to increase employment rates amongst older workers and raise effective retirement ages. To this end, limiting generalised access to early retirement schemes will need to be combined with reforms of pension systems so that there are positive incentives for older workers to stay in the labour force.

The Commission, together with the Member States and the European Central Bank (ECB), appoints members to the Economic Policy Committee (EPC). Members are senior officials of those institutions possessing outstanding competence in the field of economic and structural policies, and according to the Statutes of the EPC, they are to be guided by the general interest of the Community. The Commission members of the EPC are senior officials from the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs.

In assessing whether there is an adequate justification for the early retirement scheme proposed by the Commission, it is necessary to underline that the Commission’s proposal is a one-off measure to facilitate a major structural reform of the institution, not a permanent early retirement scheme. Reforms of this nature are extremely difficult in any company or institution, and past reforms in national civil services and many private enterprises have demonstrated that early retirement is one means to facilitate major structural change. Moreover, the Commission has committed itself to bringing about these changes while respecting budgetary neutrality.

Secondly, it is important to note that early retirement rarely occurs in the Commission. On average, less than 10 officials have opted for early retirement in recent years (compared with 300 retirements in 2000). Even though officials can retire at the age of 60, the average retirement age is approximately 63.

The main reason for this is that the present pension scheme of the Commission already gives positive incentives for officials to stay on longer than the normal pension age of 60. The maximum pension possible is 70 % of the last basic salary depending on the duration of professional activity. While the annual pension increase before the age of 60 is 2 %, the pension rights reached at the age of 60 are increased by 5 % per annum from 60 to 65. In addition, there are a number of other structural features that discourage early retirement.

Thirdly, one of the objectives of the above-mentioned guidelines, i.e. to combine an early retirement scheme with the reform of the pension system, is fulfilled since the Commission has committed itself in the White Paper ‘Reforming the Commission’ (1) of 1 March 2000 to a review of the present pension regime. C 187 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Thus there is no discrepancy between the general conclusion of the EPC report on the need to limit generalised access to early retirement schemes and the specific Commission proposal for the early retirement of 600 officials.

(1) COM(2000) 2000 final.

(2001/C 187 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3854/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Enlargement and fisheries

After two years of negotiations with the applicant countries in the Luxembourg Group (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus) and the start of negotiations with the Helsinki Group (Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Malta) on 28 March this year, the European Parliament has adopted a new resolution (R5-0417/2000 (1) of 4 October 2000) on the enlargement of the European Union, setting out the EP’s requests with regard to the accession procedure and the negotiations being held on the subject. In its contribution to the resolution Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries made a number of demands concerning fisheries.

Could the Commission indicate the approximate timetable for the fisheries debate in the context of the accession negotiations with both the Luxembourg Group and the Helsinki Group and, if appropriate, the stage reached in the negotiations and the progress made so far?

Can the Commission say whether the fisheries negotiations will take account of the concerns of the Committee on Fisheries, in particular the urgent need to remedy the considerable shortcomings in the administration of fisheries in most of the applicant countries as regards environmental and health standards, as well as inspection and control measures, the need for reliable information on the structure of the fisheries sector in the applicant countries, the abolition of distortions such as ‘flags of convenience’, and the administrative structures needed to provide detailed and reliable information on the fisheries sector and ensure full compliance with the acquis?

(1) ‘Texts adopted’ of 4 October 2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2001)

The Commission is aware of the resolution referred to by the Honourable Member and can support the largest part of its recommendations, for fisheries.

Accession negotiations on the fisheries chapter have been opened in April 1999 with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia and in October 2000 with Latvia, Slovakia and Malta. This chapter has been provisionally closed with the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Cyprus, Estonia and with Slovakia, in the light of the commitments by these countries for their preparations to the full implementation of the acquis concerning fisheries.

The Commission attaches a particular importance to the development of the appropriate administrative capacity to implement the Common Fisheries Policy, with a particular emphasis on monitoring, inspection and control activities. Attention is also paid to the capacity regarding the structural and market measures. The Commission is also attentive to the development of a fully separate and exhaustive register of all fishing vessels under the applicant state flag, in full conformity with the Community requirement. As a consequence of this, it is no longer possible to maintain ‘flags of convenience’ in the fisheries sector.

As regards the environmental standards, these are dealt with under the Chapter 22-Environment. As regards health standards, i.e. hygiene and veterinary requirements, these are dealt with under Chapter 7- Agriculture, including those relating to fish and fisheries products. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/67

(2001/C 187 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3858/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Enlargement and regional policy: European territorial strategy (ETS)

After two years of negotiations with the applicant countries in the Luxembourg Group (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus) talks started last April on the application of the acquis of the structural funds (Chapter 21 of the negotiations) with the six countries in that group. In this context the European Parliament adopted a resolution in October this year (R5-0417/2000 (1) of 4 October 2000) on the enlargement of the European Union, setting out the EP’s requests with regard to the accession procedure and the negotiations being held on the subject.

Could the Commission indicate the approximate timetable for the debate on Chapter 21 and the stage reached in the negotiations and the progress made so far? Can it say roughly when it envisages starting the debate on Chapter 21 with the applicant countries in the Helsinki Group (Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Malta) in the context of the accession negotiations which began on 28 March this year?

In paragraph 109 of the EP’s resolution on the enlargement of the EU Parliament considers ‘that the European Spatial Development Perspective must be taken into account during the enlargement process, in a manner consistent with the subsidiarity principle, and tied clearly to regional policy, with a view to the reform of the Structural Funds in 2006, in order to provide an adequate response to the development needs of the enlarged Union, and calls on the Commission, in this connection, to analyse the impact of the enlargements on employment, cohesion and economic migration with a view to taking prompt measures to prevent the emergence of regional imbalances;’.

Can the Commission say to what extent it is taking this request into account in the accession procedure and its negotiations with the Luxembourg Group in the context of Chapter 21, particularly as regards the ETS?

How will the ETS promote the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the outer maritime regions currently under Objective 1 by combating the increase in the peripheral nature of these regions which enlargement will entail?

(1) ’Texts adopted’ of 4 October 2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

It is not possible at this stage to provide a reliable timetable leading to the closure of the negotiations on chapter 21. The state of preparation, for example, in terms of the development of administrative capacity varies considerably between candidate countries. The differing situations are reflected in the regular reports, the most recent of which was adopted by the Commission on 8 November 2000 (1).

The obligation to implement the acquis is an absolute requirement in order that the candidate countries are able on accession to absorb the allocated budget on the basis of the rules governing the implementation of the structural funds and the cohesion fund.

With regard to the Helsinki group referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission has received position papers from Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Malta and therefore it seems likely that for these countries negotiations on chapter 21 will be opened under the Swedish Presidency. For Romania and Bulgaria, it is not clear at present that negociations will be able to begin at the same time. C 187 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The debate on the future of European cohesion policy after 2006, including the role of the European Spatial Development Perspective, is only beginning. The Commission published the Second Cohesion Report on 31 January 2001 (2), which sets out a number of ideas and options in this regard, in order to launch the debate. The Parliament will be fully involved in this debate. With regard to the outermost regions, the Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission has presented proposals to the Council in the fields of structural policies and rural development in order to take account of their particular circumstances (3).

(1) COM(2000) 700 final. (2) COM(2001) 24. (3) COM(2000) 732 final.

(2001/C 187 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3859/00 by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Community-wide interception systems

In response to my Question E-2655/00 (1), the Commission stated that it was not aware of any attempt to impose built-in interception systems on a Community-wide scale.

Articles 20 (real time collection of computer data) and 21 (interception of content data) of the draft Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention do imply the introduction of built-in surveillance systems on a pan-European and potentially (thanks to US involvement in the drafting process) global scale. The implausibly broad definitions provided in Article 1 of the draft Convention make this threat even bigger. In its non-paper of 2 October 2000, the European Commission itself raised numerous concerns regarding the current draft Convention, indicating the seriousness of this proposal.

The Council of Europe’s Document CJ-PD(2000)10, which discusses protection of personal data, says, in relation to Directive 95/46/EC (2), that ‘one could argue that a general mandatory retention of traffic data is necessary for the investigation of criminal offences’. As the draft convention describes traffic data as ‘any computer data referring to a communication’, it is difficult to see how this could be imposed without a comprehensive surveillance system.

Could the Commission indicate what it intends to do in order to ensure that the Convention does not lead to built-in surveillance systems?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 143. (2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2001)

In the context of the ongoing negotiations for a Council of Europe convention on Cybercrime, the Commission has submitted a non-paper in which various concerns are expressed regarding aspects of protection of privacy within the emerging text, as the Honourable Member has noted.

The Commission will continue to participate actively in these negotiations, in which it has observer status, and defend the acquis communautaire to the best of its abilities. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/69

(2001/C 187 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3860/00 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Discharge of dangerous substances in the basin of the River Segura (Spain)

In the Autonomous Regions of Valencia and Murcia the basin of the River Segura is being seriously polluted by the discharge of dangerous substances (1). Furthermore, the polluted water flowing in the River Segura and its tributaries is used to water crops as it passes through the province of Alicante. This is a serious agricultural and environmental problem, since the water is unsuitable for irrigation. A tributary of the Segura in the province of Murcia, the River Guadalentin, is seriously polluted with chromium. According to studies carried out by a number of laboratories, the effluent discharged into this river contains 2 576 micrograms of chromium III per litre and 231 micrograms of chromium VI per litre, amounting to a total of 2 807 micrograms of chromium. The FAO’s international standards recommend that water used for irrigation should not contain more than 100 micrograms. Scientific studies carried out by the University of Murcia and the Miguel Hernández University confirm the scale of the problem. According to these studies, the waters of the River Segura contain pollutants on List I of Council Directive 76/464/EEC (2) of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community. These substances are cadmium and organohalogen compounds. The study carried out by the University of Murcia also indicates the presence of chromium and nickel, substances included on List II of the Directive.

1. Does the Commission not consider that Spain is infringing Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, Directive 83/513/EEC (3) on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges and Directive 84/491/EEC (4) on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane?

2. Have the competent national authorities told the Commission what caused the presence, in the waters of the River Segura, of quantities of dangerous substances far exceeding the limit values, thereby constituting a public health risk?

3. What measures has the Commission adopted or does it consider adopting to tackle this situation?

(1) 360 000 tonnes of solid waste and 132 000 tonnes of agricultural and industrial urban organic substances are discharged into the basin of the River Segura, its tributaries and the water table, causing serious environmental damage and posing a grave danger to the health of the inhabitants of those areas. (2) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23. (3) OJ L 291, 24.10.1983, p. 1. (4) OJ L 274, 17.10.1984, p. 11.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

As this is primarily a matter of the general pollution of water by dangerous substances, the Commission is aware of the problems in Spain in implementing Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (1), and other directives in the same sector, such as Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges (2) and Council Directive 84/491/EEC of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane (3). It should be noted that, following the infringement procedure initiated by the Commission against Spain under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty, the Court of Justice condemned Spain (4) for failure to implement programmes to reduce the pollution of water by certain dangerous substances in List II of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC, contrary to the provisions of Article 7 of that Directive. C 187 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

It should also be noted that the Commission initiated another infringement procedure against Spain after various problems of pollution were brought to its attention through complaints and Parliamentary questions following the failure to respect the provisions of the abovementioned Directive 76/464/EEC. The pollution of the River Segura is covered by this procedure, under which the Commission has delivered a reasoned opinion to Spain. This infringement procedure is still in progress.

The Commission is now examining the measures adopted by the Spanish authorities and notified by them following the abovementioned condemnation by the Court of Justice. Among these measures mention should be made of the adoption of hydrological basin plans for the inland waters concerned. Incidentally, Law No 29/1985 on water was significantly amended in this context by Law No 46/1999. The Spanish authorities have also forwarded a report from the Ministry for the Environment on programmes drawn up to reduce pollution from the substances in List II referred to in Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC. They have also notified the Commission of the adoption of Royal Decree 995/2000 of 2 June ‘por el que se fijan objetivos de calidad para determinadas sustancias contaminantes’(setting quality objectives for certain dangerous substances).

Whatever the situation, in its role as the guardian of the Treaties and with the instruments at its disposal the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law governing this particular matter is observed.

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976. (2) OJ L 291, 24.10.1983. (3) OJ L 274, 17.10.1984. (4) Judgment of 25.11.1998. Case C-214/96.

(2001/C 187 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3861/00 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Pollution of the River Segura (Spain) by nitrates

As its flows through the Autonomous Regions of Valencia and Murcia the basin of the River Segura is seriously polluted with nitrates, affecting both groundwater and surface water, as ascertained by studies carried out in connection with the Spanish Government’s White Paper on Water, owing to the intensive use of agricultural fertilisers, which means that 44 880 tonnes of nitrates are discharged into the river each year. The volume of the river is not great enough to absorb this quantity of pollutants, leading to eutrophication which substantially jeopardises water quality.

1. Does the Commission not consider that Spain is infringing Council Directive 75/440/EEC (1) concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States?

2. Has Spain designated the Segura basin as a ‘vulnerable zone’ in accordance with Article 3(2) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC (2) concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (subsequently referred to as the ‘Nitrates Directive’)?

3. If the Segura river basin has been designated as a vulnerable zone, has Spain drawn up and submitted action programmes in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the Nitrates Directive?

4. Do the action programmes meet the requirements of the Nitrates Directive?

5. What measures does the Commission intend to take, bearing in mind that the Court of Justice in Luxembourg has already delivered judgements against Spain for its failure to comply with the Nitrates Directive?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 26. (2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/71

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

The Commission is aware that the Segura basin is contaminated by an excess of nitrates, caused principally by intensive agricultural practices, including pig-farming or some types of fruit and vegetable production. The Segura basin authority has named three sites in the region of Valencia and eight in the region of Murcia where nitrates in surface water regularly exceed the level of 50 milligrams/litre (mg/l). In groundwater, seven aquifers exceed altogether or locally 50 mg/l in the Murcia region (which covers 95 % of the Segura basin).

While the region of Valencia recently officially designated these areas as vulnerable and published an action programme (31 January 2000), however, the region of Murcia in its official bulletin of 11 January 2000 stated that there were no problems connected with agricultural nitrates on its territory.

Having come across similar shortcomings in several regions of Spain, the Commission is currently looking into the question. An earlier procedure dealing with the lack of action programmes led to the condemnation of Spain by the Court of Justice (1) in April 2000. Finally, within the context of the rural development plans, Spain is bound to designate all its vulnerable areas before the end of 2001, failing which the Commission may contemplate suspending Community aid.

(1) Case C-274/98, Court Reports p. I-2823.

(2001/C 187 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3862/00 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Opening up of third-country markets

The European Union has adopted a series of measures aimed at liberalising imports of 65 categories of textile products and clothing from other member countries of the World Trade Organisation, with a view to completing Stage 3 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.

In conjunction with these measures it has started negotiations with third countries to ensure that their markets are opened up further and hence bring about a better balance in trade between the EU and third countries.

Can the Commission specify what measures have been proposed to achieve this aim?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

In proposing to Council the list of products to be integrated in the Third Stage of Integration under the World trade organization (WTO) Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), the Commission took the line that due to the absence of improved market access for Community textiles and clothing exports in third countries, third stage liberalisation should not go beyond the legal requirements of the ATC. Therefore, a number of quotas on the most sensitive products, have been retained whilst envisaging the possibility for further liberalisation in exchange for better access to third countries textiles clothing markets.

In order to address the issue of lack of market access, the Council simultaneously adopted negotiating directives for the Commission to hold bilateral market access negotiations with third countries, on a mutually beneficial basis. Such talks could lead to improved market access to the Community market for third countries, going beyond the content of the third stage liberalisation, on a bilateral basis. C 187 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The Commission has publicly invited all textiles exporting WTO members to show their willingness to engage in such market access talks and a number of them have already expressed interest.

So far the Commission has been able to negotiate and initial an agreement with Sri Lanka. Under the deal initialled on 5 December 2000, Sri Lanka will reduce and bind tariffs on Community textile exports, while the Community will suspend the four textiles quotas currently applicable on Sri Lanka’s exports to the Community.

Other third countries have expressed interest and the Commission is presently engaged in exploratory talks with these third countries.

(2001/C 187 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3865/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Environmental rehabilitation of Mt Mainalo

Some four months have now elapsed since the catastrophic fires which ravaged Arcadia and in particular the fir forest of Mt Mainalo which is a geomorphological site unparalleled in Greece. Because of its special environmental significance, Mt Mainalo has been included in the Natura 2000 network, while 5 of the 33 species of amphibian found in the region are referred to in Community Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and are protected by Greek legislation and the Bern Convention; one of these species is found nowhere else in the Peloponnese.

Local citizens and social, environmental and political bodies are concerned that work to begin rehabilitat- ing the destroyed forest and wooded areas has been delayed, and there are fears that, owing to the lack of anti-erosion measures, erosion particularly on sloping ground will frustrate efforts to rehabilitate the forest. Furthermore, I have received complaints that steps are being taken to tarmac forest tracks which will make it easier to drive to the most remote shelters in this wild region, thus leading to an upsurge in poaching and noise and atmospheric pollution and posing a risk of fire which will in turn nourish well- founded expectations that the land will be developed.

Will the Commission say what measures the Greek Government has taken to draw on Community funds to tackle the disasters which have struck Mt Mainalo?

Have the relevant Greek authorities submitted specific programmes with a detailed description of the reforestation, anti-erosion and flood prevention projects and actions planned for the region? If so, when? More generally as regards the regions included in Natura 2000, a Commission representative recently told the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment that, where no protection was provided for regions included in Natura 2000, structural fund aid would be suspended.

Do any management plans exist for the protected regions, and are there any management bodies to promote the implementation of such plans in Greece?

Are the nature conservation agencies in Greece adequately staffed or are there any weaknesses or shortcomings here?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Mt Mainalo is 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 the site in the Natura 2000 network, the national authorities have to ensure that its conservation value is preserved. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/73

A LIFE-Nature project is currently underway, aiming at the conservation and management of that area. According to preliminary information provided by the beneficiary of the project (local development agency ‘Arcadia SA’), the Natura 2000 site has not been affected by the recent forest fires. Detailed information is expected soon, in the context of the contractual obligations of the beneficiary, which will enable the Commission to form a clear view of the situation.

A significant number of management plans have been made in Greece for proposed Natura 2000 sites through Community co-funded projects. However, the practical implementation of these management plans (requiring completion of the relevant legislative procedures and establishment of management bodies) has suffered until now from significant delays.

The final version of the ‘Peloponnese-regional operational programme (ROP)’, to be approved early this year, includes preventive and protective measures for forests including for the areas covered by Natura 2000 as well as measures to restore forests damaged by fires. Details of the above will be developed by Greece in the programming complement which will be prepared after the ‘Peloponnese-ROP’ has been approved.

The Commission cannot express an opinion on the staffing or functioning of national nature conservation authorities and agencies, since this is a Member State competence.

(2001/C 187 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3866/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: WEEE incineration of plastic

Is the Commission aware of the development and operation of state-of-the-art waste incinerators in which waste plastic can be used as fuel? Is the Commission aware that this new type of incinerator has either very low levels or zero emission of hazardous substances?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2001)

The Commission will start the work on a guidance document on best available techniques (BAT) in the field of waste incineration in the second half of 2001. Normally the work should be finalised within two years. The so-called BREF (BAT reference document) will include the determination of the best available techniques for air and water emissions and energy efficiency.

The minimum standard for incinerators at European level is described in Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (1).

The Commission is aware that the great improvements have been made in the field of incineration of waste plastic in an environmentally friendly way, where energy is recovered at a high level and emissions of pollutants into air and water are very low.

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000. C 187 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3867/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: WEEE electronic waste proposal access to spare parts

With regard to the Electronic Waste (WEEE) and Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) proposals, can the Commission clarify whether electronic products which have been put on the market before the suggested date (2008) for substitution of several hazardous substances will not have to be discarded prematurely for lack of the right spare parts? Can the Commission guarantee that the proposals will not have an adverse impact on consumers?

(2001/C 187 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: WEEE electronic waste proposal spare parts and transition

With regard to the Electronic Waste (WEEE) and Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) proposals, would the Commission agree that, during a transitional period, spare parts for use in products put on the market before 2008 will need to be exempted from the ban on use of certain hazardous substances? If so, what transitional period would the Commission have in mind?

(2001/C 187 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3869/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: WEEE electronic waste proposal spare parts and exemption

With regard to the Electronic Waste (WEEE) and Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) proposals, would the Commission agree that a ban on substances in spare parts would have an impact on their design which might make them incompatible with the electronic products in which they were used? Does the Commission agree that this will lead to unnecessary waste creation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3867/00, E-3868/00 and E-3869/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Article 4 of the Proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (1) foresees the substitution of certain heavy metals and brominated flame retardants in this equipment with effect from 1 January 2008. Clearly, this requirement refers only to new equipment placed on the market after 1 January 2008 and does not affect equipment already on the market at that date.

It is not the intention to prohibit the use of spare parts containing one or more of the substances targeted by the Proposal if the functioning of electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market for the first time before 2008 would be jeopardized without such spare parts. The Commission agrees that otherwise electrical and electronic equipment might have to be discarded unnecessarily.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/75

(2001/C 187 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3872/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Mineral water from Greenland

A group of businessmen in Greenland have decided to bottle the pure ice which covers four fifths of the island and market it as mineral water.

Consumption of mineral water is growing by 10 % per year and this product from Greenland could therefore easily invade European markets. Can the Commission take steps to put a stop to the use of Arctic ice and the possible marketing of the island’s mineral water?

Can the Commission also introduce appropriate environmental protection measures, since this practice will eventually damage the planet, already endangered by destructive human activities, in particular the ice cap, which is receding at a rate of 45,8 cubic metres every year?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Greenland does not form part of the Community or of its customs territory. Relations with Greenland are governed by decisions on the association of the overseas countries and territories (OCT) with the Community. The trade provisions relating to OCTs prescribe that their products shall benefit from the principle of free circulation of goods, meaning that they shall be imported into the Community free of customs duties and charges having equivalent effect, and that the Community shall not apply quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect to imports of products originating in the OCTs. There are two exceptions to these provisions: a general exception for measures justified on grounds of public morality, protection of health, protection of the environment, etc, and the possibility to introduce safeguard measures under certain conditions. In this particular case, it appears that the environmental exception would be the only exception potentially applicable but the Commission does not believe, at this stage, that such a trade restriction could be justified on environmental grounds.

(2001/C 187 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3876/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Common foreign and security policy (chemical weapons for Turkey)

In answer to Question P-2910/00 the Council informed me that under the provisions of Article 22 of the TEU any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council. In view of the importance of the specific points in Written Questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00 for the common foreign and security policy it would seem appropriate for the Commission to make use of this possibility.

1. Will the Commission ‘submit proposals to the Council’ in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU to obtain information from the University of Munich on the German provenance (Buck and Depfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack against the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999? If not, why is the Commission refusing to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU given the importance of this question for the common foreign and security policy? C 187 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

2. Will the Commission ‘submit proposals to the Council’ in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU to obtain information from the German Ministry of Defence on the aid from this ministry in the construction of a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey? If not, why is the Commission refusing to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU given the importance of this question for the common foreign and security policy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

According to Article 22 of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission and the Member States have the right to submit proposals to the Council related to common foreign and security policy (CFSP) matters. However, the case under consideration refers to the alleged export of dual-use or possibly military items from one Member State to Turkey. In this context, it should be noted that, while legislation in the field of dual-use exports is a Community competence (c.f. Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 of 22 June 2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology (1)), the implementation remains with the Member States. It is, therefore, for the Member State where the exporter is established to decide on authorisation requests and to monitor their implementation.

(1) OJ L 159, 30.6.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3878/00 by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Resources for sufferers of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Syndrome

Can the Commission guarantee that there will in future be sufficient resources for sufferers of Creutzfeldt- Jakob Syndrome, such as care and rehabilitation? Can the Commission also guarantee that sufficient funds have been set aside for preventive measures and research?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2001)

Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty specifically requires that ‘… Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care …’.

For this reason, the resources for care and rehabilitation are largely under the responsibilities of the Member States.

However, funds for intensifying research on the outstanding questions related to animal and human transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE’s) were provided through a European action plan, which was proposed by the Commission in November 1996. This action plan was rapidly adopted by Council and Parliament with a supplementary budget of € 35 million bringing the total amount of Community funding up to € 50,7 million. Since then, 54 projects involving 150 research laboratories, throughout Europe, have been funded by the Commission under the research Framework Programme 4 (Biomed, Biotech and FAIR programmes).

Research efforts are being pursued in the Fifth framework programme where all aspects foreseen in the action plan, such as: clinical and epidemiological research on human spongiform encephalopathies (SE), the infective agent and its transmission mechanism, diagnosis of (SE), evaluation of the risk from (SE), 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/77

treatment and prevention of (SE), and co-ordination of research activities between Member States, are included in the Quality of Life programme. Three new projects have been selected for funding to pursue the continuous surveillance of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) cases, harmonise diagnostic methods and investigate manufacturing processes to reduce risks of contamination. Forthcoming calls for proposals in the Quality of Life programme this year and in 2001 will offer a further opportunity to strengthen this effort and focus on critical areas where research is needed.

In addition, as far as Community actions in the area of public health are concerned, surveillance of vCJD is foreseen under the Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community (1).

Furthermore, collaborative networks of persons directly or indirectly affected by vCJD would have the possibility of submitting project proposals in reply to call for proposals published in the framework of the Community action programme on rare diseases (1999-2003) or of the Community action programme for the prevention of AIDS and other communicable diseases (1996-2000; prolongation 2001-2002 proposed by the Commission).

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.

(2001/C 187 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3887/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against workers in the nuclear sector

Is the Commission aware of Dr William Cramp’s work that led to the development of the ‘Nuclear Precipitation Test’, whereby individuals who are particularly sensitive to the effects of radiation may be identified?

Does the Commission take the view that such tests should not be used to pre-select individuals to work in nuclear facilities and that, rather than discriminating on grounds of individual human biology, environ- ments should be made safe for all?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

The work of Dr W Cramp is know to the Commission. However, in the current state of the art the results and findings of studies on differing sensitivity to radiation cannot yet be put to any practical use.

The Commission therefore shares the view of the Honourable Member that these tests should not be used to pre-select staff, especially as the focus of this particular scientific research into the sensitivity of human organisms to radioactive radiation is the treatment of cancer tumours.

Annual exposure limits are set in order to protect workers against the hazards of ionising radiation. These limits are always based on the latest scientific and technical developments in the field of the biological effects of ionising radiation. Workers in the nuclear industry also undergo annual medical examinations designed to establish their fitness for such work.

These two measures form the basis for EU basic safety standards for radiation protection, the effectiveness of which is highlighted by the high level of protection afforded to workers. The Commission therefore takes the view that no further measures are needed along these lines. C 187 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3894/00 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Impact on employment of a proposal for a regulation on public services in the passenger transport sector

The Commission has just reached a further phase in its frenzied deregulation activity proposing that invitations to tender for passenger transport, one of the public services, to be issued every five years.

According to Mrs Loyola de Palacio, member of the Commission, the proposed reform will ensure greater competition between public transport operators, thereby providing a better service for passengers, containing costs and ensuring the highest safety standards.

In fact Mrs de Palacio has simply devised a new triangle of conflicting interests. While competition between public transport operators may keep down costs, this will inevitably be to the detriment of the quality of services provided (closure of unprofitable routes, less frequent services etc.) or at the expense of safety standards (less qualified, underpaid and consequently less motivated personnel).

In many countries, the municipal authorities or associations thereof have for a long time been providing their own public transport services, whose staff in many cases enjoy civil servant, or at least municipal employee status. Competition with private transport undertakings would in general squeeze out municipal services with established personnel and staffing structures while private operators entering the market would be able to recruit (frequently underpaid) employees with no seniority.

By proposing to oblige municipalities and other public bodies to issue invitations to tender every five years, at least for the provision of public transport services (worth over € 800 000 annually), does the Commission realise that it would in effect be forcing them to close down their own services and dismiss their employees?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that Article 9(3) of its proposal of 26 July 2000 for a regulation on public services in public transport (1) ensures that authorities will be able to protect existing employees when contracts change hands. In some cases, protection is already provided by Council Directive 77/187 of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (2). The Commission’s proposal allows authorities to insist on this level of protection, even where it is not required by Community law. It certainly does not oblige authorities to make their existing staff redundant.

The Commission’s proposal does not require authorities to award contracts to the tenderer making the cheapest offer. Authorities can award contracts on the basis of quality, not just price. The proposal lists numerous quality and safety criteria which must be taken into account in awarding contracts.

In-house operators are still undertakings under Community law. They are subject to Community rules on state aids and exclusive rights. With the emergence of multinational operators, abuses of these rules now have a Community dimension. The Commission does not intend to put an end to in-house operation of public transport, or to other publicly owned operators. The proposal simply says that these operators, like all others, should have to prove from time to time that they are still the best for serving the area and the community in question. This approach is good for passengers, and it promotes legal certainty.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000. (2) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977 as amended by Directive 98/50/EC of 29.6.1998 (OJ L 201, 17.7.1998). 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/79

(2001/C 187 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3901/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Substantial increase in road and rail tunnels as a means of dual land use

1. Can the Commission confirm that for a long time tunnels for road and rail transport were something exceptional, originally only used for crossing mountain ranges and subsequently for crossing broad waterways where an above-ground solution was not a realistic alternative, but that developments in technology now make it possible and financially feasible to build many more tunnels?

2. Can the Commission also confirm that local, regional and national authorities of the Member States increasingly regard the construction of tunnels as a means of extending the land available for traffic in densely-populated areas through dual land use, partly with a view to sparing the countryside and limiting noise pollution?

3. Can the Commission provide figures on the increasing extent to which Member States are drawing up and implementing plans for building tunnels just below the surface of relatively flat areas to provide crossing-free metro lines, high-speed rail lines, goods rail lines and car tunnels?

4. Does the Commission agree that the criteria for deciding to build tunnels should be not only the use of space, speed of transport and construction costs, but also the safety and survival prospects of other transport users?

5. Can the Commission provide figures on the extent to which, as a result of the substantial increase in the number of tunnels, the risk of major fires and explosions similar to disasters in recent years in the Franco-Italian and Austrian alpine areas (Mont Blanc, Tauern and Kaprun) will increase?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Although the techniques used in driving tunnels or cutting and covering roads has made considerable progress, this form of civil engineering is still very expensive. These options thus do not offer any economically realistic alternative as compared with surface routes where these are possible.

Tunnel building is the responsibility of the local, regional or national authorities. These will decide which new infrastructures are to be produced on a case-by-case basis as a function of technical, economic, or environmental constraints and of the local inhabitants’ interests and opinions. The Commission does not have in its possession any statistics on any current projects in the Member States and on any risks that such projects might entail. Nor, so far, has it noted any tendency towards preferential treatment for tunnel building.

As regards the intended action at Community level, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer to his Question E-3902/00 (1).

(1) See page 80. C 187 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3902/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Improved fire prevention and fire control in road and rail tunnels

1. Is the Commission aware that the Dutch Institute for Fire and Disaster Control is of the opinion that firemen cannot put out fires in tunnels because the smoke prevents them from seeing anything, the heat is too great and the risk of explosion means it is irresponsible to enter tunnels (report in Rotterdams Dagblad of 20 November 2000)?

2. To what extent does the Commission think that the partially underground routes, such as those currently being built for the Cologne-Frankfurt high-speed train line through the Taunus and the Westerwald in Germany and those designed for the Amsterdam-Brussels high-speed line under the pastureland east of the Dutch city of Leiden, are suitable for use by high- speed trains?

3. If a train is derailed at high speed or catches fire in a tunnel, what is the increased risk to human life?

4. Does the Commission feel it is acceptable that the transport of dangerous goods, which used to be systematically referred to routes without tunnels, is increasingly taking place via road and rail tunnels? Is it responsible, in terms of safety, to remove the transport of dangerous goods from roads and waterways and for it to use rail tunnels in future?

5. Do all the tunnels which have been newly completed, or which are under construction or at the design stage, satisfy the quality requirements of the Channel tunnel between France and England where, in addition to two separate transport tunnels, there is a third tunnel to enable passengers on trains to escape if there is a fire in one of the other tunnels?

6. What is the Commission intending to do to increase safety, for example by making a very broad tunnel diameter the norm, having sprinkler systems built in to produce water curtains, making escape tunnels in parallel with existing and new tunnels compulsory, restricting the length of tunnels as far as possible or putting a brake on the building of tunnels in general?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

It is quite true that tunnels involve a considerably greater risk as compared with surface routes in the case of conflagrations. The period within which the rescue services must be in a position to act at the site of a fire in order to be effective is very short: roughly ten minutes.

However, the Commission does not at the moment have in its possession any of the precise information on risk proliferation requested by the Honourable Member. The data currently in its possession show that, as things now stand, the fatality rate lies between zero and twenty per thousand million kilometres travelled, regardless of accident type.

The Commission feels that safety factors negate any failure to build tunnels or cut-and-cover routes if these structures incorporate the most recent equipment and meet the most advanced building requirements.

Moreover, following the accidents occurring in 1999 and 2000, the Commission has been drawing up a precise inventory of the laws and standards applying to rail and road tunnels in the Member States, together with standardisation activities within the relevant international bodies. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/81

That inventory will enable an assessment to be made of the advantages deriving from the adoption of harmonised rules at European level for both rail and road tunnels.

The Commission will also keep a very watchful eye on the safety aspects of infrastructure building, including that of tunnel sections, and which receive Community financial support, more particularly in view of the budget for the trans-European networks.

The Commission has supported the work carried out by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in order to devise a methodology enabling the hazards involved in the various routes and alternatives modes where dangerous goods are carried to be compared. That methodology could show that, in many cases, journeys through tunnels are no more hazardous than on other possible routes.

(2001/C 187 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3906/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Measures to be taken by the EU following the discovery of cattle affected by ‘mad cow disease’ in Galicia, Germany and the Azores

People in Galicia, as in the rest of Europe, are at present deeply concerned about the appearance in Galicia of the same problem as in Germany and the Azores, the discovery of a cow suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Concern is all the greater among farmers who, together with the authorities, must find a rapid solution to this serious problem. Whilst they are calling for measures to be taken with regard to health, consumption and production, they should not suffer the consequences, not least because this disease can be transmitted to human beings and is due to the lack of foresight of the authorities of the Member States and the European Union following the outbreak of the epidemic in the United Kingdom and its subsequent spread to France.

Since this is a European problem requiring generalised solutions which is affecting Galicia in particular, where the first case of this disease in Spain was detected, can the Commission say:

why the Union institutions did not take steps years ago to eradicate BSE, in particular a ban on the use of animal meal in cattle feed, a large proportion of which is produced by multinational companies, with a total annual production of 3 million tonnes, which seems to be the cause of the disease;

what measures the EU will take in Galicia, in conjunction with the Spanish State and the Galician authorities, to ensure the swift eradication of this disease;

how it intends to provide financial compensation for the Galician farmers affected by the measures implemented, since their cattle must be slaughtered? Will they, in this case, receive the compensation needed to cover the full value of the cattle? Will farmers receive the financial aid needed to compensate for the heavy losses suffered as a result of the fall in consumption caused by people’s alarm and distrust? C 187 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

The inclusion of mammalian protein in feedstuffs intended for ruminants has in fact been prohibited in all Member States since August 1994. This ban has recently been extended on a temporary basis to prohibit the inclusion of all processed animal proteins in feedstuffs for farmed animals.

In addition to the feed ban, the Community has introduced numerous measures to prevent the re-cycling of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent and to bring about its eventual eradication. These measures include high temperature rendering of mammalian waste, compulsory notification and testing of all BSE suspects, rapid testing of all over thirty-month old healthy, sick and emergency slaughtered cattle in addition to dead-on-farm animals and removal and destruction of specified risk material. Enforcement of these controls is within the competence of the Spanish Authorities.

Commission Regulations (EC) No 164/97 of 30 January 1997 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in France by application of Decision 97/18/EC (1), (EC) No 299/97 of 19 February 1997 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef and veal market in Germany (2), (EC) No 1112/97 of 18 June 1997 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in Ireland in application of Decision 97/312/EC (3), have all established legal frameworks for compensation of producers of animals being slaughtered under the various national BSE measures. The Commission had in each case received a formal request from the Member State concerned, a procedure which would also apply in the case of Spain. Under the above-mentioned compensation schemes, producers were compensated on the basis of the objective value of the animal. In response to market pressures caused by a drop in beef consumption, the Commission has recently adopted a number of support measures, intended to help the Community market recover from the present crisis. These are currently before the Parliament and the Council for consideration. Additional measures will also be proposed which fall within the normal market management mechanisms operated by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 29, 31.1.1997. (2) OJ L 50, 20.2.1997. (3) OJ L 162, 19.6.1997.

(2001/C 187 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3925/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Brazil and retreaded tyres

A few years ago, EC Regulations relating to retreaded tyres were updated to bring retreaded tyres into a similar category as new tyres. As a result, there is now a Type Approval for retreads within the EC.

On the 27th September 2000 the Brazilian Government extended an existing ban on the importation of second-hand tyres to include remoulded and re-manufactured tyres.

Brazil is a major market for the retreading industry, and this ban poses a major threat to the retreading industry, which is the most effective and important method of re-use and recycling of worn tyres.

Has the Commission raised this issue with Brazil?

What action does the Commission plan to take as a result of this ban? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/83

(2001/C 187 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4014/00 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Export of remoulded and re-manufactured tyres to Brazil

Will the Commission make representations to the Brazilian Government regarding its decision to extend an existing ban on the import of second-hand tyres for the Brazilian market to include remoulded and re- manufactured tyres, insofar as they are duly approved and certified EU products?

If not, why?

(2001/C 187 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4026/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Remoulded and re-manufactured tyres

What is the Commission’s view of the Brazilian Government’s ban on the import of remoulded and re- manufactured tyres, particularly now that products enjoy EC type-approval?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3925/00, E-4014/00 and E-4026/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2001)

According to Brazilian national trade regulations, notified to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), imports of used equipment, machinery and consumer goods are expressly prohibited, with the sole possible exception of donations.

The Brazilian customs authorities referred the import of retreaded tyres to their judicial authorities which concluded that licensing such imports was inconsistent with local trade regulations. They therefore immediately suspended the granting of import licences for these products. In this context, the trade regulation Portaria MDIC/SECEX No 08, of 25 September 2000, has sought to implement the judicial ruling.

The Commission is aware of this issue and of the concern it has caused some European companies that produce and export retreaded and remoulded tyres. According to initial contacts with the Brazilian authorities, the Commission understands that the Brazilian government may have health or consumer protection concerns about the import of used goods and, because the aforementioned judicial decision stretched the scope of used goods to include retreaded tyres, the Brazilian authorities have enacted Portaria No 8, which blocks the import of such tyres. After further clarifying this issue with the industry, the Commission will approach the Brazilian government to set out the case for distinguishing these products from the general category of used goods and to explain the European system of type approval. In the absence of a positive solution, the Commission will consider what further action to take in the light of the Brazilian government’s response. C 187 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3926/00 by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: European Social Fund and teacher training

Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds provides for measures to be taken in different spheres under the European Social Fund, including the promotion and improvement of vocational training and the encouragement of education as part of a policy of continuing education.

The Council:

1. Will the Council give details of the total amount allocated to training?

2. What sums have been allocated to the training of trainers and teachers in Spain?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(24 April 2001)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that it is not for it to decide how much European Social Fund aid should be allocated for training or for instructor- and teacher-training in Spain.

Pursuant to the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds to which the Honourable Member refers, decisions on Structural Fund contributions are adopted by the Commission, by agreement with the Member State concerned.

The Council is not therefore in a position to reply to the Honourable Member’s question.

(2001/C 187 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3927/00 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Application of ILO Convention 147 to ships using Community ports

The recent ‘Ievolo Sun’ shipping disaster has once again focused public attention on the dangers of maritime transport in Community waters. One year after the Erika shipwreck, an initial package of measures on maritime safety proposed by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council is about to be adopted.

The amendment of Council Directive 95/21/EC 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), the amendment of Directive 94/57/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations, and the proposal for a regulation on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers are all technical measures in the field of maritime safety policy. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/85

Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that the human factor is the most important element in maritime transport safety, since between 70 and 80 % of accidents or shipwrecks are caused by human error.

In this connection, what are the Commission’s views on prohibiting access to Community ports for ships which do not meet the social conditions laid down in ILO Convention 147? The question is also relevant to the Paris memorandum, which should be amended so as to ensure that checks on social conditions on board ships are systematic and effective.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

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 ships safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (1) provides for the verification by inspectors of the port State control of the provisions of Convention 147 of the International Labour Office (ILO). Non-compliance with social standards does not of itself lead to a refusal of access to Community ports. However, under the Directive inspectors may detain ships if the safety or hygiene conditions on board are unsatisfactory.

Directive 1999/95/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 concerning the enforcement of provisions in respect of seafarers’ hours of work on board ships calling at Community ports (2) reinforces its control by providing for verification in Community ports of compliance with the provisions of ILO Convention 180 and the Protocol to Convention 147 concerning the conditions and hours of work on board. Deficiencies revealed during such inspections (such as undue fatigue of members of the crew) may lead to the detention of the vessel.

Finally, amendments made to Directive 95/21/EC are regularly incorporated into the Paris Memorandum. In any event, where there are differences between the Paris Memorandum and Directive 95/21/EC, Member States are required to comply with the provisions of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995. (2) OJ L 104, 20.1.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3928/00 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Abandonment of seafarers in EU ports

The scandalous abandonment of crew members and ships by some shipowners is one of the many violations of seafarers’ rights reported in recent years and testifying to the decline in the living and working conditions of these workers.

International solutions are needed to this problem, but above all recognition by the European Union via special legislation and closer cooperation between states.

Should the European Union not introduce safeguards to prevent seafarers from extreme situations of this kind?

Will this Commission remedy this shortcoming by proposing legislation to make binding the provisions of ILO Convention 163, ILO Recommendation 173 on seafarers’ welfare and ILO Convention 166 on the repatriation of seafarers? C 187 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The Commission recognises that the abandonment of crews and their vessels by certain shipowners is a serious problem requiring the attention of international and Community bodies alike.

The Commission is paying close attention to work being carried out at on this issue at international level by the joint International Labour Organisation (ILO) and International Maritime Organisation (IMO) expert working group. The abandonment of seafarers is indeed an international problem, and one that cannot be solved at Community level without taking the international context into account.

It is certainly generally important for Member States to apply the ILO Conventions on seafarers’ welfare properly in order to improve living and working conditions on board ships. However, this in itself is not enough to solve the problem of abandoned seafarers when the ships concerned do not fly a Community flag.

That is why the Commission intends first of all to examine the conclusions reached by the above- mentioned expert working group before considering the expediency of acting at Community level.

(2001/C 187 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3929/00 by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Non-food use of agricultural products

The development of non-food uses for renewable agricultural products is at present an area of vast potential for the EU. It would make it possible to cut our CO2 emissions at a stroke, reduce our dependence on oil, and reduce Europe’s deficit in vegetable proteins. Above all it would make it possible to replace vast quantities of pollutant products of mineral origin by products of vegetable origin (lubricants, solvents, inks, bio-fuels, pesticides, etc.) which have the advantage of being biodegradable, non-toxic and renewable.

Yet it is clear that Agenda 2000 has neglected this sector. Furthermore, although the Commission has already taken initiatives to develop non-food uses of renewable resources, these suffer from the lack of a global strategy and coordination between the various directorates-general concerned.

The Committee of the Regions, in its opinion 2000/C226/06, and a considerable number of economic and social representatives from the renewable resources sector, recently called on the Commission to set up an in-house non-food task force that would make it possible to gain a strategic vision of the subject and pursue a consistent policy.

How will the Commission respond to this request from both the Committee of the Regions and representatives of the sector concerned? Will it set up this task force in the short or medium term? Are the relevant departments considering proposals for regulations on the non-food uses of products of vegetable origin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

The Commission does not at present consider it appropriate or useful to set up a special non-food task force. In the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol signed in December 1997 stipulates that progress must be made by 2005 on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors of the economy. The Community is committed to an 8 % reduction in emissions (compared to 1990 levels) during the period 2008-2012. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/87

With a view to meeting those commitments, the Commission adopted the European Climate Change Programme through its communication on policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (1). In that communication, the Commission recommended setting up thematic working groups covering all priority sectors of the economy. A group specific to agriculture has already been set up, as has another on forest issues. The working groups’ membership is drawn from all the sectors concerned and comprises Commission representatives, experts from Member States, and representatives from industry and trade associations. The topics discussed include renewable energy and hence non-food uses of agricultural products.

The groups’ purpose is therefore to identify and develop the most important aspects of the various Community policies needed to implement the Kyoto Protocol. The results of the thematic groups’ work could form the basis for specific Commission proposals on the various policies. TheSE could include adjustments or amendments to Community legislation with the aim of reducing greenhouse gases.

The Permanent Group on renewable energy which the Commission set up in 1999 has provided a platform for industry, producers and trade associations to exchange information with the Commission departments on a regular basis.

The results of Agenda 2000 marked another important step towards bringing prices for primary agricultural products more into line with world market prices. On the supply side, primary agricultural products including cereals and oilseeds are consequently available at competitive prices for non-food (including energy) uses.

It is difficult to do more under the common agricultural policy given existing constraints, mainly at World Trade Organisation (WTO) and budget level. If from the energy and environmental policy viewpoint using primary agricultural products as a renewable resource is considered a priority, the disparity between prices for processed primary agricultural products and prices for competing fossil products should be reduced through tax measures as already proposed by the Commission (the Schrivener proposal) and set out in the Green Paper on security of energy supply (2).

Agenda 2000 also confirmed a 10 % reference rate for set-aside. Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (3) provides irrespective of payment under that system that land set aside may be used for the provision of materials for the manufacture within the Community of products not primarily intended for human or animal consumption, provided that effective control systems are applied. Detailed rules for the application of that Regulation are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2461/1999 (4). About 20 % (up to 1 million hectares) of set-aside land has been used under the scheme. Industry has been able to take advantage of highly competitive prices for primary agricultural products in order to develop new markets.

Community support for rural development also provides for promoting non-food uses of agricultural products. The rural development plans for 2000-2006 which Member States have drawn up and submitted for approval to the Commission thus include within the framework of support for investment on holdings, processing and marketing agricultural products, or promoting and developing rural areas aid measures for using biomass.

In the context of state aid for environmental protection, the Commission has also approved specific (inter alia tax and regulatory) measures to promote energy-saving and renewable forms of energy.

(1) COM(2000) 88 final. (2) COM(2000) 769 final. (3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2461/1999 of 19.11.1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 as regards the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials for the manufacture within the Community of products not intended for direct human or animal consumption (OJ L 299, 20.11.1999). C 187 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3937/00 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Funding for European political parties

In the draft budget for 2001, the Commission has once again provided for a separate item for subsidies to European political parties. A token entry has been made against that item, because no actual amount could be entered, apparently on the grounds that no legal basis exists for it but also in the light of other factors.

Since the various national political parties receive huge subsidies from national budgets, would the Commission kindly answer the following questions?

1. Are their any indications, or have any calculations been made, of the amount which will probably be entered against that item in 2001?

2. Does the Commission already know the date, or can it be estimated, when the European political parties may be sure of receiving these subsidies?

3. Will every European political party receive a subsidy, or have more specific criteria already been laid down for the selection of the parties which are to receive subsidies? Is it already known which parties will definitely receive subsidies? Do lists already exist, for example, on which those parties appear?

4. Have any national parties received subsidies this year or in previous years from appropriations entered against other budget items? If so, which Austrian parties received subsidies?

5. Is it conceivable that, once again, the item created in the budget for subsidies to European political parties will not have any appropriation entered against it in the 2001 financial year, although national parties will receive funds from other items in the 2001 budget?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

1. and 2. As the Honourable Member indicates, a new budget line was created by Parliament in the 2001 budget (B3-500N) on which there is only a token entry because there is not, as yet, a legal base.

The Commission has now made a proposal for a regulation (1) on the statute and financing of European political parties on the basis of Article 308 (ex Article 235) of the EC Treaty. Parliament must give its opinion and it requires to be adopted unanimously by the Council before it can enter into force.

3. The draft regulation proposed by the Commission establishes clear criteria which a political party would need to meet in order to qualify for subsidy:

table a statute with Parliament;

meet in its statute and its activities basic requirements of respect for democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law;

be represented itself or through its member parties in the Parliament or national parliament or regional parliaments in at least five Member States, or have received 5 % of the vote at the last European elections in each of at least five Member States.

4. As the report of the Court of Auditors (No 13/2000) (2) makes clear (paragraph 46), some political groups have traditionally made both funding and support in kind available to the European political parties with which they are associated. This is a matter for the Parliament.

(1) COM(2000) 898. (2) OJ C 181, 28.6.2000. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/89

(2001/C 187 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3949/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment

With reference to the answer to the questioner’s previous Question (E-2683/00) (1) on high-speed trains in the Roman orbital link area given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission, the reply to point 2 is unconvincing, since paragraph 6(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC (2) states that Member States must ascertain that the public concerned is given the opportunity to express an opinion before the project is initiated.

Monitoring the application of the directive is clearly the task of each Member State of the European Union, but if a Member State does not carry out the relevant checks this constitutes unequal treatment of the public owing to a lack of due transparency of information and the fact that people cannot gain access to information and take part in decision-making processes.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. which institution is competent to take action;

2. what happens at European level;

3. what directives deal with this subject;

4. what its general opinion is on the issue?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 149. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2001)

The Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law is properly applied within all Member States.

The Commission’s powers are limited to those conferred on it by the EC Treaty. On the basis of Arti- cle 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, ‘in order to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market, the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied’. On the basis of Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty ‘if the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice’.

In the specific case, the issue of the correct application of Community legislation on environmental impact assessment in relation to the project mentioned by the Honourable Member has been already dealt with by the Commission in 1997/1998. Since the present Written Question does not contain any new relevant element, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to previous answers by the Commission to her Written Question E-578/98 (1) and Written Question E-2274/00 by Mr Tajani (2).

The second paragraph of the reply to Written Question E-2683/00 (3) by the Honourable Member referred to the issue of the assessment of the monetary compensation in favour of the people possibly damaged by the project. This monetary aspect is not covered by the Community legislation on environmental impact assessment and it falls within the competence of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 386, 17.12.1998. (2) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 104. (3) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 149. C 187 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3953/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Decentralisation process in Slovakia

In its reply to my Written Question E-1924/00 (1) on decentralisation and regionalisation the Commission stated that it had asked the applicant countries to draw up a provisional NUTS classification reflecting their administrative structure as soon as possible.

Can the Commission say what progress Slovakia has made in drawing up such a classification? What stage has been reached as regards the decentralisation process in this applicant country?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 150.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The Slovak Government approved in March 2000 a ‘Concept for decentralisation and modernisation of public administration’, aiming at institutionally separating state administration from self-government, local as well as regional.

Candidate countries are asked by the Commission and in the context of negotiations to draw up in close co-operation with Eurostat their provisional nomenclature of the territorial statistical units of the Community (NUTS) classification. The creation of NUTS in candidate countries is based on the same principles as apply to Member States and which can be found in the Commission Publication ‘Regions Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics NUTS’ (1).

In Slovakia a provisional NUTS has been established. However the Commission is aware of the discussion concerning the public administration reform which is taking place in Slovakia. It seems that the reform will also result in the changing of administrative borders. The Slovak authorities have informed the Commission of their plans.

The planned decentralisation comprises the decentralisation of functional responsibilities, of finances and of political power. According to the above-mentioned concept, the territorial self-governments shall exert all competencies that are not exclusive competencies of the state or although remaining state responsibilities are delegated to them. The Government has elaborated a detailed package of laws to be adopted or amended (mostly in 2001) as well as a timetable for implementing the reform.

(1) ISBN 92-829-7575-0.

(2001/C 187 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3954/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Minority languages in Slovakia

According to the 1997 Commission opinion on Slovakia’s application for membership of the EU, the various minorities represent between 18 % and 23 % of the population.

The current law on minority languages requires that minorities must represent more than 20 % of the population in the administrative capital of the region concerned for those languages to be treated as joint official languages. Does the Commission take the view that linguistic minorities may be discriminated against as long as they remain below 20 % in an administrative capital? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/91

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The Commission has noted in its two latest Regular Reports (1) that there has been considerable progress in Slovakia in developing a good minority policy, in setting up the appropriate legislation and in establishing and supporting the relevant institutions.

The Law on Minority Language can be seen in this context as an important step forward, bringing back national legislation into conformity with applicable international standards and specific recommendations from the Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe and the Commission. The Commission also welcomes the adoption of the Slovak action plan to prevent all forms of discrimination as well as the initiative of the Slovak government to draft a specific Anti-Discrimination Act.

However, the Commission has remarked a remaining gap between good policy formulation and implementation on the ground. In its last Regular Report, it has called Slovakia on increasing its efforts in implementing legislation in various sectors as well as strengthening budgetary means and on paying more attention to the protection of minorities at the local level.

(1) COM(2000) 711 final, COM(1999) 511 final.

(2001/C 187 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3960/00 by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, and a project in the Prefecture of Ioannina, Epirus

Hydroelectricity Ltd, a subsidiary of TERNA Ltd., intends to build and operate a complex of four hydroelectric plants with a total generating capacity of 19,6 MW at a cost of GRD 13 billion at Tzoumerka in the south-eastern part of the Prefecture of Ioannina between the traditional villages of Kalarrytes, Syrrakos and Matsouki which were designated areas of outstanding natural beauty by the Ministry of Culture in 1975. The village councils of the three communities unanimously expressed their opposition to the company’s plans.

However, despite the fact that they had not received the opinion of the prefectural council on this matter and despite the unanimous decisions by the village councils, the Ministries for the Environment, Development and Agriculture approved the environmental conditions for the project, without taking into account the opinions of these bodies, thereby violating national and Community law.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment specifically provides in Article 6(2) that the public concerned must be given the opportunity to express its opinion before the project is initiated. Article 8 of the same Directive also specifically states that information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure.

Given that Member States are obliged to comply with the above provisions, will the Commission say:

1. What measures has it taken to ensure that the above Directive, and especially Articles 6 and 8 thereof, is implemented in Greece to the letter, and what action does it intend to take to address the violation referred to above?

2. If it has noticed the faulty transposition of the Directive which occurred in 1990 by Ministerial Decision 69269/5387/90, why has it failed to take action for a decade, and will it say what progress has been made in transposing Directive 97/11/EC (2)?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. C 187 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Commission did not have any information about the project denounced by the Honourable Member. On the basis of the information forwarded, the Commission will write to the Greek authorities and ask for details about the impact assessment procedure followed for the project in question.

As far as infringement procedures initiated against Greece are concerned, noting that measures to transpose Directive 97/11/EC (1) were not forthcoming in Greece, the Commission brought the matter before the Court of Justice on 11 October 2000 (case C 2000/374). In addition, considering that the national implementing measures transposing Directive 85/337/EEC (2) in Greece did not comply with the Directive, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure in 1993. The Commission had however to re-examine the objections it had raised in this procedure following improvements made by the Greek authorities in implementing this Directive in the 1990s. Following a new assessment, the Commission has found that some points in the Greek law still do not comply with certain provisions of the Directive and has decided to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

(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). (2) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985).

(2001/C 187 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3967/00 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Environmental degradation of the Hondo Nature Reserve, Alicante, Spain

The Hondo Nature Reserve (‘Parque Natural del Hondo’) is a wetland area located in the province of Alicante, Spain. This area, which is protected by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, has been included in the Natura 2000 network under Directive 92/43/EEC (1), and has been declared an area of ‘Special Bird Protection’ under Directive 79/409/EEC (2).

Despite these protection arrangements, the area is seriously affected by soil and water pollution. In the last few years, especially since 1997, thousands of birds of protected species, including the ‘Flag Species’ Marmaronetta angustrirostris and Oxyura leucocephala, have died (1545 in 1999) as a result of the heavily contaminated water of the Segura River that flows into the Hondo Reserve. The Segura river water currently contains extremely high levels of heavy metals lead, chrome and cadmium as well as dangerous levels of insecticides, herbicides and other pathogenic micro-organisms, according to recent independent studies carried out by the University of Miguel Hernández (Alicante) and the University of Murcia (3).

Very little has been done to date by local and regional authorities to improve this situation and avoid the destruction of the Reserve’s fauna.

What measures has the Commission taken to ensure compliance with the Birds and the Habitat Directives in order to guarantee the protection of the environment, and of the fauna and flora of the Hondo Nature Reserve?

Can the Commission confirm that the competent regional government, the ‘Generalitat Valenciana’, has already received EU funding to protect the Hondo Reserve? If so, from which European programme or fund? Has the Commission assessed whether that funding has been properly used? If not properly used, will the Commission request financial compensation?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (3) See Universitas Miguel Hernandez, División de edafología y química agrícola, Informe sobre la contaminación del río Segura, 22 March 1999; Universidad de Murcia, Departamento de ecología e hidrología, Informe sobre la contaminación de las aguas del río Segura (Vega Baja), 19 July 2000. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/93

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

The ‘El Hondo’ area in question has been classified as a special protection area (SPA) for birds in pursuance of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the protection of wild birds. It is also a natural habitat of Community interest (NHCI) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The area provides a habitat for 70 % of the European population of Marmaronetta angustirrostris. In order to contribute to the protection of the environment the Commission is jointly financing two LIFE-Nature projects in the area: the first relates to the first and second phases of the action programme to conserve El Hondo and Pego-Oliva, for which its financial involvement is € 4 164 million, or in other words 75 % of the total cost; the second concerns the conservation of Marmaronetta angustirrostris, for which the Community’s financial involvement is € 297 435, or in other words 50 % of the total cost.

The aim of this latter project is to ensure that this species is conserved in Valencia, and more especially El Hondo, the Community’s most important habitat for said species.

The monthly monitoring in the area in question should enable the various human activities (shooting, fishing, tourism) to be adapted in the best possible way to the conservation of the species present.

The El Rincón property, bought as part of the first LIFE project has been restored and should become a habitat of great importance to the long-term conservation of the species present in the area. Since that property will be managed by the administration (ban on shooting, regulated access) and possesses the freshwater resources needed in order suitably to manage the water levels, it is highly probable that it will, in future, become one of the most important parts of the SPA in terms of Marmaronetta angustirrostris and Oxyura leucocephala reproduction.

Moreover, the Valencia Administration has implemented SPA forms of management at El Hondo (some of which have been jointly financed under the LIFE-Nature project) which have enabled the number of nesting pairs of both species to increase very considerably in recent years: in the case of Marmaronetta angustirrostris, for example, the number has changed from 46 pairs in 1996 to 91 in 1997, and finally to 164 in 1998. The data for 1999 show that this species is reproducing less because of the poor quality of the water in this wetland.

The action taken by the area manager (a ban on shooting over a major part of the SPA, land purchase in order to restore the habitat, monitoring, etc.) have enabled the Marmaronetta angustirrostris population to increase very significantly.

It is true, as regards the water and problems connected with species mortality, that two epidemics have broken out in recent years, probably because of the poor quality of the water in this wetland. It must not be forgotten that this is a lagoon used to store irrigation water from the mouth of the Segura, which is water of very low quality. This problem will only be solved when alternative, better-quality, water resources are available. However, since that river’s basin is very heavily in deficit it seems very difficult to imagine that a solution will be found in the near future.

In both cases the authorities responsible for managing the SPA have taken what action they can in order to reduce the effects of those epidemics (corpse collection and incineration, relevant analyses, population monitoring etc.).

So far the projects have operated well and the recipient has shown a real interest in completing all of the work.

Moreover, in more general terms, it must be pointed out that, on 24 November 2000, the Commission approved a national rural development programme concerning the concomitant activities covering € 2 223 million to be paid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). This programme, to apply nationally, includes, in particular, agri-environmental activities intended to grant aid C 187 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

to farmers applying agricultural production practices that are particularly favourable towards the environment. These include measures that are intended to reduce pesticide and fertiliser presence, used crops for the protection of flora and fauna more widely and withdraw land from production in order to create reserved sectors which may help to improve the protection of the environment, more particularly in the province of Valencia referred to by the Honourable Member.

(2001/C 187 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3968/00 by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Fiscal incentives for energy-efficient cars

A new generation of environmentally friendly vehicles using hybrid technologies is now becoming commercially available. Can the Commission confirm that Member States are free to apply lower VAT rates or offer other fiscal incentives to encourage consumers to buy these vehicles, given their initially higher cost than conventional cars?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

VAT law does not currently allow a reduced rate to be applied to such vehicles. Reduced rates are confined to goods specifically mentioned in the Directive, which do not include the vehicles in question. However, the new VAT strategy does hold out the possibility, in the medium term, of reviewing and rationalising the rules and derogations applying to the definition of reduced rates (1). Particular attention will be given to the use of reduced VAT rates in pursuit of various Community policies (e.g. to help protect the environment, promote employment, etc.).

Some Member States do offer tax incentives, in the form of lower registration or road taxes, for the new generation of environmentally friendly vehicles. Such national rules obviously have to comply with the EC Treaty, and in particular the principle of non-discrimination. Community law governing the emission requirements for different types of motor vehicles (passenger cars, heavy duty vehicles) specifies the conditions under which Member States can grant fiscal incentives to more environmentally advanced vehicles and to vehicles which comply in advance with future mandatory emission standards (2). Directive 1999/96/EC also introduces the concept of ‘enhanced environmentally friendly vehicles’ (EEVs), in order to promote technologies which go beyond future mandatory standards. The Commission is currently investigating the possibility of either extending the scope of the EEV scheme or of developing a similar EEV scheme to cover passenger cars.

The Commission is aware of the importance of the issue and will therefore be presenting a communication later this year on motor vehicle taxation in the Community to start a debate on what can be done at national and Community level, taking account of the Community’s commitments and objective in different fields, among them the environment.

(1) COM(2000) 348 final (unpublished but available at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/publications/offi- cial_doc/com/taxation/com.htm). (2) Directive 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 (OJ L 350, 28.12.1998); Directive 1999/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive ignition engines fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles and amending Council Directive 88/77/EEC (OJ L 44, 16.2.2000). 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/95

(2001/C 187 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3971/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Transport of live farm animals

With regard to the enforcement by the Commission of legislation intended to safeguard the welfare of farm animals being transported within the EU, can it indicate, for each of the past five years:

1. (a) the budget sought by the Commission to fund the work of inspectors to ensure compliance with the legislation?

(b) the sum actually spent by the Commission on inspections?

2. whether it is seeking a greater allocation of funds to enable it to step up its activities in this field?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

With regard to enforcement by the Commission of Community legislation to safeguard the welfare of animals being transported within the EU, inspections are carried out by inspectors from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), which is a Directorate of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General.

The Commission does not have a specific budget to fund the work of inspectors in enforcing Community legislation on the transport of live farm animals. Inspections are financed through the Commission’s budget and are made up of staff salary and travel and subsistence allowances for inspectors and Member State experts who participate in the inspections.

Currently four inspectors from FVO are employed exclusively to carry out inspections on animal welfare, including transport of live animals. Animal welfare also forms part of the wider inspection activities of the FVO. For instance, FVO inspections of Community border inspection posts take into account aspects such as the staffing and facilities provided to ensure that animals are examined for fitness for import. Route plans are also verified during these missions. In addition to public health issues, the FVO inspections of abattoirs include aspects of animal welfare during transport. It is therefore not possible to isolate readily the costs associated with animal welfare missions from other missions.

In 2000, ten FVO missions were specifically dedicated to animal welfare issues. This compares with seven missions in the same field in 1999. Six of the missions in 2000 featured controls of animal transport. In addition, two missions were carried out in December 2000 by the FVO to check the operation of the controls for the export refunds for live cattle, including compliance with the requirements for animal transport.

Given the range of FVO responsibilities, especially those on food safety and animal health, there are no immediate plans to further increase the resources allocated within the FVO to the animal welfare area. Any further increase could only be accommodated through corresponding reductions in other priority areas.

In addition to the above, under budget line B1-331 ‘other measures in the veterinary, animal welfare and public-health field’, it is planned to commit around € 700 000 for the animal welfare area during 2001. Of this, € 400 000 is intended for a certain number of studies related to the protection of animals during C 187 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

transport and € 300 000 for a socio-economic study based on the provisions of Council Directive 1999/ 74/EC of 19 July 1999, on the protection of laying hens (1). Prior to 2001 no specific commitments on this budget line or its predecessors have been made for actions (i.e. projects or studies) related specifically to animal welfare.

(1) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.

(2001/C 187 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3977/00 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Minimum age-limit of the working population

In Directive 1897/2000 (1) concerning the operational definition of unemployment, the working population is designated as comprising persons in the age-group 15 to 64.

In most European Union Member States young persons remain in compulsory education until age 16.

Taking that into consideration, can the Commission explain:

1. The circumstances under which young persons at age 15 are designated as already forming part of the working population, whereas in most European Union Member States they are still in compulsory education at that age?

2. In which Member States young people remain in compulsory education only until age 15?

(1) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000, p. 18.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

1. The reference to 15 years as the bottom age limit for defining the working population is a recognised standard used in accordance with international recommendations from the International Labour Organisa- tion.

There is a need to ensure consistency in the measurement of unemployment and employment, also for ease of international comparison. In that regard, adjusting the definition of the bottom age limit for the working population to the age when compulsory schooling ends, presents some drawbacks. For example, in some Member States, in particular those having a well developed initial vocational training system in a work situation (dual system), the line between compulsory schooling and work can be difficult to draw.

The Commission is aware of the situation regarding education systems and compulsory schooling as well as of the trend towards longer stay in education and training. One concern is that in the perspective of a knowledge-based economy and society as defined by the Lisbon European Council, the objectives in terms of higher employment rates for the Community should not conflict with the need to ensure that young people achieve minimum educational qualifications beyond compulsory schooling.

2. In Sweden and Austria, compulsory schooling is not defined in terms of an age limit but in terms of a minimum number of years in education. However, in these cases, information on the starting age for education permits calculation of the average age for completion of compulsory schooling.

According to the most recent information (1999-2000) from Eurydice (the information network on education in Europe), the end of compulsory schooling is still 15 in Greece, Ireland, Italy (after recent change), Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/97

(2001/C 187 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3979/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: ’Western Landfill Utility’ (Aterro sanitário do Oeste)

The Movement for Proper Information about the Western Landfill Utility (MPI), which has its headquarters in the Vilar local government building, in Cadaval (Portugal), has lodged a complaint with the European Commission’s Directorate General for Regional Policy, about the procedure used to select this landfill site, located in the Torres Vedras groundwater recharge area, which could prove harmful to local groundwater resources.

As specialists have pointed out, and as I was able to establish on a recent visit to the site, there are alternatives in the vicinity which would not entail the same environmental, social and economic costs as this site, on which building work has already begun and whose boundary is next to a small residential area.

There has been no public debate or prior environmental impact assessment of the project. Moreover, the Cadaval Municipal Council voted against this site.

The Commission:

1. What is it’s position on the complaint submitted by the Movement for Proper Information about the Western Landfill Utility?

2. What measures are to be taken to ensure that any Community funding will only be granted once it has been shown that the site selected for the Western Landfill Utility is the one which entails the lowest cost and the least harmful environmental and social impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answer to Written Question P-3498/00 from Mr Jorge Moreira da Silva (1).

The Commission can in fact add that the Portuguese authorities have recently replied to the Commission’s letter. As an annex to their reply, the Portuguese authorities have sent a copy of all studies carried out on their initiative for the purpose of analysing any impact the project might have on various environmental resources.

Furthermore, the Commission has also had additional informal contacts with the complainants’ representative and the Portuguese authorities in order to shed light on the project’s implications, in particular as regards the protection of aquifers and human health.

Lastly, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is currently examining all the information in its possession in order to take a decision on the case as soon as possible.

The Commission reserves the right to ask the national authorities for repayment of any co-funding in the event of non-compliance with Community law.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 141. C 187 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3980/00 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: European comparison of job descriptions and training of health and hygiene inspectors

A particularly important factor in ensuring consumer protection throughout Europe is the implementation and monitoring of European and national rules, as the awful cases of BSE have demonstrated once again. The training of those groups of individuals who are responsible for carrying out checks, by taking samples for example, is an especially important aspect of this process. As far as I am aware, the job descriptions of such individuals vary widely from one Member State to another.

Which groups are responsible in the individual Member States for carrying out such checks and taking samples on the spot, for example, in respect of

the bathing water directive,

the directive on water for human consumption, and

the provisions on hygiene under food legislation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

The principles for the performance of official controls of foodstuffs are laid down in a number of Directives. In a general way, Council Directives 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989, on the official control of foodstuffs (1) and 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993, on the subject of additional measures concerning official controls of foodstuffs (2), apply. The basic principle of these Directives is that ‘Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities have, or have access to, a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff, in particular in areas such as chemistry, food chemistry, veterinary medicine, food microbiology, food hygiene, food technology and law, so that the controls can be carried out adequately’.

Food of animal origin such as meat, milk, dairy products, fishery products shall be controlled by the authority of the Member States responsible for carrying out veterinary checks or by any authority to which it has been delegated. Meat in particular shall be submitted to ante- and post-mortem inspections by veterinarians, possibly assisted by qualified auxiliaries. In as far as the occupation of veterinary surgeon is concerned, Directive 78/1026/EEC (3) applies: minimum co-ordination of training allowing automatic recognition of diplomas for veterinary surgeons without definition of their field of activity.

Most other professions are covered by the General System for the recognition of diplomas under directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC (4). These Directives allow Member States to maintain their own standards and to require migrants to make up for any substantial differences in education and training through an aptitude test or period of supervised practice.

The Commission intends, as announced in the White Paper on Food Safety (5), to submit to the Parliament and the Council a proposal on official feed and food controls.

This proposal will establish a Community framework for official controls on all feed and food safety aspects along the feed and food chain by:

merging and completing existing rules for national controls and inspections within the Community, at the external borders of the Community and in third countries,

integrating existing monitoring and surveillance systems so as to establish a comprehensive and effective food safety monitoring and surveillance system from farm to table, 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/99

establishing a framework for organising annual programmes for controls of feed and food,

merging existing rules on mutual assistance and administrative co-operation.

It is also intended to integrate within this proposal the operational criteria for authorities that are in charge of performing official controls. This proposal will therefore improve on existing Directives, by defining the qualifications of feed and food controlling authorities.

On drinking water, the 1998 Drinking Water Directive (6) sets quality standards for drinking water and for requirements for monitoring, as well as requirements for the analytical quality control. Of particular importance in the context raised are the provisions on analytical quality control. Laboratories at which samples are analysed have to have a system of analytical quality control to be checked by a certified person or institution approved by the responsible authority for that purpose. Member States have the binding and enforceable obligation to implement these provisions, whilst at the same time they have the choice as regards the organisation (central, regional or local approach). As a conclusion the Directive sets the targets to be achieved, but leaves the way to achieve these to Member States.

On bathing water, the 1976 Bathing Water Directive (7) has achieved considerable improvements in the quality of bathing waters. However, it is now outdated both as regards science and technology and managerial approach. Inter alia, provisions on sampling and quality assurance are vague.

Consequently the Commission has started a thorough review process along the same lines as the recently adopted Water Framework Directive (8), i.e. Communication Consultation with stakeholders Con- ference Legislative Proposal. As a first step, the Commission has adopted on 21 December 2000 a Communication to Parliament and Council ‘Developing a New Bathing Water Policy’ (9).

Principal elements of a new Directive will be legally binding quality values aiming at a high level of protection, coherence with the new Water Framework Directive, information and participation of the public, as well as quality management and quality assurance supporting those objectives.

(1) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989. (2) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993. (3) OJ L 362, 23.12.1978. (4) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989 and OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992. (5) COM(1999) 719 final. (6) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3.11.1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ L 330, 5.12.1998). (7) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976). (8) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23.10.2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000). (9) COM(2000) 860 final.

(2001/C 187 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3982/00 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Advisability of exploratory talks between the Commission and the UN representative for Equatorial Guinea

On 23 November last I met Mr Gustavo Gallón Giraldo, the UN representative for Equatorial Guinea, in Madrid.

Unlikely as it may sound, Mr Giraldo was in Madrid because the government of Equatorial Guinea had not authorised him to visit the country in order to carry out his duties. C 187 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The UN representative is drawing up his forthcoming report on the situation in Equatorial Guinea in preparation for the meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in the spring.

Does the Commission not think that it would be advisable to have official, regular contact with the UN representative for Equatorial Guinea?

Does such contact already exist? If not, is it to be established in the future?

Does the Commission believe that an exchange of information and views on the situation of democratic principles and human rights in Equatorial Guinea could usefully be held with Mr Giraldo?

Would it not be appropriate to extend a formal invitation to him to visit Brussels to supplement the EU’s impressions following the meeting between Romano Prodi and Teodoro Obiang?

Does the Commission intend to ask Malabo to explain why the UN representative was denied authorisation to enter the country?

Is the report of the EU mission which has visited Equatorial Guinea in the autumn already available?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

The Commission already has regular contacts with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which acts as the secretariat for the Special Representative of the UN Commission on Human Rights for Equatorial Guinea, Gustavo Gallon Giraldo. This dialogue provides an opportunity for the exchange of information.

The Commission shares and supports the position and views of the UN Human Rights Commission and the Special Representative for Equatorial Guinea. The Commission has strongly urged the government of Equatorial Guinea to commit itself to following the recommendations made.

The press release issued after the meeting between the President of the Commission and President Obiang expressly states that an assessment of the situation in Equatorial Guinea would be carried out in a year’s time and the participation of the Special Representative of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and Special Rapporteurs had been requested.

All information in the Commission’s possession has already been forwarded to the Special Representative, and a written answer has been given to his letter of 2 October 2000 concerning the Commission’s human rights activities in Equatorial Guinea.

The Commission underlined the importance of the mission of the Special Representative and other Rapporteurs in its letter to the President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea of 14 September 2000.

On learning that the government of Equatorial Guinea had not renewed its invitation to the Special Representative to visit the country in 2000, the Commission sent the Embassy of Equatorial Guinea a further letter on 15 December 2000 expressing its concern.

Reports on the three components of the joint Community-Interparliamentary Union mission of September/ October 2000 are available. However the summary report which will form the basis for a financing proposal has not yet been finalised. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/101

(2001/C 187 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3986/00 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Use of funds under Law No 488

Given that:

pursuant to Law No 488, under which EU funding is available, the Parma-based company Manguro has submitted 452 applications for funding in respect of projects which seem to be virtually identical (identical administrator, identical capital, identical application for funding);

this deed has given rise to much concern amongst the general public and repeated calls for clarification have come from institutions, trade unions, economic operators and political circles;

if the projects submitted were accepted, they would absorb most of the funds allocated under Law No 488 (industry sector);

a similar deed could be effected under the same law applied to tourism, whereas it is the wish of all concerned that the errors of the past should not be repeated;

a few days ago the twentieth anniversary of the earthquake was commemorated; although this brought back memories of sound practices in both reconstruction and development work, it also recalled the fraudulent activities of certain entrepreneurs,

can the Commission say whether or not it intends to look into the above situation and, if necessary, to take appropriate decisions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The Italian Industry Ministry, the authority responsible for managing the ‘Sviluppo imprenditoriale locale’ programme in 2000-06, has provided the Commission with the following information.

By 31 October 2000, the deadline for the submission of applications for 2000, 12 400 applications had been received of which 452 were related applications from the Manguro consultancy company. These concerned investment programmes submitted by 242 different firms in a wide variety of sectors of production. They all had common features, such as the intensity of aid applied for, total expenditure, the number of jobs to be created, turnover and the timetable for implementation. Furthermore, all 242 firms had their head office in Emilia-Romagna, the same administrator and a small capital and most were inactive and without employees.

Consideration of these applications began on 1 November 2000. This procedure is hedged about with rules and covers the formal, technical, economic and financial aspects of the investment programmes to ensure that assistance goes to the most deserving cases. Under the Italian Law 488/92, it is not possible to exclude the submission of certain applications but each investment programme is rigorously assessed to determine the reliability of the firm, the technical and economic soundness of the programme proposed, the soundness of the financing plan and the market outlets.

At the end of this three-month examination, the banks undertaking it will make a final decision, in favour or against. On the basis of these elements alone, more specific evaluations may be made of the different investment programmes. The existing rules contain the provisions needed to enable the banks involved to undertake rigorous evaluations and this has applied to all the applications submitted, including those coordinated by the Manguro company which, because of the points listed above, will be considered with all due attention.

The Commission will monitor this matter carefully and seek further information from the Italian authorities on the results of this examination. C 187 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3987/00 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Consequences of the BSE crisis for the veal sector

The new BSE crisis has once again caused major problems on the EU beef market. The veal sector is also seriously affected by these market problems. Dutch veal producers who depend to a large extent on exports within the EU have seen these exports fall by over 30 %. As a result only a limited number of the veal calves which are ready for slaughter can be sent for slaughter. This situation cannot be prolonged in the veal calf enterprises, not least in welfare terms. Alternative marketing possibilities should therefore be created in the short-term so that it is once again possible to slaughter calves.

1. Does the Commission recognise that the current market problems resulting from the BSE crisis are not restricted to the beef sector but are also affecting the veal sector?

2. Does the Commission share the view that in order to prevent subsequent severe disruption of the markets it is better to adopt market provisions in good time and thus also prevent welfare problems?

3. Is the Commission also willing, now that it intends to adopt measures to support the beef market (private storage for cows, buying in arrangements for cattle over 30 months old and intervention for male adult bovine animals), to adopt measures to support the veal sector?

4. Does the Commission share the view that private storage of veal can be an effective and relatively cheap measure in order to deal with the problems on the market for veal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

The questions put by the Honourable Member with regard to the veal sector reflect the general concern expressed recently by the industry.

The Commission is deeply concerned about the serious impact which the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) situation has had and still has on the Community market for beef and veal. From the market information available it seems nevertheless that the Community veal market is somewhat less affected by the crisis than the production, consumption and export of beef. Substantially higher prices for veal indicate a degree of confidence among veal consumers, which is not matched by beef consumers.

Forward planning is always the better tool in market management but unfortunately the good objectives are sometimes overtaken by events beyond our control.

With a limited budget available in 2001 for beef and veal, priority in terms of market support should be given to the sector most affected by the BSE crisis. The veal sector still obtains relatively good prices on the market on top of the slaughter premium for veal introduced as part of the Agenda 2000 reform. Measures intended to regain consumers’ confidence should equally have a positive effect on the demand for veal.

Private storage for veal may not in itself always be a cost efficient measure. The experience from 1996 which has been the only year where aid for private storage (APS) for veal has been implemented indicated that a huge amount of aid (approximately three times as high as the normal private storage aid for beef) was needed in order to attract interest from the veal producers. The post-evaluation of the scheme did not confirm that the veal market improved substantially because of the private storage aid and due to the nature of the product and the current trade structure a similar conclusion may be drawn with regard to the present problems. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/103

(2001/C 187 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3991/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Swedish ban on alcohol advertising

The Court of Justice is soon to hear a case concerning the Swedish ban on alcohol advertising. According to Swedish press reports, the Commission considers that the ban should be lifted.

Can the Commission set out the reasons why it wishes to see the Swedish ban on alcohol advertising lifted?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court) has asked the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on whether Community law on free movement of goods and freedom to provide services allows a national legislation entailing a ban on advertising alcoholic beverages like the Swedish one. The Commission has been invited to submit observations and has given its views on the legal implications on the application of the national legislation. It has not questioned that a ban on advertising alcoholic beverages may be justified to protect the health of the general public. Concerns have been raised as regards the proportionality of the application of the legislation, depending on the circumstances in the case. The Commission’s observations are summarised by the Advocate General Mr Jacobs in his Opinion given on 14 December 2000 (case C-405/98). The Commission has not taken any formal position regarding whether or not the ban should be lifted. The Court of Justice will finally give a judgement.

(2001/C 187 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3998/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Delays in the development of organic farming in Greece

A memorandum from the organisation for the inspection and certification of organic produce in Greece claims that the implementation of agro-environmental measures (organic farming), which is 75 % funded by the European Union, is significantly behind schedule. In particular, while the three-year programme for 1998-2000 provides for the cultivation of 14 000 hectares, only 3 000 hectares had been made available for organic farming by June 2000.

1. What data does the Commission have concerning the area over which agro-environmental measures have been implemented to date?

2. What amount of funds were earmarked in the 2nd CSF for aid to organic farming in Greece and what proportion of those funds has Greece taken up to date?

3. To what are the delays attributable and what consequences will they have?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The initial organic farming programme which Greece submitted under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of C 187 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside (1) was approved in July 1995 for 6 000 hectares (ha). An amended version of the programme, submitted in 1998 and approved in January 1999, increased that area by 14 000 ha. Of the 20 000 ha covered by the programme overall, farmers entered into agri-environmental commitments in respect of organic farming on 9 332 ha up to the end of 1999.

Of the € 13,7 million total budget for the initial and amended versions of the organic farming programme during the period 1995-1999, approximately € 7,4 million was paid to recipients by 31 December 1999. It should be added that the Community appropriations for the programme did not form part of the second Community support framework, since common agricultural policy (CAP) accompanying measures including agri-environment measures are part-financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

In view of the above, the Commission does not consider the delays to the Greek organic farming programme under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 to be significant particularly since the amended version of the programme was not approved until January 1999 and was therefore in effect operative (as regards entering into agri-environmental commitments) for only one farm year. The three-year programme to which the Honourable Member refers was, in practice, barely a one-year programme. It should also be pointed out that the programme is not primarily intended to supply the market with organic products (which is in fact the certification bodies’ main concern) but rather to provide an environmental service to society, the latter being the objective of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92. The combination of these two objectives therefore makes the selection of recipients more demanding and rigorous.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2001/C 187 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3999/00 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Heritage and museum railways

Would the Commission agree that throughout the European Union heritage and museum railways play an important part in preserving our industrial heritage and in providing a service to tourists, young and old. With this in mind, would the Commission consider giving a blanket derogation to these railways from any future EU transport regulations or directives, in order that they may authentically preserve Europe’s railway heritage?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Heritage and museum railways are part of the European industrial and cultural heritage. The Commission shares the view that this heritage should be preserved and made accessible to the public.

The European legislation, in particular the recent proposals for directives on rail transport (mentioned below), does not prevent the preservation of historic railways.

The proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans- European conventional rail system (1) only covers new equipment or the upgrading of existing equipment. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/105

Moreover, the so-called Infrastructure Package clearly mentions certain derogations which could cover the case of heritage and museum railways: Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (2) as amended (3) states that ‘Member States may exclude from the scope of this Directive railway undertakings whose activity is limited to the provision of solely urban, suburban or regional services’. The proposal for a Council Directive (3) replacing Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees (4) states that Member States may exclude from its scope the local and stand-alone networks used for passenger transport. Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 on the licensing of railway undertakings (4)as amended (3) states as well that Member States may exclude from its scope railway undertakings which only operate rail passenger services on local and stand-alone railway infrastructure.

Consequently the existence of heritage and museum railways, running most of the time on local and stand- alone infratructures, is not endangered by any Community legislation.

The Commission will also continue to bear in mind the existence of heritage and museum railways when drafting future legislation.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000. (2) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. (3) OJ C 321, 20.10.1998. (4) OJ L 143, 27.6.1995.

(2001/C 187 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4000/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Clothes labelling

Could the Commission provide details of the labelling requirements which apply to clothes imported into Japan and the USA?

Could the Commission explain why similar provisions do not exist in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2001)

When clothes are exported to Japan or the United States, the following information has to be provided on a permanently attached label: the percentage of the fibres used in the product; care instructions; the country of origin; information on the manufacturer and/or importer.

At European level, the only legal instrument relating to textile labelling is Directive 96/74/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on textile names (1), as amended by Commission Directive 97/37/EC of 19 June 1997 (2). Textile products may be marketed within the Community only if their fibre composition is indicated in accordance with that Directive.

Apart from labelling on fibre composition, Member States are free to apply national provisions on the protection of industrial and commercial property, indications of provenance, marks of origin and the prevention of unfair competition. C 187 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

As regards the specific case of ‘origin marking’, the Court of Justice has ruled that the labelling of national origins of products produced within the Community (such as ‘made in [Member State]’) must not be made mandatory within the Community, since this would have to be considered a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited by Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty (3).

However, Community operators are free to indicate, on a voluntary basis, the national origin of their product, or specify that their product has been ‘made in EU’. They may also use the ‘made in EU’ marking if the product has been manufactured in more than one Member State.

The value of further mandatory labelling requirements at Community level has not yet been established and remains a controversial issue among the different actors concerned. In any event, any such labelling requirements would have to comply with World trade organisation (WTO) requirements and, in particular, not be contrary to the obligation of national treatment.

While endeavouring to keep mandatory administrative requirements to a minimum, the Commission is planning to examine, together with interested parties, ways of improving the existing labelling regime.

(1) OJ L 32, 3.2.1997. (2) OJ L 169, 27.6.1997. (3) Case 207/83.

(2001/C 187 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4004/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Reform of the Commission

On 30 November last, the European Parliament adopted its four reports on the White Paper on the reform of the Commission, forwarded to it on 13 March. Parliament is thus making a very positive contribution to the reform of the Commission’s organisational structure and working methods, without undermining the autonomy which the Commission, like all the Union institutions, enjoys as a matter of principle when it comes to equipping itself with the requisite wherewithal to deal as effectively as possible with the tasks and duties assigned to it by the Treaties.

Taking due account of the Commission’s right to autonomy and, at the same time, of Parliament’s obligation to exercise scrutiny over the Commission, what is the Commission’s estimated deadline for providing Parliament with descriptions of the duties of all A1 and A2 grade officials? When will it provide Parliament with the provisional staff plan showing all movements of staff such as retirements, early retirements, internal transfers, hiring of new staff, etc., for the period during which the administrative reform is being implemented? And finally, when does the Commission expect the internal audit service to become 100 % operational, so that the audit reports will be available as quickly as possible and with a certain degree of regularity?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

The ‘job descriptions’ pilot exercise launched in the summer applies to all posts, including A1 and A2 posts. The complex task of evaluating this pilot phase for all posts at the Commission, originally scheduled for November 2000, has not yet been completed.

It is expected that it will be finalised in March 2001, and, following that, final guidelines will be drawn up for job descriptions and the setting of objectives, which will enable the entire exercise to be concluded by the end of the summer at the latest. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/107

The number of posts for Commission staff authorised in the 2000 budget was 17 087 in the operating budget, 2 080 for the Joint Research Centre and 1 624 for indirect actions.

The 2001 budget provides for an additional 400 posts, to which should be added 100 posts to be funded by converting appropriations for external personnel into permanent posts, making a total of 500 additional posts in the operating budget. The indicative breakdown of authorised posts by policy area is shown in the 2001 budget for the Commission (Chapter A-11 ‘Staff in active employment’).

The Commission has proposed an ad hoc termination-of-service scheme (dégagement) under which 600 officials would definitively leave the service of the Commission in 2001-02. The Commission would keep only 43 out of every 100 posts thus freed, making a net reduction of 57 posts occupied for every 100 officials terminating their service.

The actual number of posts occupied will depend on recruitment to the new posts requested and the number of departures. The latter is estimated as follows:

Estimated number of departures

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Officials retiring at 65 105 100 95 95 95 Other departures (retirement at 60-65, invalidity, transfer to another Institution, etc.) 465 480 495 495 495 Total number of departures 570 580 590 590 590

These are indicative estimates in the very nature of such matters: the precise dates of departure cannot be determined in advance.

Taking into account the additions to the posts authorised for 2001 and the above-mentioned termination- of-service exercise, the estimated recruitment requirement comes to circa 1 200 in 2001 and slightly less than that in 2002.

The Commission would point out that it recruited a total of 1 110 people in 1997, 1 030 in 1998 and 950 in 1999.

It is accordingly expected that the recruitment targets will be met.

The Commission formally created the new Internal Audit Service (IAS) service on 11 April 2000 and adopted an organisation chart (1). By 1 May 2000 all the necessary steps had been taken with regard to logistics, administrative appropriations and Information Technology (IT) equipment, the basic methodology had been determined and the first 18 members of audit staff had been selected. The Internal Audit Service was fully operational in mid-September 2000 with a Director (A2), two Audit Supervisors (A3) and 18 auditors.

Following a full procedure of advertisement and selection, the Commission appointed the new Head of the IAS, Mr Jules Muis (A1), on 21 December 2000. He is likely to take up his duties towards the end of March 2001. The IAS will reach its full staffing level of 80 in the course of 2001 once suitable candidates have been selected through an open competition which is currently under preparation. The three remaining Audit Supervisor posts are expected to be filled by September 2001.

From April 2001 onwards the IAS will move towards an approach based on risk assessments while at the same time carrying out a complete cycle of in-depth audits of the Commission’s internal control systems. The IAS expects to complete this cycle by the end of 2002 (2).

(1) SEC(2000) 560. (2) Not including the above-mentioned termination-of-service scheme. C 187 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4007/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Sewer in Borriana

Borriana, a township in the Valencian Autonomous Community, has over 26 000 inhabitants. The town has a waste water treatment plant and a system of sewers to feed it. Most of the inhabitants live in the inner part of the town, while the areas along the shorefront house some 4 000 people on an all-year-round basis, rising to between 14 000 and 15 000 in the summer months because the town is in a tourist area.

The northern part of the shorefront residential area is only a few meters from the beach. Classified as a ‘single-family residential zone’, with a large number of households, it possesses neither sewers nor any form of waste water treatment for the waste produced by these households. Despite repeated requests from the local people, for the last three years Borriana town council has been holding up the construction of the sewer which would take the waste water to the existing treatment plant, and prevent it going straight into the Mediterranean.

Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment obliges the Member States to guarantee that all agglomerations with a ‘population equivalent’ of over 2 000 be provided with collecting and treatment systems for urban waste water; furthermore, for sensitive regions with over 10 000 inhabitants, these systems had to be operational by 31 December 1998. For non- sensitive areas of over 15 000 inhabitants, the deadline is 31 December 2000. Borriana town council cannot possibly meet these deadline given its continuing dilatoriness in constructing the Avenida de la Constitución sewer.

The town council’s failure to meet the Directive’s provisions is damaging the environment on the whole of the Borriana shoreline; the sea is quite badly polluted not only by household waste water but by water from three irrigation ditches into which flows not only water from the township but also the run-off from the irrigation of the citrus orchards and waste from various small businesses which also use the ditches as sewers.

The deterioration of the coast within the Borriana municipal boundaries is causing significant damage to marine flora and fauna and to the beaches. What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that environmental requirements are met within the deadline laid down by Directive 91/271/EEC?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment requires Member States to ensure that all built-up areas having more than 2 000 inhabitant equivalents (IE) (an inhabitant equivalent is a unit for measuring organic pollution representing the average pollution produced by one person per day) are provided with a system for collecting and treating urban waste water. The basic treatment level required is secondary treatment (i.e. biological). Thus built-up areas with more than 15 000 IE must have been provided with a secondary collection and treatment system by 31 December 2000. Built-up areas with more than 10 000 IE which discharge their waste water into bodies of water identified as sensitive by the Member States must have been provided with a collection system and a form of treatment that is more stringent than secondary by 31 December 1998. The smallest built-up areas have up to 31 December 2005 in which to acquire a collection and treatment system. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/109

The Commission has just completed its checks on the situation as regards the first deadline of 31 December 1998 and will very soon publish a report setting out the results of those checks, together with the treatment situation in all of the major European cities having more than 150 000 IE.

The Borriana conurbation, in the Valencia Autonomous Community in Spain, which, according to the Honourable Member, has more than 26 000 inhabitants, discharges its effluents into a non-sensitive area. The deadline for collecting and treating those effluents was thus 31 December 2000.

The Commission has just begun checking the situation in all of the conurbations affected by the deadline of 31 December 2000. The Commission is already aware that, apart from the Borriana conurbation, a certain number of Spanish conurbations had not met the requirements of the Directive by that deadline. When those checks have been made the Commission will, where appropriate, launch an infringement procedure against Spain for failure to meet the 31 December 2000 deadline.

(2001/C 187 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4009/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Greenhouses in the Cabo de Gata habitat area

Is the Commission aware that the Spanish government has proposed designating the Cabo de Gata nature park in Almeria, Andalusia, as a natural habitat area?

Is the Commission moreover aware that intensive greenhouse agriculture is being practised illegally within the Cabo de Gata nature park?

Is the Commission aware that there are plans by the regional government to legalise the said greenhouses after 2002?

Does the Commission agree that any such action would conflict with the provisions of the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Commission had not been aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member.

This area had been put forward by Spain as a site of Community relevance (SCR) under reference ES 000046 ‘Cabo de Gata-Nijar’ for its inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, in pursuance of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (1).

Article 6.3 of said Directive states that any project that is not necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site, but is likely to have a significant effect thereon, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

The Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for information on the project referred to above in order to check the proper implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC in this instance.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. C 187 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4021/00 by Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Finnish environmental rules on packaging hinder competition

The deposit system on aluminium cans and PET bottles in Sweden has been criticised because it hinders imports and restricts competition on the Swedish market. That being so, it is noticeable that the Commission has not intervened at all in the ‘environmental levies’ in use in Finland which apply to the same products. In order to have access to the Finnish market, foreign producers have to pay a FIM 6 (€ 1,01) per bottle environmental levy, which amounts to a supplement of some 200 % on the product price.

In the light of the above, how does the Commission justify approval of the Finnish environmental levy, considering that it considerably weakens the competitive position of foreign producers in Finland?he

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

Concerning the Swedish deposit system, the Commission is not aware of what criticism the Honourable Member refers to. In any case, there is currently no indication that this system is not in conformity with Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste (1) or the EC Treaty.

Concerning the Finnish system, two facts should be specified. Firstly, the supplementary levy for beverages which do not belong to an approved recycling or re-use system amounts to FIM 4 per litre (and not FIM 6 per bottle). Secondly, the supplementary levy is applicable not only to foreign products but also to products of domestic origin.

Concerning the compatibility of the system of the Finnish supplementary levy with the Directive and the internal market rules, the Commission is at present examining the issue on the basis of registered complaints.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 187 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4022/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) and Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 January 2001)

Subject: Abolition of tax privileges for staff in the diplomatic service

Provisions governing diplomatic privileges are laid down in the 1961 Vienna Convention. During the past few months, the undersigned have repeatedly forwarded written questions to the Commission, arguing that this Convention has since become outdated and should be reviewed, in particular with the aim of resolving the issue as to whether existing privileges are at all justified in the prevailing EU internal market.

In its answers, the Commission (in particular see E-1996/00) constantly referred to the fact that the abolition or revision of diplomatic privileges would call for an amendment to current Community legislation and at the same time would require a unanimous Council decision.

Does the Council intend to review the diplomatic privileges which are certainly no longer justified in today’s EU internal market? Will it also be considering the relevance of the 1961 Vienna Convention in connection with efforts to bring about a reform of the Commission? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/111

(24 April 2001)

Under Community legislation, exemption from VAT and excise duty may be granted by way of diplomatic privilege in accordance with the rules of customary international law, as codified by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Community is under a duty to abide by these rules. (See ECJ judgment of 16 June 1998, paragraph 45).

In terms of the single market, supposing there were no longer felt to be any justification for granting exemption to Member States’ missions to other Member States, current Community legislation would have to be amended first, and this would require a unanimous Council vote on a Commission proposal. However, this would presuppose that the Member States had agreed not to apply, as between themselves, the relevant provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention, which are binding on them under international law. The Council has not received any indication to that effect, nor, to date, any Commission proposals for amendment of the relevant exemption provisions of Directives 77/388/EEC (6th VAT Directive) and 92/ 12/EEC (products subject to excise duty). Moreover, the Commission has made known (reply to Written Question E-1996/99) that it does not intend to submit any proposals on this issue in the near future.

(2001/C 187 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4028/00 by Angelika Niebler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of the law on advertising in the European Community

This May the European Parliament adopted the Directive on electronic commerce at second reading. The Directive centres on the country of origin principle under which persons offering goods and services over the internet only have to obey the rules on advertising applying in the country of where they are established. In view of the differing legislation on advertising in the Member States this can produce discrimination against nationals of a country where advertising regulations are strict such as the Federal Republic of Germany.

The strict advertising laws in Germany include a Discount Act and a Free Gift Act. The German Free Gift Act, which requires the offer of a free gift not to be made dependent on purchase of the principal article being advertised, would appear to be an inadmissible obstacle to the free trade in goods via the internet. This far-reaching prohibition also covers services and guarantees which are normal commercial practice in the other Member States and extensively used as a marketing tool (e.g. ‘buy one, get one for free’). This discriminates against German consumers who are deprived of extra inducements and against undertakings based in Germany in relation to their foreign competitors.

The harm caused on the internal market was particularly apparent in a recent decision by the Saarbrücken Higher Regional Court, which ruled that a lifetime guarantee given by one company for its products was a breach of the Free Gift Act and was therefore prohibited in Germany. The company had given the same guarantee in all Member States and throughout the world.

In the light of this clear discrimination against Germans, does the Commission believe there to be a need for harmonisation of advertising legislation within the Community and has it given instructions to prepare such harmonisation or will it be doing so? Will the Commission be taking appropriate measures against Germany on account of these provisions in the Free Gift Act which are an obstacle to cross-border competition? C 187 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

As set out in its Green Paper on commercial communications (1) and the subsequent follow-up Commu- nication (2), the Commission has long been aware that the different national regulations on commercial communications (encompassing advertising, marketing, public relations (PR), sales promotion and sponsor- ship) have a substantial detrimental effect on the functioning of the Internal Market.

In the context of its policy on commercial communications, the Commission will present a Communication on sales promotion in the Internal Market, early this year which will set out in which areas it considers that there is a need for harmonisation of sales promotion regulations, in order to improve the functioning of the Internal Market. This will be based on the opinions adopted over the past two years by the Expert Group on commercial communications, which consists of experts in sales promotion regulation nominated by the Member States. The Communication will cover the following services: the communication of discount offers, the communication of an offer of a free gift or premium and the communication of promotional contests.

It should be noted also, that for on-line commercial communications of any type, the e-commerce Directive 2000/31/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (3) already foresees a country of origin regime (as set out in Article 3 and Article 6), meaning that the content of any commercial communication is subject to the law (and falls under the regulatory responsibility) of the country from where it originates. With regard to the German law on premium offers and free gifts (Zugabeverordnung), the Commission notes with interest that the German authorities have proposed its abolition. The Commission will continue to follow developments closely.

(1) COM(96) 192 final. (2) COM(1998) 121 final. (3) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4029/00 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: HGV driving licence qualifications

One of the drivers involved in an accident on the M4 motorway between London and Bristol on 28 November was a 20-year-old Belgian driver who was driving a heavy goods vehicle. In the United Kingdom, it is not possible for anybody aged 20 to hold a HGV licence. Can the Commission explain why it is possible for drivers to drive in a specific country with qualifications which are less stringent than those of that country’s nationals? Can the Commission also indicate whether it has any intention of harmonising such heavy goods vehicle driving qualifications?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Provisions concerning the minimum ages for drivers engaged in the carriage of goods are laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (1). In particular, Article 5 of the Council Regulation establishes minimum ages for obtaining of an heavy goods vehicles (HGV) licence.

(b) 21 years, or 18 years provided that the person concerned holds a certificate of professional competence recognised by one of the Member States confirming that he has completed a training course for drivers of vehicles intended for the carriage of goods by road, in conformity with Community rules on the minimum level of training for road transport drivers. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/113

According to what is stipulated in this Article, it is possible for a 20-year-old Belgian holder to drive a heavy goods vehicle in the United Kingdom if he holds a certificate of professional competence recognised by one of the Member States. This provision of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 has a direct effect.

Concerning the harmonisation of heavy goods vehicle’s driver qualifications, the Commission submitted on the 2 February 2001 to the Parliament and the Council a proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on the training of professional drivers of goods or passengers by road (2).

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985. (2) COM(2001) 56 final.

(2001/C 187 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4031/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Treatment of animals at markets in Belgium

A recent film shows great cruelty being inflicted on animals at the Belgian markets of Ciney and Anderlecht. The film was shot in July-September 2000. It shows cattle being repeatedly and viciously hit with sticks on their flanks and across the face and head and the presence of injured, diseased and severely lame animals at the market. In the worst scenes of the film, a rope is tied round the front leg of cattle who cannot walk. The other end of the rope is attached to a vehicle which then drives away, in one case dragging the animal along the ground and, in another, hauling an animal up a ramp on its back.

What steps is the Commission taking to require the Belgian authorities to end such cruelty at markets? Will it consider preparing a draft Council Directive on the protection of animals at markets?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

The general protection of animals against cruel treatment remains a matter within the national competence of the Member States.

The protocol on the protection and welfare of animals annexed to the EC Treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam requires both the Community and the Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing the Community’s agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies.

Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 on the protection of animals during transport (1) imposes detailed obligations on the transporter, such as the provision in Article 5A.1(a) prohibiting the causing of unnecessary suffering to transported animals. The breach of these provisions may, depending on the circumstances, involve cruel treatment of the animals.

To the extent that the animals shown in the video filmed at certain Belgian markets show animals which could still be regarded as under the authority of the transporter, for example during loading or unloading, it appears that some of the scenes shown would indicate breaches of the Directive as well as applicable national law concerning animal protection.

The Commission has therefore intervened with the Belgian authorities requesting full explanations and detailed information of the action taken to prevent re-occurrence of the type of incident shown. C 187 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Infringement proceedings were already pending against Belgium in respect of certain other breaches of the Directive and, depending on the further information obtained by the Commission, consideration will be given to possible enlargement of the scope of those proceedings to include the incidents mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Following its presentation of a report on the application of the relevant Directive to the Parliament and the Council, the Commission will examine the extent to which it is necessary to update and improve the provisions of this text.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(2001/C 187 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4032/00 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Workers’ rights on flag of convenience vessels

The necessary prerequisite of a proper job is that the work place meet proper health and safety standards, independently of whether it is fixed or mobile, and that the employment be stable, within the range of hiring possibilities provided for under whatever legal system applies.

Stability of employment is not achievable when there is uncertainty, as is the case with flags of convenience, under which legal security is scanty or non-existent, and there is a very real possibility of workers’ social rights being flouted or ignored.

Does the Commissioner intend to tackle the question of specific rules and regulations for the working conditions of EU workers serving on board flag of convenience vessels calling at Community ports?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The Honourable Member raises the issue of respecting the social rights of European workers serving on board vessels flying the flag of a third country.

As regards protecting the health and safety of workers on board vessels, the Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of assuring an appropriate level of protection for these workers, independently of their work place, and particularly when they are on board vessels arriving at Community ports, irrespective of their flag.

In this respect, it is important to mention Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels (1), and Council Directive 92/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels (2).

However, the definitions of vessels in these Directives (Articles 1 and 2 respectively) imply that the minimum requirements do not apply to vessels ‘flying the flag of a Member State or registered under the plenary jurisdiction of a Member State’.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (3), to which the Community is a Contracting Party, provides that every State shall take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety at sea with regard, inter alia, to the manning of ships, the labour conditions and the training of crews, taking into account the applicable international instruments. Consequently, the rights of workers on board are defined by the law of the flag State, whatever their nationality. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/115

However, it should also be pointed out that Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 (4) concerning port State control of vessels stipulates inter alia on-board inspection on vessels putting into the ports of Member States, including vessels flying a non-European flag, of internationally applicable social conditions under Convention 147 of the International Labour Organisation (convention concerning minimum standards to be observed on merchant vessels).

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992. (2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. (3) OJ L 179, 23.6.1998. (4) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.

(2001/C 187 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4035/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: 133 Committee

The 133 Committee is the real power behind and decision-making centre for the European Union’s commercial policy. It takes its name from Article 133 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. That article provides for the establishment of a special committee appointed by the Council to assist the European Commission. The 133 Committee constitutes the link between the European Commission and the Council.

Each Member State has one full and one substitute member to represent it on that committee. Those civil servants take important decisions relating to international trade issues such as the banana dispute, the supply of medicinal products to poor countries and the American levy on European steel. The Council resolves any political problems and ratifies the decisions taken by the committee. Some proposals are debated solely within the committee and approved en bloc by Coreper (the national civil servants appointed to the European Union) without further debate.

1. Does the Commission take the view that a report should be published about the documents used by and the debates in the 133 Committee? If not, why does the Commission take the view that a report should not be published about the documents used by and the debates in the 133 Committee?

2. Does it take the view that the public should have access to 133 Committee reports? If not, why does the Commission take the view that the public should not have access to 133 Committee reports?

3. Will the Commission ask for a report to be published henceforth about the documents used by and the debates in the 133 Committee? Will the Commission also ensure that the public has access to those reports? If not, why will the Commission not insist on the public’s right to inspect the political decision- making process of the 133 Committee?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Article 133 (ex Article 113) of the EC Treaty sets out the framework for the formulation and implementation of trade policy within the Community. The role of the Article 133 Committee, that the Honourable Member refers to, is to advise the Commission in the conduct of trade negotiations. Specific objectives for the Community in important trade matters and negotiations such as a new round of trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the discussions for a trade agreement with Mercosur are set out in Council conclusions or negotiating directives, which subsequently guide the work taking place in the 133 Committee. On the role of the 133 Committee and democratic accountability, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply to Written Question P-3674/00 by Mr Schmid (1). C 187 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

As regards the question of the opportunity of elaborating reports of the documents and discussions in the 133 Committee, the Commission would like to point out that the 133 Committee is a special committee appointed by the Council. The decision on whether and how to elaborate such reports as well as their accessibility therefore lies within the responsibility of the Council Secretariat.

Concerning more specifically the access to documents transmitted by the Commission to the 133 Committee, the Commission in its letter to the President of the industry, external trade, research and energy committee on 20 January 2000, agreed to transmit to the Parliament significant document sent by the Commission to the 133 Committee, as well as other important reports established by the Commission. Documents of a more sensitive nature are transmitted as ‘confidential’, or ‘restricted’ documents. A large number of documents are, however, transmitted as public documents and are posted on the Directorate General Trade website.

Public documents include the near totality of Community submissions to the WTO, discussion papers on major issues, as well as key documents concerning the Community’s New Round Strategy.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 190.

(2001/C 187 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4039/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Siemens

Have Mr Liikanen and Mr Monti received the letter sent to them by the Mayor of Hengelo, Mr Kerckhaert, concerning Siemens’ plans to close its subsidiary Demag Delaval in Hengelo and relocate it to Germany, despite the fact that the undertaking involved is economically sound?

Is it true that Siemens’ takeover of the Demag Delaval undertakings has still to be approved by the European Commission?

Does the Commission deem it justifiable for undertakings to be relocated immediately after takeover, even where there are no clear business reasons for so doing, when the problems caused by job losses are considerable?

Is the Commission prepared to investigate whether Siemens has complied with all European legislation relating to consultations with employees and the works council in this matter, given that some 700 jobs are at stake?

Has the Commission already replied to the letter from the Mayor of Hengelo? If not, when will it do so?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Member of the Commission responsible for Competition and Enterprise have received the letter.

The merger decision in case Comp./M.2224-Siemens/Demag Krauss Maffei, which also concerns Demag Delaval Werke, was approved by the Commission on 20 December 2000.

The Commission is within the framework of merger control not authorized to supervise companies’ economic decisions in terms of location matters. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/117

The Commission has no further information about the underlying facts of the allegations raised by the Honourable Member and is therefore not able to make a final assessment of whether or not there has been an infringement of Community law.

Given that Germany and the Netherlands have properly incorporated into their national law the provisions of the relevant Directives (1), the Commission wants to underline, that any issues arising in this area are in the first instance a matter for the national industrial relations’ procedures, and/or the national courts.

The letter from the Mayor of Hengelo was answered on 10 January 2001 by Directorate general for Competition. A reply from Directorate general for Enterprise is presently under preparation.

(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ L 225, 12.8.1998); Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 161, 5.3.1977); Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of an European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ L 254, 30.9.1994).

(2001/C 187 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4040/00 by Sérgio Sousa Pinto (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Competition policy abuse of dominant position

Can the Commission provide information on the market position and practices of the Qualifyer Group of airlines (a grouping of the following airlines: Swissair, Sabena, TAP Air Portugal, AOM French Airlines, Crossair, Air Littoral, Air Europe, LOT Polish Airlines, PGA Portugália Airlines, Volare Airlines and Air Liberté, which is administered by Qualifyer Loyalty Ltd)?

Citizens and consumers have extremely good reasons to fear confirmation of the presumptions that this business group is abusing its dominant position, thus giving rise to higher fares, less choice of services and unfair trading conditions, notably in the case of the Brussels/Lisbon-Porto route. These potentially abusive and anti-competitive practices may prove to be contrary, in particular, to Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

The Qualiflyer group is an alliance between airlines, characterised by the fact that the SAirGroup, Swissair’s parent company, has a policy of investing in the capital of certain other airlines in the alliance. In many cases, such participation gives the SAirGroup joint control, together with other shareholders, of the airline in which it invested. ‘Qualiflyer Loyalty Ltd.’ is the company that administers the common frequent-flyer programme of the participating airlines, but it does not manage the Qualiflyer group.

The Commission has taken a position on transactions whereby the SAirGroup acquired joint control over other Qualiflyer group airlines. In 1995, the Commission adopted a decision (1) declaring the Swissair/ Sabena concentration compatible with the common market. In 1999, the Commission adopted a decision approving the acquisition of AOM by the SAirGroup and Maríne-Wendel, a French financial holding company. In 2000, the Commission authorised the AOM/Air Liberté/Air Littoral concentration. C 187 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The Commission has also recently examined the compatibility with Article 81 (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty of the agreements concluded among the Qualiflyer group airlines. In February 2000, the Commission sent a warning letter to five Qualiflyer group airlines (Swissair, TAP, Sabena, Crossair and AOM), following which these companies ceased to coordinate prices within the Community and on the routes between the Community and Switzerland.

Competition concerns under Articles 81 and/or 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty are more likely to arise on ‘overlap’ routes, that is, on routes operated by two Qualiflyer group airlines with their respective hubs at each end of the route, such as the Brussels-Lisbon route. Given this situation, the Commission would appreciate receiving any information that the Honourable Member may have on a potential abuse of a dominant position or on other anti-competitive practices on this route.

On other routes, such as the routes to and from various French cities operated by AOM, Air Liberté and Air Littoral, the Qualiflyer group airlines compete with the traditional flag carrier.

The Portuguese government announced its intention to sell a stake in TAP some time ago. However, the Commission has not been notified of any such operation.

(1) OJ L 239, 7.10.1995.

(2001/C 187 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4044/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Refurbishment of President Prodi’s office

1. Following the recent refurbishment of President Prodi’s office in Rue Breydel, could the Commission please state if this was paid for by the Commission or some other source?

2. If the Commission paid for this refurbishment, could the Commission please indicate (a) the total cost of the refurbishment, and (b) the budget item to which the expenditure was charged?

3. If the Italiatn Government has loaned items for the refurbishment, could the Commission please indicate (a) the rules governing loans from governments to the Commission, given that Commissioners are no longer servants of their country, and (b) whether these items have been declared by President Prodi.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2001)

1. The Commission at the arrival of the new College of Commissioners established a budget of € 25 000 for the refurbishing of each Commissioner’s office with new furniture. Nevertheless instead of using the € 25 000 for the acquisition of new furniture, President Prodi’s office has recently been refurbished with antique furniture, on a free of charge loan from the Galleria Nazionale di Arte Antica in Rome.

2. The Commission only paid the transportation and insurance for the loaned furniture, using budget line A02353 for the transport and budget line A02350 for the insurance. In consequence, President Prodi did not use the € 25 000 budget earmarked for the refurbishing of his office.

3. There are no specific rules governing loans from governments to the Commission. The loan from the Galleria Nazionale di Arte Antica was accorded to Mr Prodi as President of the European Commission for the duration of his mandate for the refurbishment of his official office at the Commission and Mr Prodi has declared these items in the appropriate way. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/119

4. The internal regulations concerning the refurbishing of the offices of members of the Commission considered in the past only the acquisition of new furniture. For this reason they are at present being reviewed with the objective of providing the possibility to cover other less onerous ways for refurbishing the offices of the Members of the Commission in the future.

(2001/C 187 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4045/00

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Building amnesty and the 2000-2006 regional operational programme in Sicily

In November, the Council of Government of the Sicilian region submitted a proposal for a law including provision for the regularisation of unauthorised constructions built along the coastline, estimated to be around 170 000 units. This draft law represents a wholesale repeal of the only instrument in force in Sicily protecting the coasts, which lays down a prohibition on building in a coastal strip 150 metres wide (regional law 78 of 12 June 1976).

The draft law provides for a line to be drawn around built-up areas whose construction was not authorised and for the communes to be given responsibility for drawing up ‘urban and environmental reorganisation plans’ for them. This also places on the communes the tasks of delimitation and the consequent planning of measures, avoiding entering into details regarding figures.

Such uncertainty regarding the financial resources to be made available for the regularisation makes it seem likely that the region wishes to try to use the resources available under the 2000-2006 Structural Funds programming period. This could be done by means of covering the measures set out in the regional operational programme, to which the communes could have recourse when preparing projects to be funded through ROP funds. One of the ways in which the Structural Funds could also be used is to pay the engineers asked by the local authorities to prepare projects, and this would contribute to fostering a considerable customer network. In the face of this risk, business (Confindustria) and organisations protecting environmental and cultural heritage (Italia Nostra) have launched an appeal against the regularisation measure.

Among others, the measure is likely to affect the coastal areas included in the Natura 2000 network, where unauthorised construction has taken place, and it could enable town-planning projects to be legalised without any checking procedure or environmental impact assessment.

Is the Commission aware of this initiative by the Sicilian regional Council?

Can the Commission ensure that in the additional stage of programming currently being assessed the proposal to use Structural Funds for the possible building amnesty is rejected?

Can the Commission ensure that the possible building amnesty does not permit Community legislation on environmental impact assessment to be ignored?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that areas in the Natura 2000 network in which unauthorised construction has taken place are not jeopardised? C 187 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4049/00 by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Building amnesty and the 2000-2006 regional operational programme in Sicily

Is the Commission aware of this initiative by the Sicilian regional Council?

Can the Commission ensure that in the additional stage of programming currently being assessed the proposal to use Structural Funds for the possible building amnesty is rejected?

Can the Commission ensure that the possible building amnesty does not permit Community legislation on environmental impact assessment to be ignored?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that areas in the Natura 2000 network in which unauthorised construction has taken place are not jeopardised?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-4045/00 and P-4049/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Commission was not aware of the draft Law referred to by the Honourable Member. Nonetheless, it will make sure that the programmes it co-finances are implemented in compliance with the rules governing the Structural Funds (1) and that any action is consistent with programme objectives and compatible with all Community policies, including environment policy.

According to Article 2 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3), Member States must 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. Classes of projects relevant to the Directive are defined in Article 4 and listed in Annexes I and II. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/121

Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, concerns projects. The aim of the Directive is to prevent the creation of pollution or nuisances at source, rather than subsequently trying to counteract their effects. The principle on which it is based is that development consent for public and private projects likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after prior assessment has been made of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects. In contrast, the works the Honourable Member refers to have been already carried out. They are no longer projects. In this specific case, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure is not justified under the EIA Directive because it would be useful only in verifying the environmental impact but could in no way affect the development consent. Therefore, no provision is found in Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, to justify an obligation to carry out an EIA procedure in respect of the works in question.

In addition, it should be stressed that the Directive applies to the classes of projects listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive. On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, it is not possible to assess whether the works in question fall into one of the classes listed in those annexes.

Should the said works fall within a proposed Site of Community Importance (pSCI) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (4), or within a Special Protection Area (SPA) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (5), the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC could be considered relevant.

With reference to pSCIs under Directive 92/43/EEC, Member States have certain obligations to act in such a way as to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States’ authorities are therefore advised to at least abstain from all activities that may cause a site on the national list to deteriorate.

With reference to SPAs, Member States are obliged to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the Directive. In addition, any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on the area, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, should have been subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the area.

However, on the basis of the information given, it is not possible to identify which and how many of the works mentioned fall within pSCIs or SPAs; nor is it possible to assess whether and how the amnesty in question can be considered a measure that may cause a deterioration of natural habitats or the habitats of species or disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated.

Therefore, due to a lack of grounds for complaint regarding the application of Community law, no breach of that law can be identified at present. It should also be noted that the regional law in question is at this stage only a proposal and, as such, cannot breach Community law.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (5) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2001/C 187 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4050/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Support classes in Greek secondary schools

The support classes offered in the last years of Greek secondary school comprise lessons outside school hours, in the manner of private educational establishments, aimed at combating school failure in the C 187 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

comprehensive system and enabling pupils both to continue and complete their studies. The project is financed under Measure 1.2 Comprehensive School of Sub-programme 1, General and Technical Educa- tion, under the Operational Programme. The programme, however, appears to be in decline in the light of the number of pupils taking part and the take-up rate of funding, though there continues to be demand from pupils, especially those from families on low incomes or from remote areas.

1. Is the Commission aware of the reasons which have led pupils to withdraw from the programme and what measures does it propose to make the programme more attractive and effective for pupils?

2. Are there similar pupil support programmes to combat school failure in other Member States? If so, what form do they take, who are the teachers involved and what is their relation to teachers in schools. Does the Commission consider that this programme can also contribute to combating unemployment among teachers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Within the framework of the operational programme ‘Education and Initial Training’ of the Greek Community Support Framework 1994-1999, the European Social Fund co-funded remedial courses for students of lyceums (upper secondary education).

The courses were introduced on a pilot basis in March 1998 with a view to supporting educational reform (i.e. the establishment of the Comprehensive Lyceum, progressive abolition of entrance examinations to tertiary education) and reducing school failure and dropout rates. In the school years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, the measure was extended to more subjects and more classes and students and also covered technical and vocational education.

In the period under consideration and according to information provided by the Greek Ministry of Education, the total number of students who benefited from the measure is estimated at 140 000, the overall expenditure at € 23 million and the number of teachers involved at 23 000.

Concerning the attractiveness of the courses, it is estimated that in the school year 1999-2000 about 8 % of students abandoned the remedial courses. The problem is concentrated mainly in large urban areas. However, the number of participating students did not fall in insular and remote regions or in evening schools.

The external evaluator of the operational programme and the scientific committee of the project have assessed the implementation of the measure so far and have proposed a number of educational, managerial and organisational improvements. These will be taken into account in the new programming period 2000- 2006. Furthermore, efforts will be made to better focus the new remedial courses so as to avoid school failure and reduce dropout rates, in particular in disadvantaged regions. To this end, the Ministry of Education envisages the development of special educational material, better teacher training and better use of the new network technologies. The Ministry believes that these measures will make the remedial courses more attractive to students as well as more efficient.

The measures applied in other Member States to fight school failure as well as the particularities of their education systems differ from Member State to Member State and they are not easily comparable. In any case, in the framework of its partnership work with Member States, the Commission will encourage Greece to consider existing international experience and best practices. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/123

(2001/C 187 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4051/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Inclusion of Naousa in the URBAN initiative

The aim of the URBAN initiative is the economic and social regeneration of cities and neighbourhoods in crisis with a population of between 20 and 50 000 inhabitants. Naousa is a town whose inhabitants have been hit by poverty and unemployment since the 1990s, with long-term unemployment standing at 40 %. This situation has come about through the closure or below-capacity working of the town’s large textile plants, with firms in the fruit and vegetable picking and packaging business experiencing the same difficulties, particularly following the crisis in Yugoslavia.

Given the above situation in Naousa, will the Commission say:

1. whether the town can be included in the URBAN initiative, and

2. whether the regional programme for western Macedonia under the 3rd Community Support Frame- work includes funding for measures for Naousa and, if so, what sum has been allocated? What was the total amount of funding for measures for Naousa from the regional programme for western Macedonia under the 2nd Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

In Annex II to its communication laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning economic and social regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable urban development (URBAN II) (1), the Commission fixed the indicative number of urban areas to be covered in each Member State. Following a ministerial request, it increased the number for Greece from two to three.

To date, the Commission has officially received no URBAN II programmes from Greece.

The operational programme (OP) for central Macedonia during the period 2000-2006 includes substantial finance for major assistance in the field of urban development. The share of appropriations which the town of Naousa could enjoy is a matter for the Greek authorities.

During the 1994-1999 programming period, under the OP for central Macedonia, a total of € 58 million was allocated to part-finance projects and measures to develop the prefecture of Imathia, which includes Naousa; these will have a positive effect on the town.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4057/00 by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Agriculture in Capaccio-Paestum

Capaccio-Paestum is an area in the gulf of Salerno subject to archaeological restrictions because of its great archaeological riches (Doric temples, a necropolis etc.). The River Sele and other waterways make it a particularly fertile area. C 187 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Legislation rightly ensures that this immeasurably valuable heritage is protected, but does not take into consideration the age-old activities of farmers in the area (rearing buffalo, growing vegetables, etc.).

Will the Commission therefore take action to ensure that the local authorities, while continuing to ensure that the archaeological and landscape heritage is protected, adopt all measures necessary to allow the farmers concerned to receive special authorisation to improve their holdings and to gain access to concessions relating to social security contributions, tax and financing, as well as financial support from the European Union?

In short, does the Commission intend to ensure that all those concerned benefit from equal opportunities in comparison with other farmers who do not live in areas subject to constraints?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The Commission considers that compliance with the legislation in force on protecting the archaeological heritage, the landscape and the environment is a prerequisite for granting any public assistance in the agricultural sector, whether it be purely national assistance or assistance part-financed at Community level under the Structural Funds or the Rural Development Plan for the region concerned.

Taking action to ensure that the local authorities give farmers access to special permits for improving their holdings and to concessions in the field of social security contributions, taxation and national funding is not considered by the Commission to be a task which falls within its powers. If national aid were introduced in this context, the Commission would be responsible for guaranteeing compliance with the State aid rules under Articles 87 to 89 (former Articles 92 to 94) of the EC Treaty.

As regards assistance part-financed by the Community under the programmes referred to above, no provision is made for specific rural development measures confined to this area in the Objective 1 Operational Programme (ROP) for the Campania region for the period 2000-2006, which was approved by the Commission Decision of 8 August 2000.

However, it would be within the powers of the regional authorities implementing this assistance to lay down specific conditions aimed at encouraging application of the measures provided for in the ROP in the area subject to the abovementioned constraints, provided that these conditions complied with the Community rules on the Structural Funds and rural development.

(2001/C 187 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4064/00 by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Environmental rehabilitation work in Emilia Romagna (Italy)

Can the Commission provide information on the ‘environmental rehabilitation’ work now completed at the Mezzano sugar refinery (‘Vasche dello zuccherificio di Mezzano, cod. IT 4700012’) (Ravenna, Italy), a site which has been designated under the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) and Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (2), given that it was not carried out in full compliance with the recommendations on the protection of the wildlife living in the area, and has completely altered the entire natural habitat?

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What action does it intend to take on the matter?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/125

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The case raised by the Honourable Member has been dealt with by the Commission in the framework of petition no 238/99. This petition has been last discussed during the meeting of the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament on 23 May 2000. No infringement of Community legislation on nature conservation had been identified at the time and the case was consequently closed.

The information given by the Honourable Member does not include any new elements that would justify the Commission changing its earlier analysis.

(2001/C 187 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4066/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Price increases as a result of the introduction of the euro and of rounding up when converting old prices

According to a study carried out by the Faculty of Economics at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, prices for everyday purchases will rise on 1 January 2002 or shortly after by between 5 % and 10 %. Prices for cars and houses will also rise. The reason for this is that salespeople always use round figures, such as 100, 99,9 or 99,5. Every time the old national currency is converted into euros, they can achieve this by rounding the price either down or up. It is expected that in nearly every case they will do the latter. Salespeople nearly always will add something to the old price in order to arrive at an eye-catching amount.

In the light of this:

1. Does the Commission have information from other studies which confirm the results of the Dutch study?

2. Does the Commission have information from other studies which would contradict this conclusion? If so, what arguments are used by these studies to conclude that no major price rise above the annual norm can be expected?

3. What does the Commission propose to do, in cooperation with the national authorities of the 12 Member States concerned, to counteract the emergence of a price discrepancy in the first half of 2002, e.g. by laying down rules on the rounding up or down of prices to ensure that average prices remain stable?

4. How does the Commission propose to prevent unusual price increases occurring during 2001 by way of an advance on rounded-up euro prices in 2002?

5. Has the Commission already developed ideas on what should happen if an abnormal price increase cannot be avoided? What provision will be made in that case for compensation in terms of pay and allowances so as to maintain the purchasing power of the great majority of people who are dependent on these sources of income?

Source: The Dutch newspapers ‘De Telegraaf’ and ‘Rotterdams Dagblad’ of 7 December 2000.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

1. The Commission is not aware of any economic study on the matter. The authors of the Dutch study have, in any case, formally challenged the way in which their conclusions were presented in the press. C 187 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

2. Competitive pressures among supermarket chains and the like will oblige the leading players to arrange the changeover to euro pricing so that consumers do not suffer. Similarly, local shops, which benefit from customer confidence, will do their utmost to ensure that their customers cannot accuse them of raising prices unexpectedly and do not abandon them for supermarkets. Several market leaders in a number of countries in the euro area are even planning to freeze prices for several months at the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002. Also, a majority of shops in the participating Member States already practise dual pricing and their numbers will increase steadily as the different deadlines approach. Under the auspices of the Commission, an agreement has been reached between consumers and businesses on use of the ‘euro logo’ with a view to promoting voluntary dual pricing and application of best practices. The agreement is in force in most Member States in the euro area.

Dual pricing allows consumers and, where appropriate, specialised national or regional control bodies to check that there are no hidden price rises on the occasion of the changeover to the euro. It was with this in mind that the Commission also advocated the setting up of local observatories for monitoring the introduction of the euro (Article 2 in particular of Recommendation 98/228/EC of 23 April 1998 (1)), something which has been done in most Member States in the euro area.

Lastly, the early setting of euro prices in the third quarter of this year, called for by the Commission in its Recommendation of 11 October 2000 (2), will also help to achieve this same objective. The problem, if there is one, would probably, therefore, be confined to the sectors with little exposure to competition where some shops would not introduce dual pricing.

3. The freedom to set prices is a basic principle underlying the operation of the single market. By contrast, the rounding rules for conversion from national currency units to the euro are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro and are mandatory. Businesses must, therefore, comply with the rounding rules when applying dual pricing. Together with the signatories to the ‘euro logo’ agreement, the Commission is looking into ways of reinforcing the agreement as regards overall price stability along the lines of the rules in force in Spain and Ireland. Measures permitting rapid monitoring of price changes in early 2002 will also be examined with the Member States.

4. Any price adjustments will primarily affect, on a one-off basis, products and services for which ‘psychological’ (or round) prices are set. New ‘psychological’ prices in euros may involve upward or downward adjustments. There are no grounds at present for claiming that there will be a uniform upward adjustment. Historical precedents (e.g. the decimalisation of the pound sterling) did not produce a significant upward movement in prices.

5. The Commission does not believe that such a risk exists. If there is a short-lived increase in prices, something which the explanations given above and surveys among sectoral associations would seem to rule out, it will be very small, with any upward adjustments being statistically offset by any downward adjustments. There would not, therefore, be any inflationary movement, this being defined as a continuous rise in all prices. Accordingly, it is unlikely that such a cyclical adjustment in prices could jeopardise individuals’ purchasing power.

(1) OJ L 130, 1.5.1998. (2) OJ C 303, 24.10.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4070/00 by James Fitzsimons (UEN) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: VAT on solar panels and encouraging greater use of vegetable oils for fuels

As a means of promoting environmentally friendly technologies, does the Commission have any plans to bring forward special proposals aimed at introducing either a zero rate of VAT for solar panels or 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/127

establishing a specially low VAT rate in order to encourage greater use of non-polluting energy sources and to reduce the use of materials which give rise to pollution and will the Commission outline what its present and future plans and incentives are for encouraging greater use of oils derived from vegetables which can be used in motor vehicles and commercial fleets?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The situation under current Community VAT legislation is that category 9 of Annex H of the 6th Council directive 77/388/EEC (1) covers the ‘supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing provided as part of social policy’. Member States may therefore allocate a reduced VAT rate of no less than 5 % to these services.

Solar panels, once incorporated into this global process, are automatically covered by this provision, just as all building material when they are supplied as a part of a service provided by a building contractor. Whereas the same goods when bought across the counter by an individual are considered as supply of goods, and therefore the standard rate applies.

As far as the zero rate is concerned, it must be noted that it is an exception to the normal rules which foresee that the standard VAT rate should apply to any taxable transaction as a consumption tax.

As the Honourable Member will know, the new VAT strategy (2) foresees that a review and rationalisation of the rules and derogations applying to the definition of reduced VAT rates should be considered in the medium term. Particular attention will be paid to the rates applying to the use of reduced VAT rates in Community policies (e.g. to help protect the environment, etc.).

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2000/65/CE, of 17 October 2000 (OJ L 269, 21.10.2000). (2) COM(2000) 348 final.

(2001/C 187 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4071/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Commission intervention in connection with the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion (Spain)

At the end of October 2000 the Commission was looking into the environmental impact of the Júcar- Vinalopó diversion project, having received a complaint in addition to my own series of written questions. As part of its investigations, the Commission had asked the Spanish authorities for their remarks on the project and on the application of the Birds Directive in this case.

Nevertheless, the Spanish Environment Ministry recently approved the commencement of work on the project.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in its investigations into the environmental impact of the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion?

Is the Commission aware of the Spanish authorities’ approval of these works? C 187 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

As the Honourable Member was informed in reply to Written Questions E-0819/00 (1) and E-2650/00 (2), the Commission has received a complaint about the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion project in which it is claimed that Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4), Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (5), and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (6) may not have been properly applied.

As part of its examination of this case, the Commission has written to the Spanish authorities to ask them for their observations on the above project and on the application to it of the Community Directives concerned.

The reply from the Spanish authorities arrived recently and is currently being examined by the Commis- sion.

The Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that the project in question is undergoing an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC. The project is part of the Hydrological Plan for the Júcar basin. The Spanish authorities have also pointed out that the environmental impact assessment has already been carried out and that the public has been consulted. It should be noted that the Spanish authorities state that the environmental impact statement on this project has not yet been adopted.

The Spanish authorities have furthermore indicated that the final construction project will not be approved until the environmental impact statement has been adopted by the Minister of the Environment. At all events, the Spanish authorities point out that the basic project, for which a pubic contract has already been awarded, will have to take account of the results of the ongoing environmental impact procedure.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 29. (2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 66. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (5) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (6) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 187 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4085/00 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Information campaign for enlargement

When the Commission presented its annual report on the applicant countries, Mr Prodi and Mr Verheugen announced the launch of a major information campaign within both the EU and the applicant countries. How will the appropriations be allocated? Will NGOs be able to submit projects for funding under this information campaign? If so, how?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The enlargement communication strategy is now in the process of being implemented. In 2001, some € 9,5 million will be decentralised to Delegations in candidate countries and € 5,8 million to Commission Representations in Member States. This represents about 80 % of the funding and this proportion will be maintained throughout the period 2001-2006. Allocations are made by the Commission on the basis of 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/129

approved Work Programmes presented by Delegations and Representations. These Work Programmes should cover all the target groups identified as significant in the strategy, among which non-governmental organisations (NGOs) representing civil society certainly feature.

Work programmes for Delegations have been approved and include participating NGOs, but NGOs in the Community still have time to present projects to Representations in Member States in getting in touch with the relevant information officer. Nevertheless, projects will only be funded if they contribute towards the overall understanding of enlargement, its challenges and opportunities, thus avoiding political misuse based on fears and myths about its social and economic consequences.

(2001/C 187 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4087/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Variant CJD the human form of BSE

Does the Commission agree that variant CJD should be renamed Human Spongiform Encepalopathy?

What is the European Union doing to encourage the exchange of medical experience in treating this condition?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

1. In 1996, a team from the United Kingdom Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD) Surveillance Unit at Edinburgh, published a paper (1) in which the authors reported findings which strongly implied a causal link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and a variant of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (vCJD).

Although showing some significant neurological differences from the classical sporadic form, vCJD is classified as a human neurodegenerative disease. It is named, indeed, after the person who investigated the classical form of disease and therefore is firmly consolidated and accepted by the scientific and medical world as vCJD.

2. The Commission launched a European Action Plan for TSE (2) research in 1996 which has mobilised € 50 million to promote understanding, detection and combating of TSEs, such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in man and BSE in cows. About 150 laboratories are presently involved in 54 Community-funded research projects on TSE diseases, which are addressing issues such as human prion diseases, the infectious agent, risk assessment, treatment and prevention.

In particular, it is worth mentioning a project on the development of TSE treatment based on prion protein-binding sugars, which includes research teams from Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Israel which aims primarily at identifying the mechanisms of inhibition of prion multiplication in cultured cells.

Furthermore the Commission, on 15 December 2000, organised a meeting of national experts in TSE research in order to analyse ongoing research activities, encourage exchange of information between research teams and identify ongoing research topics which need strengthening as well as new research areas. This group will present an interim report shortly. C 187 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Article 152.5 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty States that ‘Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care …’. The Commission will however consider possibilities for promoting exchange of information on the best treatment for vCJD, which could be addressed within the framework of the new public health programme (3) currently under discussion in Parliament and Council.

(1) R. G. Will et al., The Lancet 1996: 347;921-25, also available on www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/lancet.htm). (2) Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE). (3) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000 and COM(2000) 285 final.

(2001/C 187 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4088/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: The floor coverings industry

Has the Commission studied training provision in the floor coverings industry? Does the Commission have any plans for improvements in such provision?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The floor covering industry would potentially deal with a large and diversified area, including parquet flooring, carpet laying, thermo-plastic tiles, ceramics etc. each requiring different skills and training. Activity at European level is currently looking generally at training provision in the construction sector.

The Leonardo da Vinci programme provides support for innovation in vocational training. In the period 1995-1999 (first phase), it financed one project concerning the floor covering industry ‘Vocational training for tilers in Europe (1995) contractant: Assopiastrelle’. Moreover, several other projects fostered innovation in training in the construction sector in general.

(2001/C 187 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4090/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Improving the EU’s trade relations with Mercosur and Chile

The recent holding in Madrid of the First European Union, Latin America and Caribbean Business Summit, which was attended by 19 European and Latin American businessmen, was an appropriate occasion for discussing practical measures intended to improve the European Union’s trade relations with Mercosur and Chile.

During their courtesy visit to the leader of the Spanish Government the summit participants called for Spain to take on the job of improving those relations by means of practical, effective measures, in view of the special role played by Spain as an intermediary between the two economic blocs.

In response to a request made at the abovementioned summit should the Commission not propose that a monitoring centre be set up in Madrid, the role of which would be to put forward initiatives and proposals designed to enable business circles in the European Union and in Mercosur and Chile to improve trade relations between the two economic blocs? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/131

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

1. At present there are many ongoing initiatives which aim at improving trade relations between the two economic blocs.

2. Firstly, the European Commission works closely with the Mercosur EU Business Forum (MEBF), which is an association of business representatives and associations from both regions that wishes to enhance commercial relations between the EU and Mercosur and facilitate trade and investment flows. The MEBF has been able to establish itself as the main representative of the business communities of the EU and Mercosur and the European Commission has continued to support the MEBF initiative from its inception in 1998. The recent EU-Latin America/Caribbean business summit in Madrid declared its support for the MEBF’s activities and specifically invited the MEBF to participate in a prominent way in the summit meeting. Thus, within the business community there already exists a forum aimed at improving trade relations between the EU and Mercosur.

3. Secondly, the European Commission has undertaken practical measures in support of EU-Latin American business relations, among others through a number of business-related economic co-operation programmes, such as AL-INVEST, ALURE and ECIP. These types of successful programmes, in particular AL-INVEST, will continue into the future with the aim of supporting the European business community in its contacts with Mercosur.

4. Taking into account the above, the European Commission considers there is no need at present for a monitoring centre in Madrid which would put forward initiatives and proposals designed to enable business circles in the EU and Mercosur-Chile to improve trade relations.

(2001/C 187 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4092/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Lack of EU funding for the solar energy programme in Andalusia (Spain)

Andalusian manufacturers and fitters of solar panels have warned that a cut in funding for their regional government’s aid programme for this type of renewable-energy technology is threatening the viability of the sector. The amount of aid has been reduced from an original ESP 1,7 billion to 1,2 billion.

According to the Andalusia regional government’s ministry for industry, this reduction is due to a lack of EU funding which, in the view of companies operating in the sector, will lead to a major scaling-down in growth predictions. Current demand is for over 45 000 m2 of panels, half of which will not now be manufactured.

What information can the Commission provide regarding the lack of EU funding for the implementation of a programme to fit this type of renewable-energy technology, and to what extent can this shortfall be made up, so as not to impede the major growth in this sector which is currently being witnessed in Andalusia?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The integrated operational programme for the Autonomous Community of Andalusia for the 2000-2006 programming period, which the Commission approved on 29 December 2000, provides just over € 65 million (about PTE 11 billion) to promote and support renewable energy and energy saving among business and private consumers. The Community Funds are providing 59 % of this amount. C 187 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Member State lays down the arrangements for the actual allocation of this amount among the various alternative sources of energy according to its own energy policy criteria.

(2001/C 187 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4094/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: EU action to prevent domesticated animal species from dying out

The world’s population of farm animals is gradually declining. According to a report recently published by the FAO, two species of domesticated animal die out each week. One EU Member State (Spain) is in the worrying situation of having 69 species of domesticated animal at risk of dying out, 22 of which are in a critical state.

The situation is a constant cause for concern since, according to the experts, the animals in question display rich genetic diversity and the loss of genetic diversity makes species more vulnerable.

In view of this alarming situation, what action is the EU going to take in order to protect the species of domesticated animal which are under threat of extinction, bearing in mind the fact that biodoversity is an essential factor in the fight against diseases and pests?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

From 1993 and throughout the programming period which ended in 1999 the Commission approved programmes to promote rearing farm animal breeds threatened with extinction in most Member States. The programmes were designed to contribute towards achieving one of the agri-environmental objectives referred to in Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside (1), namely to promote ways of using agricultural land which are compatible with protection and improvement of genetic diversity. The Community’s effort on this matter is continuing in the 2000-2006 period under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2), which incorporates into a single regulatory instrument all rural development support measures and also the objectives of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92.

Under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, and in particular the agri-environmental measures referred to in Articles 22 to 24, support is to be granted to farmers who commit themselves for at least five years to agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment and to maintain the countryside; that support is also intended to promote genetic diversity. Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/ 1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/ 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (3) provides for agri-environmental support in respect of commitments to rear local farm animal breeds in danger of extinction. Most of the rural development programmes which Member States have drawn up and which the Commission has approved for the 2000-2006 programming period provide for agri-environmental premiums in respect of rearing local breeds threatened with extinction.

In view of the above, the Commission considers that it has already taken the steps needed to protect farm animal breeds which are under threat.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (3) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/133

(2001/C 187 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4098/00 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Legal framework for providing services across borders

Cross-border activities are increasingly becoming essential. Emergency services such as the police, fire and medical services, and also local authorities, are all working together in practice. But this often occurs without any legal basis and unnecessary difficulties can arise as a result. Many complaints from local government officers, employees and employers have come to my attention on this point.

Matters of this kind can of course be settled in bilateral treaties; but many countries are a long way behind because of the endless toing and froing. For this reason it would improve the operation of the internal market if a legal framework were created at European level, to make it easier to work, do business or provide services across borders.

Is it possible to set up a European legal framework for this purpose, so as to improve the operation of the internal market?

If so, is the Commission prepared to set up a legal framework of this kind, and by when?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The Commission has recently adopted a new strategy to improve the functioning of the Internal Market for Services (1). This Communication, which had been called for by European leaders at the Lisbon European Council, sets out a two year, two stage plan, with the aim of greatly improving the provision of services across borders in the Community.

European statute books are littered with rules that have been developed in a time when services were inherently less easy to trade across borders. Falling costs of information, communication and transport have made cross-border competition in services technically feasible. It is time that regulations and practices in the Community reflected the fact that these new opportunities are available. The current restrictions limit choice and increase prices for private and business customers. This has a deleterious impact on the capacity of the Community economy to create jobs and growth.

The Internal Market Strategy for services recognises the rapidly evolving nature of the services industries. For this reason, it seeks to complement the existing sectoral approach to services with a new horizontal policy. This should create a general enabling framework to allow services to be provided across borders, regardless of which sector a particular company operates in. This mix of the sectoral and the horizontal approach can be seen in the timetable for actions contained in the annex of the strategy.

For 2001, the strategy concentrates on the acceleration of a number of initiatives in specific sectoral areas (such as telecoms, financial services, recognition of qualifications, and marketing). In 2002, the Commis- sion will inform Member States about which barriers they should dismantle unilaterally and will bring forward a legislative proposal containing targeted harmonised rules for service provision (where strictly necessary), as well as setting out all the service activities for which Member States must apply mutual recognition of each others’ national rules.

(1) COM(2000) 888 final. C 187 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4104/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (10 January 2001)

Subject: The bonded-labour system in Nepal, Pakistan and India

There will be an opportunity at the International Labour Organisation Conference to be held in 2001 to draw attention to the repeated failures of the Indian, Nepalese and Pakistani Governments to abolish bonded labour.

Would the Commission consider: 1. How an independent survey might be carried out to establish the number and location of people enslaved in this way? 2. What steps it might take to make sure that the laws prohibiting all forms of bonded labour are understood and enforced? 3. What it might do to ensure that the ILO sets up systems to monitor the success of its assistance in combating bonded labour?

(2001/C 187 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4114/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (11 January 2001)

Subject: Bonded labour

What plans does the Commission have to use the ILO Conference in 2001 to draw attention to the repeated failure of governments in, for example, India, Pakistan and Nepal, to take adequate measures to abolish bonded labour and to use this Conference to urge all governments to acknowledge the scale of the problem?

What action is the Commission taking to encourage the ILO to conduct independent and comprehensive surveys in those countries where bonded labour exists, in order to ascertain the number and location of people enslaved in this way?

Would the Commission outline what measures it is taking to ensure that laws prohibiting all forms of bonded labour are understood and effectively enforced?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4104/00 and E-4114/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (20 February 2001)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Members’ concern about bonded labour practices in South Asia. The complexity of this problem and its close links with social, economic and cultural factors emerge from a high degree of poverty that still affects the most vulnerable social groups of the subcontinent.

In order to address the problems of bonded labour, it is the Commission’s view that development cooperation strategies should focus on specific initiatives aimed at poverty reduction thereby improving the status of labour forces in critical sectors of economic activity.

The Commission also recognises the importance of the role of the specialised international agencies and of the appropriate use of existing multilateral instruments to improve the overall working conditions of labour forces subject to discrimination.

The forthcoming international labour conference of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) 2001 will constitute the most appropriate forum to assess globally the situation of bonded labour and to make recommendations for completing, monitoring and enforcing already existing labour conventions. In 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/135

particular the presentation of the first ILO ‘Global Report’ on forced labour as part of the follow up of the ILO’s 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work will provide a platform to address the issues raised by the Honourable Members.

In India, the Bonded Labour System Abolition Act of 1976, the ILO’s International Programme of Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) as well as the consistent efforts of the Community and various non- governmental organisations (NGOs) to concentrate on universal primary education and health programmes have been major initiatives to improve the rights and living conditions of the most disadvantaged and discriminated social groups.

In Pakistan, the Government has expressed the intention to strengthen law enforcement. There are plans to ratify ILO Convention No 182 on the worst forms of child labour, and an action plan for the rehabilitation of bonded labourers is under preparation. The Ministry of Labour is also planning to reactivate vigilance committees to tackle the bonded labour issue at local level. The Commission supports the Government through a project being implemented by ILO within the IPEC framework which addresses the multi-faceted problem of child and bonded labour through measures of prevention and rehabilitation.

In Nepal, besides a clear constitutional legal base (Article 20) to guarantee the right against any exploitation of human beings, 7 ILO Conventions have already been ratified. On 17 July 2000, Government Monitoring Committees at both central and district level have been set up. A government team to supervise the rehabilitation of persons released from bonded labour has also been created, while ILO Convention 29 on forced labour is currently with the Nepalese Parliament for ratification.

The Commission would like to confirm to the Honourable Members that on the basis of the existing framework Co-operation Agreements with these countries, the Joint Commission meetings have provided and will continue to provide the most appropriate context to regularly monitor the enforcement of bonded labour legislation and promote rehabilitation initiatives.

(2001/C 187 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4105/00 by Frédérique Ries (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: The Commission’s assumption of the cost of renovating the Berlaymont Building

The newspaper ‘La Libre Belgique’ of 6 December reports the findings of a study carried out by the consultants Ernst & Young on Berlaymont, according to which the Commission would not be able to return to its offices in the Berlaymont in 2002 as initially scheduled, and the cost could significantly exceed the initial estimate. According to the press report, Commissioner Kinnock had passed the Berlaymont papers to OLAF, which had begun an inquiry. SA Berlaymont 2000’s 1999 report, page 19, gives an estimated figure of BEF 15,5 billion (€ 387,5 million) for the work involved in the renovation. This figure includes price reviews and extra work requested by the Commission to the amount of BEF 120 million (€ 3 million). A Memorandum of Understanding was entered into in July 1997 by Belgium and the Commission, Article 4(2) of which stated that the cost of the renovation would be finally determined on handover and vouched for by all relevant documents; SA Berlaymont agreed to work on an ‘open books’ basis and to allow the Community to inspect all accounting and technical data which were a factor in the cost of the work; the cost of studies and contract management, miscellaneous costs and interim financial charges during construction. According to my information, Annex I of the protocol mentioned a sum of 13 million, stating that the sum was a provisional estimate of the cost, the final cost of renovation to be established in the light of actual expenditure.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. When will the results of the OLAF inquiry be available?

2. The Memorandum was to be followed shortly by an agreement and a notarial act. When are they to be concluded? C 187 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

3. Does the Memorandum constitute a firm and final commitment by the Commission to bear the cost of renovation?

4. What arrangements has the Commission made to monitor the work and the related costs?

5. Can you explain the 2,5 billion BEF difference between the 1997 estimate and the current estimate?

6. According to the Memorandum, the Commission’s sole interlocutor is the Belgian Government; what is the nature of the relationship between the Commission and the ‘Régie des Bâtiments’ and SA Berlaymont 2000?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Commission would like to stipulate that:

1. Following the referring of relevant documents to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Office opened an investigation on 5 December 2000. The Office is independent and, whilst the Commission is confident of the thoroughness of the work of the Office, the Commission is not in a position to forecast when the results of OLAF inquiries will be made known.

2. On the initiative of the Commission, negotiations are being held on a follow-up to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Belgian government and Berlaymont 2000. Agreement at the earliest possible time is desirable but clearly all parties would have to be satisfied with the conclusions and it is therefore not possible to specify a date for that at this juncture.

3. The Memorandum of Understanding constitutes an agreement between parties. The failure to fulfil the agreement by one of the parties can, under certain conditions, be invoked by the other contracting party as justification for the suspension or abrogation of its own obligations. The Memorandum does not oblige the Commission to take over the Berlaymont at any cost. It confirms the Commission’s intention to reoccupy the building if the works are brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

4. According to the Memorandum, SA Berlaymont 2000 is the sole body responsible for bringing the project to a proper completion. The Commission has, in addition to charging its internal administrative structures with the technical follow-up of the works and the related costs, concluded external quantity surveying and technical assistance contracts with two firms, Ernst & Young/MDA and with Coalpa.

5. The Commission is currently examining all elements relating to the cost of the renovation including an external audit of all contracts signed. Consequently the Commission cannot yet make a final comprehensive assessment of the cost estimate made by SA Berlaymont. However, it is already clear that a major reason for delays and subsequent additional costs is the contractual problem SA Berlaymont 2000 has with the ‘4D’ consortium which was to have provided the installation of heating, ventilation and air conditioning.

6. The relations which the Commission maintains with the ‘Régie des bâtiments’ and especially with SA Berlaymont 2000 are limited to the technical and financial monitoring of the renovation. All matters of political relevance are currently being discussed with Mr Rik DAEMS, the Belgian Minister for Telecommunications, Public Works and Public Participations.

(2001/C 187 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4107/00 by Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Petty crime in the north of Naples

In view of the recent rise in petty urban crime in the north of Naples, which has seen an alarming increase in the need for ‘D-I-Y’ justice (three robbers beaten to death in self-defence within the space of a few days in Villaricca, Grumo Nevano and Villa Literno), 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/137

can the Commission say:

1. whether it is aware of this escalation in violence and killings in the area mentioned?

2. whether it is aware of the fact that most of the local communities in the Neapolitan hinterland communities each with over 30 000 residents, in a highly built-up area still have neither a carabinieri (military police) barracks or a police station, whereas in fact technologically advanced special security measures should be adopted in order to ensure a greater level of control over the area?

3. whether, at this stage, it still considers that the strategies to combat petty urban crime adopted to date at both Community and national levels are working?

4. whether it therefore considers it useful to support and propose a system for exchanging experience and good practice in the field of prevention?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The events referred to in the Honourable Member’s question have not been brought to the Commission’s attention, although it is aware that the situation in some parts of the Naples conurbation continues to give cause for concern in spite of the efforts of the local and national authorities. At the recent Forum for Security and Democracy, held in Naples on 7, 8 and 9 December 2000, the Italian State Secretary for Security, the President of the Campania region and the Mayor of Naples referred to the difficulties encountered in combating crime in all its forms in that part of Italy.

Nor is the Commission familiar with the detailed organisational arrangements for policing the areas referred to by the Honourable Member. These arrangements do not fall within the Commission’s remit but are a matter for the Italian authorities.

But strategies to combat urban petty crime now form a major part of the Union’s justice and home affairs policy. As the Honourable Member is aware, the prevention priorities laid down by the 1999 Tampere European Council included urban, juvenile and drug-related crime. It was also decided at Tampere to encourage networking and exchanges of good practice between crime prevention bodies. Several initiatives have been launched since then with a view to putting this into practice. In December 2000 the Commission presented a communication on crime prevention (1) and a proposal for a decision establishing a programme of incentives and exchanges known as ‘Hippocrates’ (1). At the same time, France and Sweden presented a proposal for a decision establishing a European crime prevention network, which is currently being examined by the Council. Parliament will be consulted on these texts pursuant to Article 39 TEU.

(1) COM(2000) 786 final.

(2001/C 187 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4109/00 by Ilka Schröder (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Annual report of the EMCDDA ‘pill testing’

The annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction refers on page 9 to ‘pill testing’. The procedure is also known as ‘drug checking’. It is used in Austria, the Netherlands and Germany, for instance. The Centre says that the implementation of these preventive measures is becoming more professional. C 187 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

How does the Commission view ‘drug checking’?

Does it share the Centre’s assessment? What role should permissive drug prevention measures of this kind play in the Commission’s preventive strategy?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

First, it should be stressed that ‘drug checking’, also referred to as on-the-spot toxicological pill tests, falls within the competence of the Member States. The Commission is not involved in the implementation of such measures.

The Union Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004) (1) encourages the Member States and the Commission to further develop innovative approaches to the prevention of the abuse of synthetic drugs, taking into account the specificity of synthetic drug users. Although not mentioned in the plan, on-the-spot toxicological pill tests may form a part of a preventive approach provided that it is allowed by the legislation of the Member States.

The Commission is aware of both positive and negative arguments as to whether on-the-spot toxicological pill tests contributes to reducing the risks and increasing responsible behaviour among users. It is essential that such testing occurs in combination with the provision of information and on-the-spot counselling in order to achieve a positive outcome, thereby addressing the risks involved with the use of drugs in general rather than drawing a distinction between ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ drugs.

Finally, on-the-spot toxicological pill tests can give a rapid indication of what substances and ingredients are present on the black market and are being used in particular settings. Such information is of value for epidemiological purposes and/or as the basis for specific warning measures.

Research is insufficient but the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has commissioned a study on on-site pill-testing interventions in the Community. This research will draw up an inventory of existing on-site pill-testing programmes and examine their objectives, target groups, methods and pitfalls to assess how prevention and risk-reduction measures can be tied in with ‘drug checking’ work. The results of the study are expected soon.

(1) COM(1999) 239 final.

(2001/C 187 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4115/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Murders in Colombia

Last summer, Afrocolombian communities and particularly, that of Buenaventura, issued warnings about threats from paramilitary groups; but nothing whatever was done to prevent the murders which followed, and on 6 and 9 September, paramilitaries killed a total of 27 members of the Afrocolombian communities of Triana, Zaragoza and Las Palmas.

Fresh paramilitary intervention is about to take place along the River Yurumangui, and also on the peasant reservation of Calamar in Guaviare, according to the local mayor, José Germán Olarte Palomino.

Given its relationship with the Colombia Government and the pressing nature of the situation, what can the Commission do to prevent these killings? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/139

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

In their contacts with the Colombian government, the Union representatives have repeatedly stressed the importance of making progress on the issue of human rights, including taking effective initiatives in order to counter the activities of the paramilitaries. The Colombian authorities are showing an increased willingness to respond to these calls. First steps, such as the laying-off of army officers involved in human rights violations and trials of military personnel in civilian courts, have been taken by the government, but there is obviously still a long way to go and the international community needs to continue its active human rights policy.

As to the Honourable Member’s question on preventing killings, the Commission and the Member States’ role can only be limited. It is up to the Colombian authorities to take the necessary steps in terms of security measures.

The Commission will, of course, ensure that any information on possible threats against the civilian population, are immediately passed on to the Colombian authorities.

(2001/C 187 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4120/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Harmful environmental effects of air-conditioning in cars

1. Is the Commission aware of the report published in the Dutch newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ on 4 November 2000 that half of new cars in the Netherlands and as many as 80 % of new cars in Germany are fitted with air-conditioning systems and that this equipment is used not only for cooling the temperature on hot days but also increasingly for defrosting and demisting windows and mirrors in winter? Can the Commission confirm these figures and trends or does it have alternative data?

2. Can the Commission confirm that the increasing use of air-conditioning consumes more fuel and that the coolant HFC-134a that has been used in air-conditioning for about ten years now is a hydroflurocarbon which has a greenhouse gas effect 1300 times more potent that CO2, and thus makes a significant contribution to global warming despite the fact that it is chlorine-free and therefore less deleterious for the ozone layer that the notorious CFCs used as refrigerants in the past?

3. Is the Commission aware that the HFCs used in refrigerators and as blowing agents for foam insulation and polyurethane foam are increasingly being replaced by hydrocarbons such as butane, pentane and heptane, so far above suspicion, but that they are still being used in car air-conditioning systems, which have an annual leakage of 25 % and constantly have to be topped up so that ultimately, after CO2, they are the most important artificially created greenhouse gas?

4. Does the Commission share my concern about the damaging effects of the growing use of HFCs as coolants, not least because of the greenhouse effect and the obvious difficulty that the Member States have in meeting the commitments entered into as a result of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change?

5. Does the Commission share the wish expressed by researchers and environmental activists that the car industry should be required to reduce leakage of coolant and find alternatives that do not produce greenhouse gasses and use less fuel? Does it not consider that in view of the ominous environmental impact we would be misguided to place all our hopes and trust in self-regulation by the market? C 187 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

The Commission is aware of the fact that air-conditioning equipment is increasingly fitted in passenger cars. However, the Commission has no solid statistical figures on the percentage of cars equipped with air- conditioning in the Community. Estimates of future trends show, as a rule, a further increase in the fitting of air-conditioning equipment in passenger cars.

The use of mobile air-conditioning is associated with an increase in fuel consumption. Exact figures are not known since the increase in fuel consumption depends on where the car is used. Additional fuel consumption because of fitting cars with air-conditioners seem to be over three times higher in southern Member States compared to northern ones. Fuel consumption also depends on other parameters that are related to the efficiency of the equipment. The test procedures for cars do not cover the use of air- conditioning equipment. However, a recent study made for the Commission estimated that the average European vehicle is likely to emit over its lifetime about 17 grams of carbondioxide (CO2) equivalent per kilometre more due to the increased emission from mobile air conditioning. This includes CO2 emissions due to increased weight, leakage of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC)-134a over the lifetime, leakage of HFC-134a of end-of-life vehicles and extra fuel consumption due to use. This estimate takes into account that HFC- 134a has a greenhouse gas potential of 1300 compared to CO2 (based on a global warming potential of 100 years). Another study expects that emissions from the use of fluorinated gases in mobile air conditioning will increase from potentially 1,4 million tons of CO2 (1995) to 14,9 million tons of CO2 in 2010. This potentially very significant increase is a reason for concern.

The Commission is aware that for many applications in the refrigeration and foam blowing sectors there are alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFCs), which are neither ozone depleting substances nor have a significant global warming potential. When these alternatives are technically feasible and cost-effective (such as ammonia and hydrocarbons in many applications in stationary refrigeration) they are increasingly being used. As regards mobile air-conditioning, HFC has to date been the preferred choice for refrigerant with safety matters an important consideration. Various measures have been identified in on-going work on limiting emissions of HFC gases to the atmosphere from mobile air-conditioning. These include changes to the design of air-conditioning systems to minimise refrigerant charge, a reduction of leakage rates and an improved collection and recycling of refrigerants. The availability of qualified staff and the establishment of adequate procedures in Member States are critical factors for success.

HFCs are mainly used to substitute the ozone depleting gases, CFCs and HCFCs, which are controlled by the Montreal Protocol. In many applications other gases, like ammonia or even CO2, could replace HFCs and the Commission is encouraging such developments. The Commission has been addressing for some years now the issue of the negative repercussions of the use of HFCs on the greenhouse gas effect within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other international fora. The establishing of a programme for the reduction of HFC emissions, and other fluorinated gases controlled by the Kyoto Protocol, is part of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP). The environmental implications of increased demand for refrigeration as well as for cooling of homes, offices and vehicles (e.g. because of the increase HFC emissions and energy consumption) is a concern that needs to be addressed seriously so that the Community will reach its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8 % in 2008-2012, from 1990 levels.

Hence, the Commission is aware of the negative direct and indirect effects of mobile air-conditioning on global warming. Emissions due to mobile air-conditioning are on the preliminary list of priority actions 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/141

within the European Climate Change Programme and have been mentioned as a source of pollution to be addressed by the Environment Council of 10 October 2000. Expert Groups on vehicle technology and on fluorinated gases in the framework of the ECCP are investigating the issue of mobile air conditioning. Recommendations for action will be included in the final report of the ECCP.

(2001/C 187 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4123/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Eels and elvers

Eels and elvers are a declining species in much of Europe.

Has the Commission implemented any measures (or is it intending to implement any measures), to preserve eels and regulate fishing for eels?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the problems concerning the European eel stock but has not proposed any measures apart from those already implemented by Member States.

Work is proceeding on the preparation of a Community-wide management plan for eel. However the initial time frame for this proposal has changed as the Commission has not yet been provided with the requested information about possible measures by the International Council for the exploration of the sea (ICES). ICES has, however, in the meantime analysed the eel situation in the United States and Canada where similar concerns about the eel population have recently been raised. The report became available by November 2000 and indicates that the advice on possible measures for the other side of the Atlantic might also be applicable to Europe. The Commission will therefore reflect on this advice before finalising the management plan for the European eel.

(2001/C 187 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4125/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Hydrogen fuel cells

Will the Commission indicate its views on the replacement of the internal combustion engine with hydrogen fuel cells and state whether it has any plans to give serious consideration to this project within the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

As the Honourable Member quite correctly indicates the use of hydrogen in combination with fuel cells is discussed as a possible future solution for replacing combustion engines in the automotive industry or for generating power and supplying heat and/or electricity in homes, commercial/business buildings and industries. C 187 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The Commission recognises that the use of hydrogen with fuel cells could offer environmental benefits as well as contribute to the security of energy supply. However, the magnitude of those benefits largely depends on how the hydrogen is produced, distributed, stored and used. Today, many equipment and vehicles manufacturers and oil companies as well are currently carrying out research projects within this field some of them concentrating on the development of fuel cells, others on the direct use of hydrogen as a possible alternative fuel.

The Fifth research and development framework programme (FP5) (1999-2002), concentrates an important part of the Non-Nuclear Energy Programme (Energie) on support to research, development and demonstration (RTD) of hydrogen, especially in combination with the use of fuel cells. Until now, the Community support in FP5 has already exceeded € 59 million allocated to RTD on fuel cell systems, fuel processors, hydrogen storage, hydrogen fuelled fuel cell vehicles, and to large projects in heat and power generation and clean urban transport, including the use of hydrogen as a possible fuel in combination with fuel cells.

The Energie programme continues to actively stimulate RTD effort on fuel cells and hydrogen technologies as well as including socio-economic studies, pre-normative research to develop standards and safety norms, and training. The action addresses fuel cells, reformers and hydrogen technologies aiming at a cost reduction with lower CO2 and pollutant emissions. RTD addresses components, systems, multifuel capability and fuel flexibility. For transport, the fuel choice including hydrogen is addressed focusing on cost, emissions, safety and re-fuelling infrastructure.

In order to set up a possible European strategy in the field of alternative/renewable fuels for the transport sector, the Commission also intends to launch a study on future possible concepts of vehicle technology/ fuels, benefits and shortcomings of those different concepts and possible long term and intermediate introduction strategies. It is expected that the use of hydrogen and the development of fuel cell technology will be a central focus of this study, although it is not limited to that type of fuel. Discussions are planned to take place with the Member States and with non-governmental organisations on possible actions at a Community level. This discussion will of course include possible support of on-going and new local activities.

(2001/C 187 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4131/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Atmospheric pollution in Athens

According to the latest report by the Environment Directorate of the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works in Greece, ozone levels in the Athens area were above the permissible limits for a total of 75 days between April and October 2000.

1. What data does the Commission have available on this specific matter (ozone levels) and, in more general terms, on atmospheric pollution in the Athens area?

2. What are the apparent problems in Athens with atmospheric pollution from the point of view of compliance with Community legislation?

3. In the Commission’s estimation, what are the possible implications for public health? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/143

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

Monitoring data on atmospheric pollution are regularly forwarded by Greece under the 97/101/EC Council Decision of 27 January 1997 establishing a reciprocal exchange of information and data from networks and individual stations measuring ambient air pollution within the Member States (1).

Additional data from short term campaigns and air quality modelling are also available to the Commission. Concerning sulphur emissions (SO2), suspended particles, lead and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) the current limit values as set out in Council Directive 80/779/EEC of 15 July 1980 on air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates (2), Council Directive 82/884/EEC of 3 December 1982 on a limit value for lead in the air (3) and Council Directive 85/203/EEC of 7 March 1985 on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (4), respectively, are not exceeded.

Legally non-binding threshold values for ozone are laid down in Council Directive 92/72/EEC of 21 September 1992 on air pollution by ozone (5). The Commission is aware that these thresholds are frequently exceeded in the Greater Athens area. Exceedence of an ozone concentration of 120 µg/m3 may lead to respiratory problems of particularly sensitive population groups. The general population was found to experience such adverse effects from ozone concentrations of more than 240 µg/m3. According to current scientific knowledge adverse health effects due to SO2,NO2, particulate matter and lead may already occur if the current limit values are not exceeded.

The latest Community legislation, Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (6), i.e. the Air Quality Framework Directive, as well as existing (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 (7), Directive 2000/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air (8)) and upcoming daughter Directives, will improve the protection of human health by setting more stringent limit and target values. Corresponding monitoring requirements will provide the public and the Commission with better information on air quality. From studies performed under the Autoil II programme it is to be expected that additional, and in particular local measures will be necessary to meet these objectives in the Athens area.

(1) OJ L 35, 5.2.1997. (2) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980. (3) OJ L 378, 31.12.1982. (4) OJ L 87, 27.3.1985. (5) OJ L 297, 13.10.1992. (6) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996. (7) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999. (8) OJ L 313, 13.12.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4133/00 by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Right of an Israeli national to play in German handball leagues

Does the Commission share the legal opinion that Israeli nationals are to be treated in the same way as EU citizens in German handball leagues in terms of their ability to participate with the result that their players’ passes do not need to be stamped with the letter A in accordance with Section 15 of the DHB’s match rules? C 187 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

If not, does the Commission intend:

1. in the light of the recent negotiations with Israel on updating the association agreement of 20 November 1995,

2. mindful of the fact that Israeli sporting associations have for years participated in European football and handball tournaments and similar major events and are thus a permanent feature of the European ‘internal market’ in sport with the result that it would be justified and consistent to create a uniform area of service provision for sporting activities that included Israel,

to work to ensure that the above association agreement is amended so that Israeli nationals are placed on an equal footing with EU citizens in terms of freedom of movement pursuant to Article 39 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

This is a matter for the Member States.

The Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the Community and its Member States and Israel came into force on 1 June 2000. It contains no provisions on non-discrimination in the area of working conditions between Israeli and EU citizens, nor does it contain measures on sport or the participation of Israeli or EU citizens in handball matches.

There are no plans to amend an agreement which has only recently come into force.

(2001/C 187 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4136/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: 28th Adaptation on Technical Progress to the Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC)

The draft 28th Adaptation on Technical Progress to the Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC) (1) proposes a Category 2 Carcinogen Classification for trichloroethylene, in place of the current Category 3 Classification.

Following extensive studies on several thousands of people, is the Commission convinced of a causal relationship between exposure to trichloroethylene and an increase in cancer?

Industry states that ‘the criteria to the preamble of the EU Labelling Guide, which says that normal conditions of handling and use should be considered, have not been applied and that, in the two epidemiological studies carried out, ’the exposure situations that are supposed to have caused the German cancers were due to abnormally high levels of trichloroethylene far above occupational exposure standards’. Furthermore, industry claims that ‘improved practices within exposure limits should protect workers from the hazards of trichloroethylene’.

What is the Commission’s response to these points?

(1) OJ L 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/145

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The classification of trichloroethylene is being considered in the context of Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1) and Directive 67/548/EEC on the classification and labelling of dangerous substances. The European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) at Ispra in Italy provides the technical/scientific support, consulting the Member States and industry via the ‘Carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity’ (CMR) working group. Difficult cases, like trichloroethylene, are referred to the so-called ‘Specialised Experts’ Group, made up of independent scientists from all Member States.

The Specialised Experts Group examines proposals for classification of chemicals on their scientific merits alone. In this case, the Specialised Experts, meeting on 30-31 March 2000, recommended a classification of carcinogen category 2 (R45). The CMR working group of Member State experts, meeting on 9-12 May 2000, almost unanimously supported this classification. This conclusion has been reached after several years of detailed consideration of the overall scientific evidence. This evaluation included, but was not limited to, the cited epidemiological studies. The Commission would like to draw the attention to the fact that classification as a category 2 carcinogen (classification primarily based on animal experiments) is proposed rather than as a category 1 carcinogen (classification based on epidemiological data).

The Commission would like to point out that such a classification would not automatically lead to restrictions on the marketing and use of substances. However, the Commission will examine possible marketing or use restrictions, under 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 (2). Following normal practice for substances classified as category 1 or 2 CMRs, the Commission will consider carefully the appropriateness of a possible ban on the marketing of trichloroethylene to consumers. Furthermore, the Commission committed itself to special consideration of trichloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents at the time of the adoption of Directive 94/60/EEC (the 14th Amendment to 76/769/EEC) (3). Before coming forward with a proposal, the advantages and drawbacks of any marketing and use restrictions will be considered, in consultation with the industry and other interested parties.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993. (2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 187 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4140/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Sheepmeat regime

Bearing in mind the publication of the ‘Evaluation on the common organisation of the markets in the sheep and goatmeat sector’ in November 2000 and the subsequent European Conference in Brussels on 20 November on the ‘Track record and prospects for European ovine product organisation’ at which Commissioner Fischler and Ms Mary Minch spoke and given that the present regime does not reflect adequately the market situation, particularly for northern European countries (the UK and Ireland especially), could the Commission outline what proposals it has to review the sheepmeat regime with a view to attaining a just and equitable price/market support system? C 187 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The evaluation of the common organization of the markets in the sheep and goat meat sector raised many important and interesting points. In general terms it concluded that the premium regime has allowed sheep and goat producers to maintain their relative position but that the method of calculation of the premium is flawed. In particular, the quality of the data available leaves much to be desired. This concerns price collection as well as the calculation of the technical coefficient.

The report identifies certain options, which it suggests should be considered. Essentially there is a choice between improving the present system in order to obtain more accurate data necessary to calculate the premium and the simplification of the system. The first solution would make an already complicated system even more complicated. In the light of this the Commission is examining the possibility of simplifying the system by replacing the deficiency payment with a fixed premium. The overall objective of the reform would be to provide a sound basis upon which producers could develop their enterprises with the minimum of administrative interference. Furthermore, such an approach would be more adapted to the aims of the World trade organisation (WTO) than the present price related system.

(2001/C 187 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4144/00 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: The position of atheists, agnostics and humanists

The Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation outlaws discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation. This is in line with Article 13 of the EC Treaty. Is there a general definition of the term ‘belief’, or is this determined by each Member State? What is the position of atheists, agnostics and humanists with regard to the Directive on Equal Treatment in Employ- ment and Occupation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) establishes a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination based, inter alia, on religion or belief.

There is no general definition of the term ‘belief’ in the Directive. The substance of the protection against discrimination on the grounds of belief would have to be examined by the Court of Justice.

Without prejudice to Article 4(1) and (2) concerning occupational requirements, the general prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief applies also to atheists, agnostics and humanists.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/147

(2001/C 187 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4148/00 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Rules governing the funding of obligatory BSE tests on cattle aged over 30 months

It is reported that, on 19 December 2000, the Agriculture Council decided that no European funds would be used to cover any part of the cost of obligatory tests to be carried out on all cattle aged over 30 months entering the food chain in order to prevent BSE-infected meat from entering the food chain. The same applies to the cost of the ban on the processing of meat waste into animal feedingstuffs.

Does not the Commission fear that, if funding rules are left without further ado to the discretion of the Member States, the disparities in the options chosen may lead to distortion of competition and to deflection of certain trade flows? Does not the Commission therefore take the view that rules should be adopted which would apply to all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Commission co-financing of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) tests for cattle is subject to the legal framework laid down by the Commission Decision 2000/773/EC of 30 November 2000 approving the programmes for the monitoring of BSE presented for 2001 by the Member States and fixing the level of the Community’s financial contribution (1), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (2).

In the case that measures to combat BSE would constitute State aid in the sense of Articles 87-88 (ex Articles 92-93) of the EC Treaty which might distort competition, such measures would be assessed by the Commission under the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (3) and in particular under point 11.4 thereof (aid for combatting plant and animal diseases).

(1) OJ L 308, 8.12.2000. (2) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000. (3) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4150/00 by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Restructuring of the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment

A root-and-branch restructuring of the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment is planned, with the unit concerned with waste and the unit concerned with nature conservation, the two units which are the most active in ensuring implementation of Community directives in the Member States, being threatened with abolition or splitting up. Such restructuring is being heavily criticised by non-governmental organisations and by officials concerned in the Directorate-General for the Environment itself. The new structure and the new appointees are being perceived as a shift in policy which cannot be justified by the general interest and which is seen solely as a pro-industry shift in emphasis.

How can a case be made for maximum implementation of current European environmental legislation when the most active units in this field are in the process of either being abolished (waste) or split up (nature conservation)? C 187 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

What is the thinking behind the decision to split the financial mechanism (Life) from the other tools for administering the implementation of the Natura 2000 directives?

What reasons can be put forward for posting elsewhere two important, very competent and valued members of a unit against their will?

Does the Commission bear political responsibility for this current restructuring?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

The mission statement of the Commission in the field of environmental policy has five main objectives: a high level of environmental protection; continuous improvement in the quality of life; the preservation of the rights of future generations to a viable environment sustainable development; increased environmental efficiency and finally ensuring equitable use of our common environmental resources.

All actions and activities taken by the Commission in the field of environment serve to develop and further these objectives.

The working blueprint for the next decade will be the 6th Environmental Action Programme, which is transmitted to the Parliament on 29 January 2001 (1). Other guidelines which steer Commission decisions, include the ‘Strategic Objectives of the Commission 2001-2005’ and the organisational consequences of the White Paper on Administrative Reform of the Commission (2).

The organisation of the services must always reflect and facilitate the achievement of the mission statement. The core activities of the services will focus on: sustainable development; environmental quality of natural resources; environment and health; implementation and Enforcement (which will regroup all three parts of the LIFE programme into one unit for coherence and economies of scale); global and international affairs.

The objective is to regroup tasks and functions to reflect core concerns and allow the services to implement legislation, develop policies and execute programmes in the most efficient and effective way possible, taking account of the evaluations carried out and using to the full the talents of the highly dedicated and flexible workforce.

(1) COM(2001) 31. (2) COM(2000) 200 final.

(2001/C 187 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4151/00 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia

At the 56th session of the UN Commission of Human Rights, the EU voiced grave concern about ‘the serious violations of human rights of women in Saudi Arabia’ and called again for ‘the improvement of human rights of women in law and in practice’.

What new initiatives has the Council promoted to improve the human rights situation of women in Saudi Arabia since this statement was made at the 56th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/149

The EU is currently strengthening relations with the countries of the Gulf. How is the Council using this opportunity to work for the protection of human rights in Saudi Arabia? Is it encouraging the training of law enforcement officers providing for the protection of women under interrogation and in detention, as well as for women reporting abuses, in accordance with international human rights standards?

What pressure is the Council exerting on Saudi Arabia to ensure that its draft law on female labour will comply with ILO Conventions 100 and 111 which they have ratified?

(24 April 2001)

The European Union raises the issue of human rights, including the rights of women, at all appropriate occasions to do so, for example at the 10th Joint Council and Ministerial meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on 22 May 2000 and at an EU Troika meeting at Ministerial level with the GCC in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly. Saudi Arabia had the Presidency in the GCC during the year 2000. At the meeting on 22 May 2000, the European Union proposed the establishment of a human rights dialogue. The EU will, in the framework of the EC-GCC Cooperation Agreement (1) and the political dialogue, continue to press on the members of the GCC the need to improve the human rights situation in their countries and to cooperate with the UN and international human rights organisations. It will also pursue the question of an enhanced dialogue on human rights.

The EU and the GCC are currently negotiating a Free Trade Agreement. In accordance with the EU’s policy on human rights in its agreements with third countries, respect for human rights would constitute an essential element in any such agreement.

(1) OJ L 54, 25.2.1989, p. 1.

(2001/C 187 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4155/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Marketing of smelt, implementation of EU hygiene regulation

Under the EU hygiene regulation, smelt more than 15 cm in length may only be sold gutted. This has caused sales of this small relative of salmon to come to a virtual standstill, as prices for gutted smelt are so high because of the labour costs involved that the product is virtually unsaleable on the market.

1. Is the Commission aware that smelt is a national dish on the coast and that basically everyone therefore knows that the fish have to be gutted and salted before being eaten?

2. Is the Commission aware of the fact that in German ports, as a result of the strict interpretation of the provisions, smelt have become virtually unsaleable and the livelihoods of specialised fishermen are consequently threatened?

3. Is the Commission aware of the fact that the regulation is being implemented less strictly in other European ports? What is its view of the resulting distortion of competition?

4. Are there proposals to preserve the livelihoods of the fishing businesses and downstream distribution chains affected?

5. Are there proposals to compensate the fishing businesses and downstream distribution chains affected? C 187 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The main provision concerning gutting of fish in Community legislation is contained in Council Directive 91/493/EEC (1). Article 3.2 of this Directive requires ‘Where gutting is possible from a technical and commercial viewpoint, it must be carried out as quickly as possible after the products have been caught or landed’.

The requirements referred to by the Honourable Member are not contained in Community legislation.

(1) Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (OJ L 268, 24.9.1991).

(2001/C 187 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4160/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Cotton quotas

On 11 December 2000 the Greek Ministry of Agriculture announced that it was imposing individual quotas in respect of both the area which each producer is entitled to cultivate and the volume of production eligible for aid in 2001. Each producer will be entitled to cultivate an area 5 % smaller than the average over the previous five years and receive aid for a quantity of cotton 5 % less than average of his three best harvests over the previous five years.

The Commission’s answer to my Written Question E-1952/00 (1) states that existing Community legislation makes no provision whatsoever for restrictions on the area on which cotton may be grown. The same applies to the volume of cotton eligible for aid. Even the Commission’s proposal adjusting the system of aid for cotton (2) which is not definitive and will not be adopted before the middle of February 2001 makes no provision for the implementation of generalised individual quotas for the cultivation and production of cotton, but merely provides that measures may be taken to restrict the area under cultivation on the basis of a number of specific criteria in certain regions.

1. How does the Commission intend to intervene to avert in good time the implementation of measures contrary to Community regulations governing cotton?

2. How will it ensure the right of producers to find out in good time, i.e. at the time in which they plan their annual crops, the legal provisions applicable to each crop so that they can take decisions and undertake the necessary work (choice of crop, tenancy arrangements, cultivation, acquisition of seeds, use of fertilisers, etc.)?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 117. (2) COM(1999) 492 final.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The answer to the Honourable Member’s Question E-1952/00 about cotton areas and production volumes eligible or not eligible for aid (1) is hereby confirmed, namely that there is no provision in current Community legislation imposing restrictions on the area which may be put under cotton and hence on the corresponding cotton production volume eligible for aid. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/151

After examining in detail Greek ministerial decree No 35 870 of 10 February 2000 laying down for 2000/2001 marketing year sowings administrative measures to support cotton growing, the Commis- sion instituted infringement proceedings against Greece under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission wishes to examine in more detail the official legal texts concerning the ministerial decree of 11 December 2000 before commenting on the new measures to which the Honourable Member refers in respect of sowings for the forthcoming 2001/2002 marketing year. After examining the decree in detail, the Commission may decide to institute proceedings similar to those in respect of the 2000/2001 marketing year sowings.

The proposal on adjusting the system of aid for cotton was published on 13 December 1999 (2). The proposal’s content inter alia the scope for Member States to restrict, where appropriate, the areas eligible for aid on the basis of objective criteria was therefore known several months before the normal date of the sowings in question, thus ensuring compliance with the principle of safeguarding operators’ legitimate expectations.

In any case, measures taken at national level must not infringe the corresponding Community legislation.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001. (2) COM(1999) 492 final.

(2001/C 187 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4161/00 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: European Commission’s proposed Chemical Testing Programme

I am receiving letters every day from constituents who continue to be concerned about the European Commission’s proposals to test 70 000 existing chemicals, which, I am advised, will result in the death of around 10 million animals.

1. Where can I find a list of the 70 000 chemicals it is proposed to test?

2. Which committee, or group of persons, within the European Commission decided on this recommendation?

3. What are the opportunities for MEPs to debate, amend or reject these proposals?

4. Does the European Commission agree with the estimate that over 10 million animals will be slaughtered as a result of this proposal?

5. Which organisations and individuals have, to date, made representations to the European Commis- sion against this proposal?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

On 13 February 2001 the Commission adopted a White Paper on a strategy for a future chemicals policy. The White Paper will be presented to the Parliament which will have the opportunity of giving its opinion.

It is not possible, on the basis of the White Paper, to estimate the number of animals needed for testing. What can be said is that for two thirds of the substances, testing should generally be limited to non-animal testing. C 187 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The Commission has received some six thousand items of correspondence from individuals and organisations on this subject, many of which expressed concern in relation to animal testing. Other comments received emphasised the importance of ensuring that chemicals are adequately tested. The Commission has not made a precise breakdown of the different points of view expressed and is not in a position therefore to furnish the details sought on this aspect. However, the Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it will take account of the need to limit testing of live animals as far as practicable, including using available alternative tests not requiring the use of live animals, and to encourage the development of new alternative tests.

(2001/C 187 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4163/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Structural aid for Objective 1 regions from 2006

In his reply to my Question E-3283/00 (1), the Commissioner for regional policy, Mr Barnier, states that the Commission’s second report on economic and social cohesion is scheduled for adoption in January 2001. It assesses not only the situation and trends in respect of the Fifteen, and Community policies’ contribution to cohesion, but also the situation of cohesion in an enlarged Europe.

Mr Barnier adds that this report will be the starting point for the revision of the current EU structural policy. Using it as a basis, guidelines and possible alternatives for structural policy will be put forward, to be supplemented at a later date on the basis of the conclusions of the debates to be held with the players involved and the other EU Institutions. The Cohesion Forum which the Commission will organise in the first half of 2001 will be the first step in this direction.

Can the Commission tell me what the guidelines for the alternatives contained in the report are with regard to future Objective 1 region structural aid from 2006 within an enlarged Union?

Where will the Cohesion 2001 Forum be held?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

The second report on economic and social cohesion was adopted by the Commission on 31 January 2001 (1) and immediately submitted to Parliament in plenary session in Brussels.

The Cohesion Forum will be held in Brussels on 21/22 May 2001 in the Parliament buildings. Parliament will of course be invited to take part in it.

(1) COM(2001) 24 final. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/153

(2001/C 187 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0001/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Wages for Italian soldiers in Kosovo

Is the Commission aware that Italian soldiers in Kosovo have not been paid for three months and are having great difficulty in establishing contact with Italy on account of the very small number of telephone lines made available to them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

No. The matters raised by the Honourable Member are not issues which fall under the competence of the Commission; they are matters for national authorities.

The Honourable Member is advised to raise her concerns directly with the relevant Italian authorities.

(2001/C 187 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0006/01 by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Kerosine discharged at sea

Fishermen are aware that aircraft often discharge kerosine into the North Sea. Often tens of thousands of litres of fuel are involved. In recent years considerable progress has been achieved by imposing a ban on ships discharging at sea and on incineration at sea etc., but discharges of kerosine have not been tackled.

Is the magnitude of the problem for the ecosystem of the North Sea and the Mediterranean known, is it possible to restrict or ban such discharges or to permit them only as a last resort, and why have such measures not been used?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Discharging of fuel by aircraft during flight is a procedure used on long-haul flights in order to reduce weight in emergency situations to below the safe maximum weight for landing. This takes place only in the event of rescheduling of the flight in case of technical problems or serious passenger illness. The procedure emanates from an obligation imposed by international standards Joint Aviation Requirements/ Operations (JAR-OPS), which provide that an operator has the obligation to ensure that the maximum allowable landing mass of the aeroplane is not exceeded. In this context fuel jettisoning is explicitly permitted if a safe procedure is used.

Usually for such cases of emergency special airspace is assigned to the aircraft, if possible above unpopulated areas. Given the altitude and aircraft speed at which discharges take place as well as the turbulence behind the aircraft which transforms the kerosene into a fine mist, only a very small percentage of the total volume of kerosene reaches the ground. The Commission is not aware of specific environmental impact studies in this field, but according to available information the concentration level per square kilometre of land or sea would be so low that an affect on ecosystems is unlikely. C 187 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Whilst discharging of kerosene is only used in emergency situations where the life of people is at risk and given the insignificant effect on ecosystems, banning kerosene discharges does not appear to be a realistic option.

Furthermore, as the discharging of kerosene represents a substantial financial loss for the air operator, it can be assumed that it will be used as a measure of last resort only.

(2001/C 187 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0008/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: European Defence and Security Policy and NATO

Do the decisions taken at Nice with regard to the European Defence and Security Policy look seemlessly and coherently into the wider framework for defence and security policy already in place as part of NATO?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

The Commission welcomes the Nice decisions on the European Security and defence policy (ESDP) and believes they are fully coherent with the wider defence and security policy already in place as part of the North atlantic treaty organization (NATO).

The Nice decisions concern the Union’s ability to act where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged in cases falling within the so-called ‘Petersberg tasks’. These relate to crisis management and peacekeeping and do not cover the issue of the territorial defence of Member States.

NATO’s Washington Summit underlined the enhanced role attributed to crisis management policy outside purely defence considerations. The new structures and capabilities developed under ESDP should be seen as complementary to those of the alliance.

It is the Commission’s understanding that both NATO members and Union Member States are ready to play a full role in operations of this kind, within the framework of NATO or of the Union and within the emerging dialogue and cooperation between these two organisations.

There is naturally a need to continue work on the procedural aspects of this cooperation. These are taking place within the four Union/NATO working groups which have been meeting regularly for the past months.

(2001/C 187 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0009/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Lernout & Hauspie case: financial assistance for Sensus police project

The aim of the Sensus project, the successor to Aventinus, is to develop an information exchange programme for European police and intelligence services. The search for appropriate language and speech technology forms an important part of the project. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/155

The European Commission provides financial assistance for Sensus. According to information provided on the Internet (http://www.sensus-int.de), coordination is in the hands of a Mr Stephan Bodenkamp. Officially the latter works for the Amt für Auslandsfragen in Munich. However, a judgment by a Munich court (of 20 December 2000) reveals that Stephan Bodenkamp’s real name is Christoph Kionowski, and that he works for the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst.

The Sensus project has its official headquarters on the same premises as the German firm Radial Sprachtechnologie GmbH. This company forms part of a European network in which, via Radial Belgium (Schoolstraat 1A in 2370 Arendonk), a number of so-called Language Development Companies belonging to speech technology firm Lernout & Hauspie are also involved.

For Lernout & Hauspie, the Language Development Companies were a way of acquiring revenue. The American business newspaper the Wall Street Journal has reported that this way of operating is particularly dubious from a technical accounting point of view and is at the centre of current judicial investigations relating to Lernout & Hauspie. One hypothesis being suggested is that the Language Development Companies were a vehicle for money laundering.

1. When did the Commission decide to provide financial assistance for the Aventinus and Sensus projects?

Why did the Commission decide to provide such assistance?

2. Who took the initiative to provide financial assistance for the Aventinus and Sensus projects?

3. Was the Commission decision taken at the request of any third party (persons, firms or organisations) and, if so, who were those third parties?

4. In what budget line is financial assistance for the Aventinus and Sensus projects entered?

5. What financial assistance (in euros) has to date been paid for the Aventinus and Sensus projects?

6. Is the Commission aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesna- chrichtendienst? If so, why did the Commission nevertheless decide to provide financial assistance for the Aventinus and Sensus projects? If not, will the Commission be taking action to recover the assistance paid out, given that crucial information on the Aventinus and Sensus projects failed to be provided to it?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

1. The Commission decided to fund the Sensus and Aventinus cost-shared research and technology development projects after evaluation of proposals submitted under various calls published by the Telematics Applications Programme of the Fourth Framework Programme of the Community activities in the field of research, technological development and demonstration (1994-1998) (1). Aventinus-I was formally approved for funding by the Commission in its decision E/1389/95 of 26 July 1995. Aventinus- II and Sensus were approved for funding by the Commission in its decision E/1791/97 of 3 September 1997. In the case of Sensus, a further Commission decision (E/696/99) to modify the original decision was taken on 25 May 1999 to permit Europol to join the project.

2. The above-mentioned proposals were evaluated by the Commission according to the rules and procedures governing the Fourth Framework Programme of the Community activities in the field of research, technological development and demonstration, with the assistance of independent experts. As a result of the evaluation, they were proposed for funding having been deemed to be highly relevant and technically excellent.

3. Following evaluation, the proposals were granted Community financial support by the Commission, as detailed under point 1. above, after consultation with the programme committee. C 187 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

4. As explained above, the projects originated from proposals submitted in response to public calls published in the Official Journal. The corresponding Commission decisions were taken in accordance with all relevant rules and procedures.

5. Sensus and Aventinus-I and -II were funded under the budget line B6-6121.113 of the Telematics Applications Programme (1994-1998).

6. A maximum Community contribution of € 2 500 000 was approved for Aventinus-I, of which € 2 341 190 was subsequently claimed and paid. A maximum Community contribution of € 550 000 was approved for Aventinus-II, of which € 513 777 was subsequently claimed and paid.

A maximum Community contribution of € 2 250 000 was approved for Sensus, of which € 478 753 has been paid as of 31 December 2000. Further cost claims are in progress.

7. These projects were aimed at developing technologies to facilitate cross-border collaboration between law enforcement and security agencies. The Commission is aware that AfA (Amt für Auslandsfragen), which was involved both in Aventinus and Sensus through its test centre for language technology, is a governmental body reporting to the German Federal Chancellery. As such, AfA has legitimate interests in the research areas addressed by the projects.

The Commission does not consider that it was misinformed about the objectives and results of the projects. As all tasks foreseen in the project work programmes have been successfully completed, the Commission has no specific grounds at this time to ask for recovery of any of the money paid to date. The Commission will nevertheless give due consideration to the information which was recently brought to its attention and assess whether this information may lead it to reconsider its position, including, but not limited to, carrying out a financial audit in accordance with the terms of the contracts.

(1) OJ C 230, 26.8.1993.

(2001/C 187 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0012/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Decision on the proceedings against Spain concerning state aid to the electricity sector

The Commission has stated on various occasions that there is no legal incompatibility preventing Vice- President de Palacio from intervening in the proceedings concerning state aid to Spanish electricity undertakings to meet the costs of the transition to competition.

Recently, the Spanish press has reported the valiant efforts of Mrs de Palacio to gain control of the proceedings so as to prevent the Spanish Government from coming under fire no doubt substantially the same government of which she was a member. The Spanish press has also pointed out that the Vice- President’s battling approach has succeeded in securing the postponement of the proceedings against Spain, which were to be dealt with at the Commission meeting of 21 December 2000.

Does the Commission still believe that Vice-President de Palacio is not seeking to defend the interests of the Spanish Government in the proceedings concerning state aid to Spanish electricity undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

It is not customary for the Commission to comment on press articles expressing only the author’s views; moreover, in this case, the Spanish press places very divergent interpretations on the matter. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/157

The Vice-President of the Commission, in her dual role as Member of the Commission and Member with special responsibility for energy, contributes to the analysis of the costs of transition to competition in the electricity sector in Spain, as in the other Member States, even though the case is being examined by the Directorate-General for Competition and will thus in due course be the subject of a proposal by the Member with special responsibility for competition to his colleagues. This is the background to the Vice- President’s involvement to date.

Lastly, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers to his Written Questions Nos E-1761/99 (1) and E-3178/00 (2) on the same subject.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000. (2) Not yet published.

(2001/C 187 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0014/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Mussel farming in the EU

Mussel farming is of vital importance in the coastal region of Galicia, where there are some 11 500 jobs directly linked to the sector, of which 8 500 are permanent, as well as 7 000 jobs indirectly related to it. This is particularly important, bearing in mind that the resources generated by mussel production are spread across a broad social base and that decisions are taken locally, with the result that funds are reinvested in the region. This has a multiplier effect on the local economy, helping to produce socio- economic stability.

As far as aquaculture in general is concerned it is mussel farming which is the backbone of the sector, since between 250 and 300 million kilos of mussels are cultivated annually in Galicia, making it the world’s second largest producer after China and the leading European producer, accounting for 50 % of total EU production, with 35 % being sold fresh, 41 % earmarked for traditional processing and 24 % for new alternative processing methods, which are increasingly popular.

Will the Commission provide details concerning the control measures applied by the EU to mussel imports from third countries, particularly as regards the need to ensure the same health and quality standards as those required for Community mussels?

Does the Commission not think that mussels should be included as a sensitive product under the agreements on the establishment of free trade zones with third countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the reply the Commission gave to his Written Question E-0529/99 (1), which deals with the hygiene provisions applying to imports of fishery products from third countries.

In addition, it can be said that while the import of general fisheries products is currently permitted from 101 countries and territories (of which 54 are fully harmonised and 47 pre-listed) the import of bivalve molluscs (including mussels) is currently permitted from only 14 countries (of which eight are fully harmonised and six pre-listed), which is an indicator of the very strict provisions which apply.

Mussels of the genus Mytilus spp. pay a most favoured nation (MFN) duty of 10 % and a generalised scheme of preferences (GSP) duty of 7 % when imported into the Community. Mussels of the genus Perna spp. pay a MFN duty of 8 % and a GSP duty of 2,8 %. Prepared or preserved mussels of both species pay a MFN duty of 20 % and a GSP duty of 7 %. This tariff structure shows that unprepared mussels are not as C 187 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

sensitive as prepared mussels, and that they benefit from a moderate level of protection, even when imported from outside preferential or free trade arrangements. Community imports of these products are very modest, representing only 1 % of the Community production. However, regarding mussels, the Community is a net exporter.

Under these circumstances, the Commission does not envisage excluding mussels or restricting free trade in mussels in future negotiations of free trade agreements. However, the Commission will take into account Member States’ concerns regarding the possible sensitivity of mussels in such negotiations.

(1) OJ C 370, 21.12.1999.

(2001/C 187 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0015/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Mussel farming in the EU

The vast development potential of aquaculture in general, and mussel farming in particular, has been recognised and often seen as a solution to the labour surplus caused by the recession in other sectors, as well as a way of meeting demand for seafood products. With this in view, emphasis should be placed on the beneficial effects of the EU structural measures in this sector during the period from 1994 to 1999, which helped to improve the productivity and profitability of growers, while substantially reducing risks, accidents and occupational diseases, and improving the quality of life of growers.

Will the Commission provide details of the total amount of aid received by the mussel-farming sector from the EU during the period 1994 to 1999, broken down by Member State? Will it give details of the total amount of aid received by this sector in Spain during the same period, broken down by region? Will the same or an increased level of structural aid be accorded to the mussel-farming sector during the period from 2000 to 2006 and what specific form will such aid take?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Commission cannot provide details of the total amount of aid granted to the mussel farming sector in 1994-1999 broken down by Member State, as some Member States have not provided sufficiently detailed technical information regarding the projects funded. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/159

This information is, however, available for Spain.

For the 1994-1999 period, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) did not help finance any projects which involved increasing mussel production capacity in Spain. However, it did contribute significantly to modernising the existing aquaculture units without increasing production capacity. The FIFG financed 820 projects in Spain with a total investment of approximately € 41 million. Community aid amounted to € 20 million.

Almost all the mussel projects part-financed by the FIFG are in Galicia. Scarcely a dozen projects were financed in Catalonia and Valencia and Community aid for these totalled approximately € 1 million.

For the 2000-2006 programming period, structural investments part-financed by the FIFG will be designed primarily to continue the modernisation of existing mussel-producing installations and diversify production through the installation of new offshore units which will help to reduce the environmental impact in the ‘rías gallegas’, where ‘bateas’ are traditionally installed.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the amount of aid to be granted to the mussels sector in Spain because financial planning is not broken down by species. Nevertheless, according to the information available, aid for the mussel sector in the 2000-2006 programming period will remain at the same level as in the previous programming period.

(2001/C 187 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Mussel farming in the EU

At a time when the negotiating process with the applicant countries is at quite an advanced stage, particularly with the countries in the Luxembourg group, is the Commission aware of the rationalisation measures undertaken by the Member States in this sector and is it taking or will it take into account during the negotiations the objective of preventing destabilisation of the mussel-farming sector in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Community enlargement should not have an adverse effect on Community mussel farmers, since the applicant countries do not produce significant quantities of mussels. C 187 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0021/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Twelfth extraordinary meeting of the ICCAT

With due respect for the right of Member States to enjoy dual representation within regional fisheries organisations both as Member States of the European Community and as contracting parties to the relevant regional fisheries organisation representing particular overseas territories, it was nevertheless apparent that, at the twelfth extraordinary meeting of the ICCAT held in Marrakech from 13 to 20 November 2000, members of the United Kingdom delegation were taking part simultaneously in Community co-ordination meetings and meetings of the ICCAT contracting parties, representing Bermuda. This dual role enabled the United Kingdom representative to take part in internal meetings to coordinate Community interests, while at the same time defending positions opposed to EU interests on behalf of Bermuda.

In the light of this situation, what measures has the Commission taken, or will it take, to prevent such occurencies at future meetings of the ICCAT or other regional fisheries organisations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The question of how to represent the specific interests of the overseas territories of certain Member States was the subject of a separate declaration attached to the European Union Treaty.

This declaration stipulates that there should not be any divergence between the interests of the Union and those of overseas countries or territories unless there are exceptional circumstances. In such circumstances, the Council should endeavour to find a solution which corresponds to the Union’s position. However in cases where this proves impossible, it has been agreed that the Member State concerned could act separately in the interests of such countries or territories provided that this does not undermine the interests of the Community.

The Member State must inform the Council and the Commission when such a conflict of interests is likely to come about and, if separate action is unavoidable, it should indicate clearly that it is acting in the interest of such a territory mentioned above.

The coordination of the opposing positions should take place within the appropriate Council bodies, the coordination meetings sometimes being held alongside sessions of regional fisheries organisations. The Member States are responsible for the composition of their delegation within the Council bodies under the responsibility of the Presidency. The Commission has, according to its role as guardian of the Treaty, a duty to verify that the Member States correctly inform it, as well as the Council, of the positions they intend to present on behalf of their overseas territories.

(2001/C 187 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0024/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Suspension of customs tariffs on tuna loin

Last year the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal on the common organisation of the market in the fisheries sector in which it advocated suspending the customs tariffs on tuna loin. This proposal was opposed by the Community’s tuna loin producing sector, as well as by certain Member States, with the result that the Council reached agreement on the basis of the views set out in an independent report 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/161

commissioned by the Commission, which noted that the market was adequately supplied and that the shortfall could be estimated at 4 000 tonnes. The Commission has never explained why it placed at risk a whole fishing and industrial sector, which had always followed the approach until then favoured by the Community of seeking to boost integration, by tabling such a damaging proposal as the suspension of custom tariffs on tuna loin.

Will the Commission explain what its real motives were in tabling this proposal and what interests it was seeking to defend?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Commission has already given some indications on the factors leading it to submit the proposal concerned in its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-0756/00 (1).

The increasing demand for loin has been partly met by a steady increase in imports from non-member countries. The Commission deduces from this fact that the major trend on the Community market for fishery products towards increasing dependence on non-member countries for supplies of raw materials is also occurring on the tuna market.

The study also confirms that the Community firms using tuna loin as a raw material for producing preserves are thereby improving their competitiveness both inside the Community and on the international market. The study vindicates the Commission’s opinion that this improved competitiveness is all the more necessary given that certain tuna-canning firms in the Community will have to carry out structural adjustments if they are to secure any long-term viability.

Lastly, the Commission is aware of a real supply deficit which, although limited, can have a seasonal impact on the Community market in this product.

In 2000, as in previous years, the Commission submitted proposals to open restricted quotas for tuna loin, and the Council adopted them, thereby opening the quotas.

As far as the medium term is concerned, the Council and the Commission made a joint statement on 17 December 1999, to the effect that a multiannual quota of 4 000 tonnes at 6 % duty would be opened for 2001-2003. This quota will allow the Community tuna-canning industry to cope with the supply deficit mentioned above. For those Community firms which must carry out structural adjustments, it will also ease the transition to greater competitiveness on the Community and international markets.

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001.

(2001/C 187 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0026/01 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Changeover of electronic payment systems to use of the euro

Major public information campaigns are planned for 2001 in order to ensure that the changeover from national to euro coins and notes runs as smoothly as possible.

Consumers will unquestionably be encouraged to make more use, wherever possible, of electronic payment systems in order to facilitate the changeover. C 187 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Is the Commission aware that such payments are not free of charge, and that the costs are borne by the distribution sector and the consumer? In some Member States, including Belgium, there is a virtual monopoly on the electronic payment systems market. Has the Commission received complaints relating to this? Have inquiries been carried out by the Commission itself? If so, what is the state of affairs? What specific action is the Commission planning to take in the period prior to the actual changeover from national to euro coins and notes in order to prevent abuses of dominant positions?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

The Commission is aware that electronic payments, like any other means of payment including cash payments, have costs and that these costs may be charged to the users of electronic payment systems, that is merchants and consumers.

The Commission has received a complaint from Unizo (formerly NCMV), a Belgian association of retailers, against Banksys, the operator of the Belgian electronic payment system BanContact/MisterCash. According to Unizo Banksys abuses its dominant position on the Belgian market for electronic payments systems by charging smaller retailers excessive and discriminatory prices. The Commission is investigating the complaint and expects to finalise its examination in the course of this year.

A possible abuse of a dominant position, pursuant to Community competition law, cannot be excluded, a priori, but naturally the Commission can start an examination when there are concrete indications that an undertaking is abusing its dominant position on a certain market. Such an examination can be started both following a complaint or ex officio.

(2001/C 187 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0027/01 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Supply of buttermilk

Paragraph 36 of the Court of Auditors Special Report No 1/99 concerning aid for the use of skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder as animal feed (1) states ‘It was found in the Netherlands that the main aid beneficiary (98 % in 1996) supplied buttermilk produced, without denaturing, to a farm in Germany. The Dutch authorities, however, had never checked whether the buttermilk in question was actually used for animal feed and, moreover, they had not asked the German authorities to carry out such checks.’

The Commission’s reply (contained in the same report) was as follows: ‘For the case mentioned by the Court concerning the Netherlands (paragraph 36) the Commission’s services have initiated the procedure for the necessary follow-up checks on-the-spot.’

In the light of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

(a) What company (or companies) was (or were) involved;

(b) What action was taken by the Commission and the local authorities;

(d) What is the current situation?

(1) OJ C 147, 27.5.1999. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/163

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The Commission can confirm that, in light of the Court of Auditors Special Report No 1/99, the European anti-fraud office (OLAF) did carry out the follow-up checks mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In this regard, the Commission would answer the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member as follows:

(a) For reasons of confidentiality the names of the companies concerned may not be given.

(b) and (c) Two controls were conducted by OLAF. The first in the Netherlands, in June 1999 at the premises of the buttermilk producer who received the aid and the second in Germany in July 1999 at the premises of the buttermilk recipient. In both cases, these checks were conducted in partnership with the national authorities under Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organization of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72 (1).

(d) Having conducted its on-the-spot checks, and clarified certain legal aspects on the general operation of this measure, OLAF concluded that there were no grounds for suspecting that anything irregular had occurred. The two Member States concerned were informed of the outcome in May 2000 and the matter closed.

The Honourable Member may also wish to note that the scheme concerned, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1105/68 of the Commission of 27 July 1968 on detailed rules for granting aid for skimmed milk for use as feed (2), which provided for a subsidy on such buttermilk being used directly as animal feeding stuff, was abolished on 31 December 1999 as part of the review of and legal changes made to the Common Agricultural Policy support measures at that time.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991. (2) OJ L 184, 29.7.1968.

(2001/C 187 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0034/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Depopulation of sparsely populated rural areas in Colombia as a result of American poisoning of vegetation

1. Can the Council confirm that the aerial spraying of the pesticide ‘Round Up’ under the ‘Colombia Plan’ is not confined to combating the cultivation of coca plants but, according to Dutch television reports, is now also aimed at virgin primeval forest high up in the mountains, even though this has no connection at all with discouraging the production of raw materials for drugs?

2. How does it view the impression that has arisen in the meantime that this pesticide is increasingly being used to contaminate water supplies with the result that the settlements located downstream become uninhabitable and depopulated and that it is not the cultivation of raw materials for drugs that is harmed by this action but the living environment of rebellious peasant farmers?

3. Does it share my fear that expelling people and destroying their livelihoods may result in their becoming dependent on involvement in the trade and production of drugs since this is the easiest way for them to acquire a new source of income and that, as a result, the opposite is achieved of the reasoning that is used to justify the destruction of the living environment? C 187 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

4. How does it view such an attempt to depopulate remote areas and banish the inhabitants to the towns which recalls the tragedy in Vietnam where attempts were made in the 60s and 70s, also through American intervention, to make disputed areas uninhabitable for human beings with defoliants (the notorious ‘Agent Orange’)?

5. Is it prepared to make every effort to help put an end to any repetition of such a tragedy and, as a first step to that end, to ensure that neither the European Union nor its Member States end up in a situation where they have to share responsibility for this tragedy?

(24 April 2001)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Council has had the opportunity to inform the European Parliament on its position on the activities in Colombia at various occasions: the last time on 31 January 2001 during the debate between the Parliament with Commissioner Nielson and Swedish State Secretary Lars Danielsson on Plan Colombia.

The Council is following very closely the complex and multifaceted problems faced by Colombia and has expressed its determination to support the peace process in the most appropriate manner.

On the question of aerial spraying of illicit crops, the European Union has had the opportunity to express its position to Colombian authorities, and in particular to express doubts about the effectiveness of the measure. The European Union has encouraged Colombian initiatives related to independent international monitoring of aerial spraying on the basis of procedures established by Colombian authorities. The EU has also pointed out to Colombian authorities the danger of a negative impact of the aerial spraying on past and future EU cooperation projects. Finally, the EU has had the occasion to express its conviction that crop substitution is the most effective means to combat illicit crop production.

The European Union is working on an autonomous European package to support the peace process in Colombia, which will be directed to modernising Colombian administration, strengthening the rule of law, developing alternative crops and protecting the environment.

At present, an expert mission has travelled to Colombia in order to identify concrete cooperation projects. The European package will be presented on the occasion of the international meeting on the peace process in Colombia to take place in Brussels in April this year.

Finally, the European Union has also contributed with € 6,5 million to projects concerning displaced population and contributes to the fight against drug production through various means.

(2001/C 187 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0035/01 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Discrimination against male pensioners as regards child allowances

France’s implementation of legislation governing child allowances is discriminatory and unfair to male pensioners, since the national civilian and military retirement pension scheme makes provision for the payment of child allowances only to women or to men under discriminatory conditions. In Germany, on the other hand, child allowances are paid without distinction and in equal amounts to either men or women.

Since this discrimination against men is an infringement of the EU Treaties and does not respect the principle of equality between men and women in the field of social security, nor the principle of equal pay, and since the Commission should ensure compliance with the principle of equality between the sexes and enable European men to benefit from the policies on equality, does it not consider that it should remedy this form of discrimination? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/165

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Concerning the question raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission can inform her that it has already lodged a complaint with the French authorities, on 5 April 2000, for failure to implement Article 141 (ex Article 119) of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice, particularly in cases C-7/93 (Bestuur van het Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds v. G. A. Beune) (1) and C-147/95 (Dimossia Epicheirissi Ilektrismou (DEI) v. Efthimios Evrenopoulos) (2), and for failure to implement Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996, amending Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (3), reflecting the Court’s decisions. It should be noted that France has already been censured by the Court of Justice in its ruling of 8 July 1999 on case C-354/98 (Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic) (4) for failure to notify the transposal measures for Directive 96/97/EC.

Moreover, regarding the specific question of civilian and military pensions, two matters have already been referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling by the French national courts (C-366/99 Criesmar and C-206/00 Moufflin).

(1) ECR 1994 I-4471. (2) ECR 1997 I-2057. (3) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997. (4) ECR 1999 I-4927.

(2001/C 187 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0036/01 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Application for Cohesion Fund assistance in connection with the North Alentejo Multimunicipal Water Supply and Sewage Treatment System

An authoritative representative of the Portuguese State-controlled water company, ‘Águas de Portugal’, confirmed at a recent meeting of Portalegre Municipal Council (of which I am a member) that an application for Structural/Cohesion Fund assistance in connection with the above-mentioned system had been submitted to the Commission.

However:

(a) The system, which would encompass substantial resources of the 15 municipalities comprising Portalegre District, has been laid down by the Portuguese Ministry for the Environment and Regional Planning (under Decree-Law No 128/2000) without prior consultation of the municipalities themselves,

(b) The municipalities are currently considering whether to join the system and set up a corporation to run it. It therefore obviously follows that on the date when the application was submitted, they had not taken a decision on those two points, let alone on the terms of an application for assistance, although the resources concerned (still) fell under their responsibility,

(c) One of the municipalities involved, Portalegre, has already stated that it will not be joining the system, and there are others which may incline to the same view,

(d) Meanwhile, the Assembly of the Republic has already begun to debate Bill No 275/VIII, which, if adopted, will cast doubt on the above decree-law and hence on the water supply system in the form laid down. C 187 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The fact that an application for Structural/Cohesion Fund assistance has been submitted under the circumstances described above prompts the following questions:

1. What body is responsible for the application, according to the indications specified in the relevant papers, and under what conditions was the application drawn up?

2. What projects are covered by the application, and what amounts of investment are involved?

3. How far will the Commission protect the property of the municipalities concerned and the investment projects, especially if municipalities have already decided or eventually decide not to join the system?

4. How will it proceed as regards the application if the system does not come into being or, more to the point, is not set up in accordance with the stipulations of the Portuguese Government?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Portuguese authorities have not to date applied for Cohesion Fund assistance for the project in question. However, the northern Alentejo multimunicipal system has been included among the projects eligible for part-financing under the Fund and has been listed in the instrument’s reference framework because the system is in keeping with the integrated approach per river basin advocated by Directive 2000/60/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1).

Applications for Cohesion Fund financing are always submitted by the department of regional development under the supervision of the Portuguese Minister for Planning.

The Commission examines the projects submitted by the beneficiary Member State. Safeguarding the municipalities’ assets is governed national law.

As a general rule, if a project part-financed under the Cohesion Fund is not carried out in accordance with the conditions subject to which assistance was granted, the regulatory provisions in force (2) entitle the Commission to suspend, reduce or cancel the assistance granted.

Moreover, as regards possible Structural Fund financing for certain components of the system in question, under the existing financial management partnership and the provisions in force (3) responsibility for examining and approving applications in respect of the projects submitted rests with the Portuguese authorities. In particular, they must ensure compliance with the applicable Community legislation and with the selection criteria set out in the operational programme (OP) and the programming supplement. As a general rule, assistance part-financed by the Community must aim to maximise the leverage effect of the state resources mobilised while minimising the cost of attaining the public-service objectives sought.

Information on a possible application in respect of the project to the Alentejo OP can be obtained from the chairman of the Alentejo regional coordinating committee, which is responsible for managing the programme.

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000. (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1265/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999). (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999). 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/167

(2001/C 187 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0044/01 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Privatisation of Olympic Airways

Given the Greek government’s plan to privatise Olympic Airways by declaring it bankrupt and dividing it into two companies, one inheriting the assets, the other the liabilities, and in view of the information I have received in response to a previous question that the Commission is scrutinising the OA restructuring programme submitted by the Greek authorities to ensure compliance with the rules governing state aid based on Article 88 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, will the Commission say:

1. Was it notified in good time about the privatisation plan and accompanying measures to salvage and restructure OA as a company in financial difficulties before this plan was authorised, in accordance with the rules on state aid?

2. To what extent are the restructuring aid, the contributions in capital, the cancellation of debts, the loans, the tax reductions or reduced social security contributions and the loan guarantees proposed by the Greek government in this plan compatible with the rules of the single market?

3. Given that the Greek State as shareholder will be selling its shares when OA is sold off, what preconditions must this sale meet if it is not to be seen in part as state aid, according to the Commission’s special rules and guidelines governing air transport (1), and has the company been assessed by an independent expert who is required, under normal conditions, to demonstrate to the Commission the value of the company as a going concern and, if the Commission should consider this essential, its value after liquidation?

4. Has it been provided with a report specifying the sale value, or values, so as to enable it to determine the real level of aid granted?

5. Is the Commission demanding the repayment of OA debts that are due, and how much do these amount to?

6. What view does it take of the loan of GRD 16 billion to OA to move to the new airport of Spata, given that there are increasing indications that it is unable to go ahead with this move and to pay for work undertaken?

(1) Communication of the Commission (OJ C 350, 10.12.1994).

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

At present, the process of privatising Olympic Airways is still only at the preliminary stage and has not yet been the subject of a notification to the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commission is in close contact with the Greek authorities on this matter. Given that nothing is known at the moment either about the results of the call for tenders or about the precise procedures for privatising the undertaking, it would at this stage appear premature, to say the least, to make any pronouncements about the existence of possible aid and about the compatibility of such aid with the common market. However, the Commission intends to apply the Civil Aviation Aid Guidelines to which the Honourable Member alludes.

Lastly, with regard to the transfer of Olympic Airways’ activities to the airport of Spata, the Commission has notified the Greek authorities, by letter of 10 November 2000, of its decision to authorise the use of State guarantees to finance a part of this transfer in the form of loans. C 187 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0045/01 by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Kidnapping of a Greek Cypriot by Turkish Cypriots

On 13 December the Greek Cypriot building contractor, Mr Panikos Tziakourmas, was kidnapped while on the territory of the British bases on Cyprus. According to the report by the police of the British bases in Cyprus, he was seized by a group of unknown Turkish Cypriot men and then taken by force to the Turkish-occupied territory and abandoned, and one and a half kilos of cannabis was left next to him. Immediately after he was abandoned, the so-called Turkish Cypriot police arrived on the scene and arrested him for possession of drugs. Mr Tziakourmas has a spotless record and has employed Turkish Cypriot workers over the last decade.

Given that the kidnapping and illegal detention of Mr P. Tziakourmas are acts of terrorism and hostage- taking, and as such a violation of international law and of the European Convention on Human Rights, and given also the recent commitments made by Turkey to the European Union regarding democratisation and respect for human rights, the acquis communautaire and the principles of the rule of law, will the Commission say;

1. What measures does it intend to take to exert pressure on Turkey to release Mr P. Tziakourmas forthwith?

2. What effect will the this contentious action have on Turkey’s bid to join the European Union and the funding the EU is due to provide to facilitate Turkish accession?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The Commission is aware of the circumstances concerning the detention of the Greek Cypriot building contractor Mr Panikos Tziakourmas on 13 December 2000. It appears that Mr Tziakourmas was abducted from the territory of the Eastern British Sovereign Base Area. As a result, the British Government has raised this incident with the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community and with the authorities in Ankara. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely.

The criteria for membership agreed by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 include the guaranteeing of the rule of law and of human rights. In this context Turkey’s fulfilment of its obligations as a member of the Council of Europe is an important factor. The Commission monitors respect of these commitments by all candidate countries and regularly reports to the Parliament and to the Member States on developments in these areas.

(2001/C 187 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0046/01 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: L-cysteine from human hair

The Commission’s answer of 28 November 2000 to my Question P-3343/00 (1) states that it is currently looking into whether a Commission Directive to amend No 416 of Annex II (a proposal for which is given) by adapting Directive 76/768/EEC (2) to technical progress is feasible. I am grateful to the Commission for the detailed answer. Unfortunately, no answer was given to my first question, which was as follows: ‘Did the Commission take ethical aspects as well as scientific ones into account in its consideration of this derogation?’ 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/169

In the light of the Commission’s answer, I would reformulate this question as follows:

does the Commission take ethical aspects into account in its consideration of whether the existing directive can be modified?

one reason for the existing ban on producing L-cysteine from human hair was the risk of transmitting Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease and certain virus diseases.

in the light of the most recent findings on BSE and the uncertainty as to how Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease is transmitted, does the Commission really think it is responsible to water down the ban?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 224. (2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

As stated in Council Directive 76/768/EEC, of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, the Cosmetics Directive, the pursuit of the safeguarding of public health must inspire the Community legislation in the cosmetic sector. This objective must be attained by means which also take into account economic and technological requirements. Technical progress necessitates rapid adaptation of the technical provisions of the Directive ensuring that only safe cosmetic products are put on the market. To this end, the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) is mandated to give opinions on consumer health and safety issues in the field of cosmetics, based on scientific data, while taking into account ethical considerations such as the use of human volunteers for testing purposes.

Therefore, when proposing its technical adaptation of the Directive, the Commission takes into account the scientific as well as the ethical aspects considered by the SCCNFP in its opinions.

The risk assessment of amino acids such as L-cysteine obtained by hydrolysis of human hair carried out by the SCCNFP and the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) has shown that such amino acids are safe.

This is based on the following facts:

at present prions associated with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) have not been detected in hair;

cosmetic uses of these hydrolysates are for topical application only and there is no evidence indicating that TSE may be transmitted by topical application;

the very rigorous procedure leading to an absence of peptides may guarantee the exclusion of the responsible prion;

by their nature amino acids cannot transmit TSE.

In conclusion the current scientific knowledge fully supports the modification of entry 416 of Annex II of the Cosmetics Directive.

(2001/C 187 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Common Foreign and Security Policy and the NMD initiative

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a great supporter of the National Missile Defense (NMD) shield. C 187 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

The shield system is supposed to defend the US against a missile attack. However, the initiative is a threat to security on the continent of Europe. The Russian government has pointed out that the NMD system is incompatible with the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) Treaty of 1972. Robin Cook, Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has expressed fears of a new arms race.

If the US Administration really does want to create a missile shield it needs the support of the UK government. One part of the shield would be situated in North Yorkshire.

1. What is the Commission’s view of the National Missile Defence system?

2. Does the Commission believe that the NMD system is compatible with the ABM Treaty of 1972? If so, on what grounds?

3. Does the Commission share the fears of Robin Cook, Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of a new arms race if the United States develops the missile shield? If not, on what grounds does the Commission reject Mr Cook’s views?

4. In view of its replies to questions 1, 2 and 3, does the Commission support the siting of part of the missile shield in North Yorkshire?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

This is an issue of defence which falls outside the scope of Community competence.

(2001/C 187 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0053/01 by Giuseppe Pisicchio (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Situation of Carime

During the 1990s the Bank of Italy authorised the banking group Cariplo to acquire through its subsidiaries a number of important credit institutions in the south of Italy such as Carical, Caripuglia, Carisalerno and Mediocredito Sud, which were seriously in debt, at a cost of only a few hundred billion lire for a network of 400 branches with more than 4000 employees.

The benefits of this operation were twofold. From the point of view of taxation, the outstanding debts could be included in the consolidated balance sheet, while the share capital could be reconstituted by undervaluing the old shareholdings using criteria designed to bring their value down sharply if they were not converted into new ones, making it possible possible to recover the capital used for the purchase of the banks themselves.

The existing institutions taken over by Cariplo were brought together in a single structure, Carime, in which the majority shareholding of 66 % was transferred for ITL 2 300 billion to the Banco Popolare Commercio e Industrial del Veneto in November 2000, which is considerably smaller in size than the bank purchased.

At the time of the transfer, Carime had an overall value of 20 000 billion lire, with investments of 6000 billion lire, mainly in local development, at a time when this is particularly necessary. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/171

In line with the Commission’s policy to eliminate factors causing imbalance in competition and access to credit in objective 1 regions, what will it do to overcome the obstacles to the balanced development of the regions of southern Italy caused by the impoverishment of local instruments for gaining access to credit?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

All the mergers to which the Honourable Member refers were examined and authorised by the national authority, because they do not meet the conditions for the application of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1).

It should however be recalled that an essential condition for the application of the EC Treaty rules on competition is the existence of a prejudicial effect on the trade between Member States. Consequently, it is possible that an issue concerning a national or local situation would not fall within the scope of the above- mentioned provisions.

The situation described by the Honourable Member appears to be essentially of national nature, if not regional, and hence it would be unlikely to affect significantly interstate trade.

In these circumstances it does not fall within the Commission’s competence to take measures aimed at resolving the situation described.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989 republished in OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.

(2001/C 187 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0055/01 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Fire retardants

In both the UK and Ireland, the use of fire retardants is compulsory in upholstered furniture. That requirement has resulted in a fall in the number of deaths caused by house fires (see ‘Effectiveness of Furniture and Furnishings, Government Consumer Safety Research’, DTI). The problem with using fire retardants, however, concerns the possible environmental impact: fire retardants can trigger hormone disorders. In reply to previous questions (Whitehead, Watson and Sterckx), the Commission has indicated that it intends to evaluate current fire-safety standards and if necessary to draw up new standardisation arrangements.

1. What deadline does the Commission intend to fix for making fire retardants compulsory in upholstered furniture?

2. Which fire retardants does the European Commission intend to exempt from being made compulsory or prohibit altogether, having regard to their potential to cause hormone disorders?

The last few months have seen two tragic accidents, one in Austria, the other in the Netherlands, in which clothing inflammability played a part.

3. Does the Commission consider that treatment with fire retardants should be made compulsory for sport and party clothing in particular? If so, what proposals can be expected and when?

4. Does the Commission consider that warning labels would be a useful measure? C 187 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Upholstered furniture and clothing are not subject to specific Community legislation regarding safety, including fire resistance. They fall under the scope of Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (1) that imposes a general safety obligation. This Directive refers to European standards, conformity with which confers presumption of conformity with the general safety obligation in the new version of the Directive, which is currently being revised.

The Commission considers that this is the legal framework within which this issue should be dealt with, as pointed out in the answers to Oral Questions H-147/00 put by Mr Watson during question time at the March 2000 (2) part-session and H-303/00 put by Mr Sterckx during question time at the April 2000 (3) part-session and Written Question E-1212/00 put by Mr Whitehead (4).

Accordingly, in December 2000, the Commission issued a mandate to the European Committee for Standardisation, with a view to drawing up European standards concerning the inflammability of night- dresses, and the Commission is now considering the need for a new mandate covering the inflammability of other types of clothing.

As regards upholstered furniture, in 2000 the Commission consulted the Member States in the Committee for Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on the general safety of products, and in December of the same year it embarked on consultations with European consumer associations to evaluate the need for a standardisation mandate in the above-mentioned framework.

In any event, the provisions of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (5) must be complied with. Some fire retardants that are dangerous to human health, such as Tris (2,3 dibromopropyl) phosphate, Trisazir- idinylphosphoninoxide and polychlorinated biphenyls, are already prohibited under Directive 76/769/EEC when used in textile products that come into direct contact with the skin. Furthermore, the Commission proposed banning pentabromodiphenyl ether, because it is a risk to the environment and has been detected in breast milk in increasing concentrations.

The Commission does not intend to make fire-retardant materials compulsory in the design of chairs for private use.

However, as regards general safety in public places, the European Standardisation Committee is drawing up European standards relating to the classification of net and other curtains in public places according to fire resistance, and is developing testing methods for this classification. When these standards are available, the Commission will encourage Member States to use them at national level.

Regarding the question about warning labels, the Commission considers that warning labels could supplement the available technical solutions, if these solutions do not completely eliminate the risk. The standards body could provide for warnings in the absence of any other satisfactory solution.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. (2) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000). (3) Debates of the European Parliament (April 2000). (4) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001. (5) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/173

(2001/C 187 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0069/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Compatibility of collective agreements between producers on the recycling costs of electrical and electronic equipment and scrap motor cars with European competition rules

In its proposal for a directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment of 13 June 2000 (COM/2000/ 0347) (1) the Commission requires producers and importers to set up a scheme for recycling electrical and electronic equipment, and to meet the full cost of doing so.

The proposal for a directive has nothing to say about how arrangements for the scheme’s financing are to be implemented. The choice is between a scheme under which recycling costs would be met from a common fund (collective scheme) or a scheme on an individual basis under which producers would meet only the cost of recycling their own products. The collective scheme offers individual enterprises no financial incentives (such as eco-design or slimmed down organisation) for minimising retrieval costs. The individual scheme does offer financial incentives, and should consequently be preferred on economic as well as environmental grounds.

The Netherlands is the only country to date where any such collective schemes operate. To enable recycling both of electrical and electronic equipment and of scrap motor cars, the consumer pays a uniform contribution per product. The Netherlands competition authority is currently seeking to establish whether or not the scheme for electrical and electronic equipment is compatible with EU competition rules. At all events, under the collective scheme enterprises enter into cost-sharing arrangements with each other. Pricing agreements are in principle prohibited. In the past, the German federal cartels authority had also prohibited the so-called ‘visible fee’ with the argument that this involved a standard costs factor and that arrangements based on it consequently were tantamount to unlawful pricing agreements. The expectation is that the Netherlands cartels authority will also shortly rule against this collective scheme. Although both cartel authorities cooperate closely with the European Commission’s Competition DG, the latter has itself still not issued a ruling on the compatibility of the Netherlands collective scheme with European competition rules.

Does the Commission agree that the Netherlands collective schemes for financing the recycling of electrical and electronic equipment and scrap motor cars are incompatible with European competition rules?

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000, p. 184.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The pursuit of environmental objectives, such as proposed in the proposal for a Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment referred to by the Honourable Member, often leads to the creation of new economic activities and markets. Community competition policy aims primarily at ensuring that these new markets stay open and that competition can take place. In more concrete terms, the Commission seeks to ensure that companies with environmental obligations have a real choice of alternative means of fulfilling those obligations, so that the price paid by consumers is not excessively high. More specific principles concerning the assessment of horizontal environmental co-operation agreements have been recently set out in the Commission’s notice ‘Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to horizontal co-operation agreements’ (1). It should be stressed that the European competition rules only apply to those restrictions of competition which may affect trade between Member States. In practice, this issue needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

With respect to the two Netherlands collective schemes referred to by the Honourable Member, the scheme relating to electrical and electronic equipment has been only notified to the Netherlands competition authority and the Commission therefore is not examining this case. The Netherlands competition authority is competent to apply Article 81(1) and 82 (ex Articles 85 and 86) of the C 187 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

EC Treaty. As far as the disposal system for scrap cars is concerned, both the Netherlands competition authority and the Commission have received a corresponding notification, which is currently being examined. In its scrutiny of this notification the Commission applies the above-mentioned principles. Since the Commission’s investigation in this case is not yet completed it is not possible to indicate the likely outcome. The Commission will not hesitate to inform the Honourable Member when the examination of the case is completed.

(1) OJ C 3, 6.1.2001.

(2001/C 187 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0074/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Credit Unions

Is the Commission aware of, or has it itself carried out any comparative studies on the existence of Credit Unions across the EU?

Experience suggests that Credit Unions provide an invaluable service by offering loans and savings accounts to small businesses and individuals who might otherwise be denied such services by mainstream banks and lending organisations.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of credit unions across the Community. This term covers both those organisations (credit unions proper) which are organised essentially on a local basis and provide savings and credit facilities to the individuals who are members, and those organisations more generally known as mutual guarantee societies (MGS) which provide access to credit facilities for the small businesses which belong to them. Credit unions are normally, and MGS often, organised along co- operative lines. In both cases their major purpose is to facilitate access to credit for their members, to be used in the case of credit unions normally for expenditure on private consumption, and in the case of MGS for business investment. Exceptionally, the same organisation may carry out both functions.

Regulatory requirements and traditions regarding both credit unions and MGSs, and the concept of risk- sharing in general, differ widely across the Member States, as does public support for their development.

Credit unions proper are particularly established in the United Kingdom, for example, where they fall under the Credit Unions Act of 1979. These unions specialise in the provision of finance to low income consumers and their objectives under the Act include: the promotion of thrift among members; the creation of sources of credit for members at a fair and reasonable rate of interest; the use and control of members’ savings for their mutual benefit; the training and education of the members in the wise use of money and in the management of their financial affairs. No Community directives yet apply to these institutions. Credit unions in Ireland and the United Kingdom are exempt from the prudential regulations that apply to other credit institutions that are eligible to receive deposits from the public, although in both of these jurisdictions there are national supervision regimes that apply.

MGSs are sometimes established by small businesses or their representatives together with financial intermediaries, such as banks. They facilitate access to loan finance by offering guarantees to lenders, thus helping to address the fact that a large number of small businesses are undercapitalised, and banks can be reluctant to give loans to them as also launched several smaller comparative studies some years ago.

In order to increase awareness of mutual guarantee schemes, the Commission, following a call for proposals, has selected the European Mutual Guarantee scheme (AECM) to organise several conferences in the Member States, including those Member States where such schemes are underdeveloped. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/175

In addition, under the 3rd Multiannual Programme in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (1997-2000) (1) the Commission launched a pilot action that supported both feasibility studies and the establishment or the development of a small number of MGSs (including in Ireland and the United Kingdom).

Under the Growth and Employment Initiative (1998-2000) and the new Multiannual programme for enterprises and entrepreneurship, in particular for SMEs (2001-2005) adopted by the Council on 20 December 2000, Community funds aimed at strengthening loan guarantee schemes and MGSs will be made available and managed by the European Investment Fund (EIF).

The 3rd European Round table of Bankers and SMEs also mentioned in its final report the important role of MGS and highlighted some of the best practices in Europe (2).

(1) COM(1999) 319 final. (2) see: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/financing/round_table.htm#3roundtable.

(2001/C 187 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0078/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: ’Purchase for destruction’ of cattle aged over 30 months to prevent possible consumption of BSE- infected meat and the implementation of this rule in Galicia

What is the general scope of the rule concerning the ‘purchase for destruction’ of cattle aged over 30 months adopted by the Agriculture Council at its meting of 4 December 2000 with a view to preventing possible consumption of meat from cattle infected by BSE (’mad cow disease’)? When will this rule be implemented in the EU, and how? How will it be applied in Galicia? How many cattle will be affected, and what technical and budgetary resources will be used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2001)

A purchase for destruction scheme as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (1) was adopted by the Commission and entred into force on 1 January 2001. This is an exceptional market support measure intended to withdraw beef from the market until 30 June 2001, when testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of all slaughtered animals above 30 months (OTM animals) becomes obligatory.

In the meantime, under that Regulation, only OTM animals having tested negative for BSE can be sold for human consumption while animals which have not been tested should be purchased by Member States with the view to removing them permanently from the market through a destruction process.

Although the Regulation concerned is applicable in all Member States some of its provisions permit, nevertheless, certain derogations. Consequently, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden are not actively participating in the scheme whereas Germany and Luxembourg are buying OTM animals despite full testing capacity for all their OTM animals presented for slaughter.

Spain is participating fully in the application of the Regulation but internal problems of technical capacity, staff training, logistics, etc. have delayed the physical start of the operations. C 187 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

No upper limit has been fixed with regard to the number of animals which could be covered by the scheme. However, under the agricultural budget € 700 million has been earmarked for Community cofinancing of such purchases (70 % of the purchase price).

Apart from this co-financing provision, Member States are responsible for providing the necessary financing and technical capacity to assure the proper functioning of the scheme.

(1) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0082/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Compulsory BSE testing on cattle aged over 30 months killed in Galician slaughterhouses

What is the state of affairs in Galicia since the beginning of 2001 concerning the implementation of the above compulsory testing?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2001)

Following new developments in the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic in the Community at the end of 2000, systematic testing of all bovine animals over 30 months of age entering the food chain was introduced as of 1 January 2001 to further reinforce the protection of consumers against BSE.

In the beginning of this year, Member States were asked to send a report to the Commission on the status of implementation of the new BSE related Community measures. Spain confirmed that the requirement to test all bovine animals over 30 months of age slaughtered for human consumption had been implemented.

The Commission plans to make an inspection to verify the implementation as a part of a new series of inspections starting in March 2001.

(2001/C 187 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0085/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Frequent deaths off the shores of southern Spain arising from the conditions in which young African men and women are obliged to emigrate

Young Africans wishing to enter the EU, and, specifically, the Spanish state, in search of employment and a better life, as denied to them in their own countries (in many cases run by corrupt leaders protected by European countries), are continuing to be arrested at a rate of several hundred a week. Many are dying owing to the appalling conditions in which they are obliged to cross the Strait of Gibraltar and to the hostile attitude of the Spanish authorities to immigration, as expressed, notably, in the recently adopted Law on Foreigners, with attitudes at times openly verging on xenophobia. A few years ago many of us angrily criticised the attitude of the US authorities, holding them responsible for the deaths of the Latin American ‘wetbacks’ trying to cross the Rio Grande; today, however, we are horrified to find ourselves faced with a similar or even worse phenomenon happening off the Spanish coastline between Europe and Africa, while the European authorities take no effective steps to prevent it. Even on 5 January 2000, two small boats, known to be carrying 48 and 16 persons respectively on board, were known to be adrift somewhere between Morocco and Andalusia in highly dangerous circumstances. What political measures 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/177

does the Council intend to take with the Spanish government to attempt to put an end to these scandalous deaths which are occurring every day in southern Spain, casting a shadow over the large numbers of young Africans who wish to work in Europe?

(24 April 2001)

The Council reminds the Honourable Member that it has replied and taken a position on this question a number of times. The Council refers the Honourable Member to its replies to Written Questions P-1391/ 00, by Mr Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, E-2878/00, by Mr Camilo Nogueira Román E-1013/00, by Mr André Brie and P-3308/00 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda.

(2001/C 187 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0086/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Accidental death of twelve immigrants from Equatorial Guinea in the Murcia region of Spain

On 3 January 2001, in the Murcia region of the Spanish state, twelve immigrants from Equatorial Guinea were run over by a train at a level crossing as they were being transported to their workplace in an overcrowded bus. These twelve people were employed on a farm illegally, without decent housing, regular pay or welfare benefits, and were deprived of their legitimate civic and trade union rights. These tragic deaths serve to remind us that the Mediterranean region of Spain is now home to some 20 000 Latin American immigrants employed as agricultural workers, who do not have legal resident status under the Law on Foreigners adopted by the Spanish government in implementation of the EU rules, if the Spanish government’s statements are to be accepted. Is there any basis in EU law that allows the Spanish government to maintain immigrants from Equatorial Guinea and other countries in working and housing conditions of this nature and to deprive them of their civic rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

The Commission has learnt with regret about the accidental death of twelve illegal residents, who were run over by a train at a level crossing as they were being transported to their workplace in an overcrowded bus. As with other sad incidents of this nature, this accident shows that persons who are employed illegally do not always share the same treatment as legal workers. It is therefore crucial to develop policies at Union level to deal with issues of illegal immigration and illegal employment. The Union has the competence to do so according to Article 63(3)(b) (ex Article 73K) of the EC Treaty.

For the time being no binding rules have been adopted. The Commission intends to present a communication on a common fight against illegal immigration in the near future.

The Commission adopted a communication on illegal work in 1998. This communication aimed to initiate a debate in the Member States and among the social partners on the most appropriate strategy to fight illegal work. A study to examine what Member States have done in response to this communication has recently been completed.

Moreover in the recent Commission’s Communication on a Community Immigration Policy (1) it is pointed out that there is a need for immigration in certain sectors of the economy and that immigration might contribute coping with demographic decline. New admission policies could therefore also have an positive effect on the reduction of the number of illegal migrants.

(1) COM(2000) 757 final. C 187 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0090/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Cofinancing of anti-BSE measures

The decisions adopted by the EU Council of Ministers under the plan to eradicate BSE and fight its spread to humans are being applied by the fifteen Member States with varying degrees of effectiveness. Some of these measures, such as the transportation of carcasses and the destruction of at-risk material, are leading in a number of Spanish regions, given the repercussions of the costs on stockbreeders, to the further impoverishment of an already disadvantaged sector: farming is essentially based on the family model, while the national and regional governments appear unable to meet the costs of implementing the Union’s measures.

Does the Commission intend to provide extraordinary funding with a view to the cofinancing of measures such as incineration, transportation, testing (analysis and acquisition) and construction or equipment of reference laboratories and incinerators, so as to ensure that these costs do not have direct repercussions as is already happening in some cases on the stockbreeders themselves and that the measures are properly implemented and succeed in restoring a climate of confidence among European consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

The Commission is already cofinancing a significant percentage of the cost of this crisis, for example via a specific purchase scheme introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (1), by funding the purchase of rapid diagnostic tests for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and by applying the public intervention regime to the common organisation of the market in beef and veal.

The financial impact of this series of measures is currently estimated at almost € 1 billion.

As part of an initial supplementary and amending budget for 2001, the Commission has asked the budgetary authority to release the sums placed in reserve (€ 60 million) for the funding of further testing.

Current budgetary and legal circumstances do not allow the Commission to become involved in funding new measures such as incineration or the transportation of carcasses.

(1) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0091/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: BSE: large-scale dumping of carcasses and fodder in Mesía (Galicia, Spain)

The recently-discovered, open and visible dumping of cattle carcasses in Galicia has brought about a general collapse of consumer confidence in the measures adopted at EU level to combat BSE, and also relates to the even more disturbing phenomenon of the further impoverishment of the already disadvantaged stockbreeding sector: in Galicia, almost all farming is family-based, and the sector is not prepared for the grave crisis produced by the appearance of BSE-infected livestock.

The only treatment given to the carcasses dumped has been the administration of quicklime. This act of dumping was, furthermore, preceded by the dumping of over 50 tonnes of fodder of animal origin. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/179

The statements made by those responsible for these acts of dumping give reason to believe that they have acted in accordance with the Community rules.

In view of the above, can the Commission state whether any rules exist at European level on the treatment to be administered to feedingstuffs containing animal residues with a view to their elimination? Can the Commission state whether the same rules indicate how such feedingstuffs are to be eliminated, and, if so, provide details?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

According to Council Directive 90/667/EEC, of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/425/EEC (1) animal carcasses must be processed in an approved plant under official veterinary surveillance. In exceptional circumstances, they may be disposed of by burning or burial.

From 1 April 1997, Council Decision 1999/534/EC, of 19 July 1999 on measures applying to the processing of certain animal waste to protect against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Commission Decision 97/735/EC (2) requires that all mammalian animal waste must be processed in accordance with certain minimum parameters which are regarded as being the most effective standards for the inactivation of the agents of scrapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

Member States may authorise the processing of this animal waste by a method which does not meet these standards if the resulting processed material is destroyed by burial, incineration, burning as fuel or a similar method which ensures safe disposal.

The additional requirements established by Community legislation on disposal of animal material presenting a BSE risk have been provided to the Honourable Member in replying to her Written Question P-0052/01 (3).

(1) OJ L 363, 27.12.1990, p. 51. Directive as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden. (2) OJ L 204, 4.8.1999. (3) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 247.

(2001/C 187 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0092/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: BSE: measures to be adopted by the Member States

On 4 December 2000 the EU Council of Ministers adopted a set of decisions related to BSE, including screening tests for cattle aged over 30 months and a temporary ban on animal meal in the fifteen Member States.

All the Member States have started the procedures for implementing these decisions, but as things stand there are major variations in the extent to which they have implemented them and the resources made available for that purpose. In France, the government is adopting measures which would not actually have been considered mandatory until 1 July 2001, including the equipment of 26 reference laboratories (to join the 13 that already exist) and the operation of tests at a rate of 100 000 per week. The contrast between this situation and that in other Member States, such as Italy, which has already admitted that it lacks the capacity to handle the problem, and Spain, which has only one reference laboratory and cannot match test capacity to demand, is creating a state of confusion, both among European consumers and in the industry itself, in the face of the variations in the action taken by different national and even regional governments. C 187 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

In view of the above, and taking into account the European dimension of the BSE phenomenon, originating as it does in imports of contaminated British fodder, as well as the variations in response to the problem between the fifteen Member States, does the Commission intend to issue guidelines on the number of screening tests to be carried out in relation to total numbers of cattle, on the number of reference laboratories needed to make the tests, on the optimal number of centres required for the treatment, destruction and elimination of residues, and on any other measure liable to restore consumer confidence and enable the stockbreeding sector to recover?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

Following new developments in the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic in the Community at the end of 2000, a number of Community measures were adopted to further reinforce the protection of consumers against BSE and to prevent the transmission of BSE. These measures include systematic testing of all bovine animals over 30 months of age entering the food chain and a temporary ban on use of processed animal protein in all feed for farmed animals.

Detailed rules on the testing of bovine animals for BSE are laid down in Commission Decision 98/272/EC of 23 April 1998 on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/8/EC of 29 December 2000 (2) and Commission Decision 2000/ 764/EC of 29 November 2000 on the testing of bovine animals for the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (3), as amended by Decision 2001/8/EC. According to these rules, all bovine animals over 30 months of age slaughtered for human consumption and subject to ‘special emergency slaughter’, or showing clinical symptoms of any disease in the inspection carried out before slaughter, shall be tested for BSE as of 1 January 2001. Bovine animals over 30 months of age which die on farms or in transport shall be tested at random with a minimum sample size laid down for each Member State based on the size of the bovine herd. As of 1 July 2001, all bovine animals over 30 months of age slaughtered for human consumption shall be tested for BSE.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (4), further sets out that all bovine animals over 30 months of age slaughtered for human consumption shall be tested for BSE as of 1 January 2001. Alternatively bovine animals over 30 months of age can be offered for a ‘purchase for destruction’ scheme instead of being slaughtered for human consumption.

In the beginning of this year, Member States were asked to send a report to the Commission on the status of implementation of the new BSE-related Community measures. All Member States reported having implemented the provisions related to BSE testing in their national legislation. Some Member States will however only attain full testing capacity at the end of March, but in the meantime bovine animals over 30 months of age can be purchased for destruction. It would not be appropriate to issue guidelines on the number of laboratories needed for the testing in each Member State, as the testing capacity varies between different laboratories.

Also the capacity of plants approved to destroy animal waste can vary to a large extent. Thus the actual number of such plants is not necessarily a good indicator of the capacity. However the Commission is aware of the problems experienced in a number of Member States in relation to disposal of animal waste and feed containing such waste.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely, including through inspections of Food and Veterinary Office.

(1) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998. (2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001. (3) OJ L 305, 6.12.2000. (4) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/181

(2001/C 187 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0093/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Dumping of cattle carcasses in Mesía (Galicia, Spain)

In the first days of 2001 more than 300 cattle carcasses were discovered in a disused open-cast quartz mine in Galicia, having been secretly dumped there. Those responsible for this dumping appear to have been employees of the enterprise entrusted by the regional government with the task of incinerating these carcasses, considered unsuitable for the food chain.

In view of the reasons given by the Galician regional authorities and the Spanish national authorities in justification of this act of dumping:

Can the Commission state whether and if so, through what mechanisms it is monitoring the implementation in the Member States of the measures adopted by the Council for the eradication of BSE and the protection of consumer health in Europe?

Can the Commission state what penalties it intends to apply to acts such as the above?

Can the Commission state what measures it intends to take concerning this particular case of dumping of cattle carcasses in Galicia?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

In relation to matters relating to public and animal health, the Commission’s policy is to maintain a high level of vigilance in order to ensure that Member States fully comply with their obligations under Community law.

Commission experts carry out regular on-the-spot checks in all Member States to verify the correct implementation of Community legislation on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and related matters.

The specific matter raised by the Honourable Member is being investigated by the Commission.

In cases where, after establishing the facts, it appears to the Commission that Spain is not fulfilling its obligations, the Commission is prepared to take all necessary action within its power ensure that Community law is respected. In appropriate cases this action would include the opening of infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 187 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0096/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: BSE: blood donations

In response to the BSE crisis, the governments of the 15 Member States have adopted a series of supplementary measures of their own to be applied in addition to the measures approved at Community level by the Council of Ministers. One measure adopted by the French Government merits particular attention, in that it places a ban on blood donations from people resident in the United Kingdom during the BSE crisis there.

In view of this situation, does the Commission believe that any technical or scientific grounds exist for banning blood donated by people resident in the United Kingdom during the BSE crisis there? C 187 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

The Scientific Steering Committee has recently advised the Commission (1) that there is no conclusive scientific evidence for the transmission of variant Cruntzfeld-Jacob disease (vCJD) by blood. However, the Commission is well aware that a theoretical potential for such transmission does exist, and the relevant Scientific Committees continuously monitor scientific evidence on the subject as it arises.

Based on the Committee’s findings, the Commission will propose preventive measures as necessary, taking into account also that the Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products and Medical Devices (SCMPMD) (2) recommends a careful consideration of whether the exclusion of donors who stayed for a defined period of time in areas with increased risk of exposure to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent would provide an increase in safety balanced against its negative impact on supply and donor population.

According to the SCMPMD, the adverse effects of any exclusion criterion on the donor population is not only the possibility of a shortage in supply. Excluded donors have to be replaced by new donors, most probably by first time donors. This replacement creates an additional risk as the prevalence of blood borne infectious diseases in first time donors is significantly higher than in repetitive donors. Any new exclusion measure, therefore, has to be balanced against the calculable risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmissions in donations from first time donors.

(1) Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee of 26/27 October 2000 on the Houston et al paper in the Lancet of 16 September 2000 on the transmission of BSE by blood transfusion in sheep. (2) Update of the Opinion given by the Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products and Medical Devices on The Risk Quantification For CJD Transmission Via Substances of Human Origin of 16 February 2000.

(2001/C 187 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0098/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: BSE: incinerators

As a result of the measures adopted by the European Union in response to the emergence of further and in some instances the first cases of BSE in various European countries, the authorities find themselves faced with the need to take drastic measures to tackle this serious problem, with a view to protecting consumer health and containing the spread of the epidemic.

Of the measures adopted, the one which is apparently proving most problematic especially in those Member States where the first cases of BSE have surfaced concerns the transportation and subsequent destruction of risk material.

Incinerators have been unable to cope with the large number of cattle earmarked for slaughter in keeping with recent decisions by the Council of Ministers. Moreover, there would appear to be no easy means of transporting animals for slaughter.

In view of the justifiable public alarm that this issue has generated amongst consumers and cattle farmers who in many instances are not only losing their cattle but are also having to bear the cost of the transportation and subsequent slaughter thereof what procedures does the Commission intend to introduce to enable compliance with European rules on the mandatory requirement that SRM which is to be disposed of is properly incinerated and transported? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/183

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

According to Commission Decision 2000/418/EC of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (BSE) and amending Decision 94/ 474/EC (1), specified risk material (SRM) shall be completely destroyed by:

incineration with or without pre-processing,

co-incineration with pre-processing,

burial in an approved landfill site after pre-processing of at least 133° C for 20 minutes at 3 bars of pressure.

Point 4 of Annex I to this Decision establishes that Member States may allow the burial of SRM in the circumstances set out in Article 3(2) of Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/425/EEC (2) and by a method which precludes all risk of transmission of a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) and is authorised and supervised by the competent authority.

Commission experts carry out regular on-the-spot checks in all Member States to verify the correct implementation of Community legislation on BSE and related matters, including the above mentioned legislation on SRM.

In cases where, after establishing the facts, it appears to the Commission that a Member State is not fulfilling its obligations, the Commission is prepared to take all necessary action within its power to ensure that Community law is respected. In appropriate cases this action would include the opening of infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000. Decision last amended by Commission Decision 2001/2/EC of 27 December 2000 (OJ L 1, 4.1.2001). (2) OJ L 363, 27.12.1990.

(2001/C 187 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0100/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Impact of storms in Galicia on fisheries and shellfishing

The economy of regions such as Galicia in Spain, as well as regions of Portugal and France on the Atlantic seaboard, have been and continue to be badly hit by the severe storms which have been wreaking havoc on Europe’s Atlantic coast since last October. The production systems of these regions, which are highly dependent on the primary sector (i.e. agriculture and fisheries), are feeling the effects of these adverse weather conditions.

The loss to shellfishing in Galicia caused by the decimation of stocks of bivalves resulting from the fall in water salinity is estimated at ESP 7 billion. Some species have been completely wiped out, and young shellfish have also been affected. Consequently, not only this year’s harvest, but the basis for next year’s as well, have been completely lost.

The storms have inflicted unprecedented losses on agriculture and fisheries. Farmers have requested a range of support measures from the competent authorities, including soft loans and direct aid to compensate for lost income. C 187 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Fishermen, meanwhile, speak of disaster, tragedy and despair. The small-scale fishing in small vessels in which they are engaged represents the sole source of income for many families, which have been forced to survive on less than ESP 30 000 a month. Having been confined to port for three months, the circumstances for some have become so dire that they have been forced to turn to loans and the social services for help. Fishermen’s guilds such as that in Cedeira (La Coruña) have resorted to taking out bank loans as a means of providing immediate economic assistance to its members.

Given the traditionally low take-up of FIFG resources, will the Commission consider the possibility of cofinancing support measures for estuary fishing and shellfishing in those regions of Europe hardest hit by the storms, such as Galicia? Has the Spanish Government put forward a proposal of any kind to this effect?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern over the situation for fishermen and shellfish farmers hit by bad weather over recent months in regions such as Galicia.

The Commission would point out that under certain conditions specified in Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1), Member States may grant fishermen compensation, part-financed by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), for temporary cessation of activities under unforeseeable circumstances, in particular cessation for biological reasons. However, for the 2000-2006 programming period, the total amount is limited to € 1 million or 4 % of the Community financial assistance allocated to the sector in the Member State concerned.

In light of these circumstances, it is up to the Spanish government to take appropriate decisions on granting any compensation allowances.

The Commission would stress that the implementation rate for the FIFG in Spain in 1994-1999 will be almost 100 %. For 2000-2006, implementation of the FIFG is progressing in line with programming expectations.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2001/C 187 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0102/01 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Choice of key period for transition to euro

On 11 October 2000 the Commission adopted a recommendation on measures to facilitate the preparation of economic operators for the changeover to the euro. One of the proposals set out in this communication is that these operators should be encouraged to start gaining experience in using the euro as of the third quarter of 2001.

This key period, from June to September, also happens to be the period during which most people, including the staff of the Community institutions, take their annual holiday. It therefore seems rather unlikely that the social partners, economic operators and European citizens will take heed of such a proposal.

1. Why was the third quarter of 2001 chosen as a key period in the changeover to the euro?

2. In recommending that bank accounts be converted into euro during the third quarter of 2001, when most European citizens are on holiday, does the Commission not fear it will cause unnecessary confusion? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/185

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The third quarter of 2001 was selected for two reasons: to accustom the economic actors to handling the euro over a period which will be sufficiently long for them to become familiar with it; to stagger and have more control over changeover operations by not having them coincide with the actual introduction of coins and notes (frontloading will be spread over September to December 2001).

Conversion of accounts into euros will be accompanied by a large-scale information and communication campaign targeted at the banks in order to prevent confusion and to ensure complete transparency of the operation.

(2001/C 187 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0106/01 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Help for Honduras after hurricane

After the hurricane, the European Union has promised several millions of euros for rehabilitation of schools and clinics, but to date not a single euro seems to have been delivered. Why?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

In order to respond to the most urgent needs, the European Community’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO) implemented emergency relief actions in Honduras amounting in total to € 15 million between 1998 and 1999 and committed a further € 1,5 million in 2000. ECHO’s intervention focused on three main sectors of assistance: water and sanitation, health and rehabilitation of houses. Aid for food security in the region totalled € 30 million in 1999, the majority of which was committed to Honduras. All the food aid and ECHO aid committed to Honduras was disbursed via European and local non-governmental organisation (NGO) throughout the country in the months following the hurricane.

In addition to this important emergency assistance, the Community is highly committed to contributing to the reconstruction and transformation programme of the Central American countries affected by Hurricane Mitch: a longer term effort which had to be thoroughly prepared and co-ordinated with the national development strategies and other donors’ activities. In this respect, the Commission has started to implement the ‘Regional Programme for Reconstruction of Central America’ (PRRAC). A decentralised team, including officials and local agents is managing the PRRAC programme from its Delegation in Nicaragua, in order to ensure the proper use of public funds.

The programme totalling € 250 million covers, in the four beneficiary countries (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala), public health, water and sanitation, housing, education and training, in an attempt to give continuity to and strengthen the activities previously undertaken by other Commission departments. In December 1999 the Commission made the first financial commitment for the PRRAC, amounting to € 82,5 million. On 22 December 2000, the Commission committed the second part of the PRRAC for a total amount of € 44 160 000 of which approximately € 22 million are devoted to Honduras.

The PRRAC has committed € 52,7 million via its ‘Subprograma Honduras’ to this country which are being implemented during the period 1999 to 2002. Moreover, in 1998 the PRRAC’s studies and technical assistance project committed € 8,2 million. C 187 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

In addition to the above programmes, the Community will contribute around € 15 million for Honduras within the framework of the Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative. This will be dispursed when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) decides that Honduras is in a position to receive it.

The Commission is also implementing several projects by traditional bilateral co-operation for development aid which includes programs in the education and health sectors. In March 1999, approximately 40 projects were being implemented by the Community, totalling € 60 000 000.

(2001/C 187 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0109/01 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Improved construction of livestock vehicles

The Commission will recall that, following much hard work and consultation with interested parties, a proposal to amend Directive 70/156/EEC (1) regarding type-approval of vehicles and trailers carrying farm livestock was published in July 1997. Parliament responded positively and in its report, agreed in July 1998, several amendments were put forward. Many of these were accepted by the Commission and an amended proposal was published in April 1999.

In the light of the Commission’s recent report highlighting continuing welfare problems for transported animals and the fact that some of these problems are caused by inadequately constructed vehicles, would the Commission agree that the proposed Directive to lay down rules for the improved construction of livestock vehicles should be made a priority? Would the Commission say what steps it intends to take so that, with the Council, a common position can be reached without any further delay and progress made on this important piece of legislation?

(1) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The Commission shares the views of the Honourable Member on the importance of improving transport conditions of farm livestock. For this purpose a proposal for a Directive regarding type-approval of vehicles and trailers carrying certain types of animals was presented in July 1997 (1).

This Directive will contribute to ensuring that the technical conditions exist to safeguard welfare of animals during their transport.

The draft proposal lays down requirements on the basis of Article 95 (ex Article 100A) of the EC Treaty and provides for total harmonisation of the relevant technical provisions of vehicles intended for the transport of certain types of animals. This approach is consistent with the general approach followed in the motor vehicle sector as established in the framework directive regulating the type-approval of motor vehicles in the Community (Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970, as last amended by Directive 2000/40/EC of the Parliament and Council of 26 June 2000 (2)).

After the first reading in the Parliament on 16 July 1998, an amended proposal was adopted on 2 March 1999 (3) and sent to the Council.

It is the intention of the Swedish Presidency to reach a Common Position under its Presidency.

(1) OJ C 290, 24.9.1997. (2) OJ L 203, 10.8.2000. (3) OJ C 110, 21.4.1999. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/187

(2001/C 187 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0115/01 by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Restricted use of Linate airport, Milan

Would the Commission please confirm that its decision of 21 December 2000 with regard to the use of Linate airport in Milan by non-Italian air carriers is lawful in terms of ensuring proper competition between airlines?

Would it further agree that this causes inconveniences to passengers who will now have to use Malpensa airport?

Would it also agree that this threatens the future development of inter-regional air services, the operators of which will find it increasingly difficult to maintain such services given the limited number of flights they operate into Milan?

Will the Commission bring forward its review of its decision to not later than 30 June 2001?

Answer given by Mrs Loyola de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

The principle of the freedom to provide air services in the Community, as provided for by Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra- Community air routes (1), generally gives Community air carriers the right to choose between different airports in one and the same airport system. That said, Member States may restrict this freedom of access in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Regulation, which states:

‘This Regulation shall not affect a Member State’s right to regulate without discrimination on grounds of nationality or identity of the air carrier, the distribution of traffic between the airports within an airport system’.

In its decision of 21 December 2000 (2), the Commission considered that the traffic distribution rules between the airports of Linate and Malpensa, as set out in the Italian Decree of 3 March 2000, if amended as indicated in the Italian authorities’ letter of 4 December 2000, are compatible with Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92. These amendments were put into effect on 5 January 2001 following the Commission decision.

As mentioned in the aforesaid decision, the independent expert appointed by the Commission stressed the fact that Linate airport is poorly served by the public transport networks and felt that Malpensa airport’s location in relation to Milan city centre is no longer to be regarded as a reason for users to prefer Linate airport, especially in view of the major improvements made to the transport infrastructure for getting to and from Malpensa airport.

Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 does not provide for a procedure to review decisions taken on the basis of Article 8(3). However, in its decision of 21 December 2000, the Commission took note of Italy’s undertaking to review the situation before the end of 2001.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992. (2) TREN/AMA/12/00. C 187 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0116/01 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Privatisation and public utility service charges

In Italy public utility services are still subject to monopoly conditions and this is one of the main factors in maintaining high prices for households and businesses, producing adverse effects on competition and preventing the emergence of a truly competitive economic system.

The price increases being introduced in 2001 are considerable (gas + 3,7 %, water + 0,5 %, motorways + 1,79 %, railways + 5,2 %, RAI fees are to increase by ITL 3 000, Telecom + 140 % for households and + 9,3 % for businesses, and an increase in certain postal charges).

Behind this state of affairs lies the failure of privatisation policies, which have left control of blocks of shares in the hands of the Treasury, as in the case of ENEL, together with the fact that special conditions giving an advantage over competitors have been transferred into private hands, as in the case of Telecom.

The Commission:

1. Can it provide comparative studies of the countries of the EU as regards privatisation and public utility service costs?

2. Does it not consider that privatisation policy should not simply involve transfers from the public to the private sector, but should seek to create genuine liberalisation and maximum competition, to the benefit of users in terms of the cost and quality of services?

3. Does it not consider that a firm commitment is required in Italy and throughout the European Union in the public services sector in order to combat both public and private monopolies?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Commission does not know of any comparative studies on the impact of privatisation on the costs of public service utility services. However, the Commission is monitoring the evolution of prices in the sectors which are being liberalised in accordance with Community legislation. For example, the Commis- sion’s Sixth Report on the Telecommunications Regulatory Package (1) shows that there has been a general downward trend in telecommunications tariffs since liberalisation began.

The Commission agrees that the fundamental determinant of the prices and quality of these services is the degree of competition in the markets. Opening up the markets to competition is a major aim of Community legislation relating to these sectors.

Community legislation in the fields of transport, telecommunications, electricity, gas and postal services is leading to the elimination of monopolies or, at least, their restriction to certain types of infrastructure whose duplication would be uneconomic (natural monopolies). In addition, a limited monopoly is permitted in the postal sector to the extent that it is necessary to finance universal service. However, the Commission has proposed an amendment of Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services (2) to reduce the scope of this monopoly segment. Furthermore, the sectoral legislation, together with Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty, provides an armoury of instruments for combating the abuse of monopoly positions. In addition to its own enforcement measures, the Commission encourages the national regulatory and competition authorities to apply these rules vigorously.

(1) COM(2000) 814 final. (2) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/189

(2001/C 187 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0117/01 by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: European legislation on animal protection

Yet again the media reports maltreatment of animals in the Member States (this time in Belgium). Yet again there is a public outcry against such inconceivable cruelty. And yet again comes the Commission’s answer that it will be stopped.

The Commission’s own report of 6 December 2000 on the situation regarding animal protection (1), demonstrates with terrifying clarity how animals in several countries are subjected to inhuman suffering and how the competent authorities continually fail to carry out proper inspections. The report also proposes a number of possible measures to improve the situation, though without setting out a timetable.

When does the Commission, therefore, intend to take a coherent approach and propose a uniform, comprehensive regulation on animal protection together with the necessary mechanisms to verify compliance for the benefit of both animal and public health in Europe?

Or does the Commission consider that such legislation is not necessary?

(1) COM(2000) 809.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of its key role in improving the conditions in which animals are reared, transported and slaughtered.

The Commission report on the protection of animals during transport, mentioned by the Honourable Member, aims at analyzing the level of implementation by Member States of the Community legislation in this field and recommends future actions. In this report the Commission considers further legislative proposals essential for the improvement of the current situation.

Several initiatives have already been undertaken or are ongoing in the field of animal transport, taking into account the international dimension of the problem. For this reason co-operation in the field of animal protection during transport with the candidate countries has been established. Furthermore, in April 2000, a mandate from the Council to negotiate the participation of the Community in the revised European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport was requested by the Commis- sion. The proposal has already been discussed during three expert meetings in the Council and the Swedish Presidency defined the dossier as a priority.

A draft Commission Decision to amend veterinary certificates for intra-Community trade of livestock in order to refer to the fitness of the animals to be transported has already been discussed at the Standing Veterinary Committee in January 2001.

In addition, and in line with the recommendations of the report, the Commission is preparing different legislative initiatives.

During the first half of 2001, a proposal concerning improved ventilation provisions for long distance transportation by road, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 411/98 (1), will be presented to the Council. This will ensure that animals will be protected from extreme fluctuations in temperature and humidity, a cause of major suffering. C 187 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

An additional proposal to the Council amending Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (2) will also be presented aimed at improving the ‘route plan’, introducing a harmonized system for the authorization of transporters in the Community and determining a precise definition of animals unfit for transport. Additional measures for the protection of horses will also be introduced. Following the outcome of a new opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Welfare, expected for the end of 2001, a redefinition of travelling times and loading densities may be proposed, taking into account any new scientific evidence.

Member States’ compliance with the Community Directives is a key element for success. To verify this, the Commission will closely follow the situation and react, when and where appropriate, if the level of enforcement of Community legislation has not improved. It must be emphasised, however, that Member States must accept their obligations to ensure that animals are treated in a humane manner. Such acceptance would be the single most positive measure leading to improved standards.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 411/98 of 16 February 1998 on additional animal protection standards applicable to road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock on journeys exceeding 8 hours (OJ L 52, 21.2.1998). (2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2001/C 187 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0118/01 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Right to reimbursement of illegally paid interest on loan contracts in Italy

Law No 108 of 7 March 1996 set down a threshold above which interest rates are deemed to be usurious. This law also determined the procedures for calculating this threshold, which are based on a calculation of the actual overall average rate for each quarter with reference to the figures for the previous quarter.

Credit institutions do not seem to have complied with this requirement when fixing interest rates for loans taken out after the date of entry into force of the abovementioned law.

On 17 November 2000 the Court of Appeal ruled that all loans with interest rates higher than those laid down in the law were illegal and therefore subject to cancellation, regardless of the date of the contract. This means that even loans concluded before the entry into force of the law are subject to this ruling.

Subsequently, the Italian Government introduced a decree establishing that the valid interest rate for loans should be that set at the time of the contract, thereby excluding the possibility of repayment of sums unduly paid prior to the entry into force of the law. The decree also stipulates that interest illegally paid after April 1997, the date of entry into force of the law in question, should not be repaid by banking institutes.

Finally, the decree stipulates that all fixed-rate loans still active on 2 January 2001 with rates higher than those permitted under the law should be automatically renegotiated at a rate calculated on the basis of the annual average rate for long-term treasury bonds over the last 25 years.

Will the Commission say:

1. Whether the information set out above is accurate?

2. If so, is the approach adopted by the government not tantamount to protecting a ‘cartel’?

3. Does the decree issued by the Italian Government not represent a breach of Community rules on consumer protection and access to consumer credit? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/191

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

In the Commission’s answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-4157/00 (1), it already informed him of the initiative it had taken regarding Italian Law No 108/96 on usury. As part of that initiative, it wrote to the Italian Government on 16 January, requesting it to provide all the information relevant to the appraisal of Decree-Law No 304 of 29 December 2000 in terms of Community law.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 241.

(2001/C 187 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0119/01 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Possible health risks of flavour enhancers E621 and E632 (glutamate)

There are regular reports in the media on serious health complaints (headache, rashes, dizziness and insomnia) which may be connected with the consumption of food containing flavour enhancers. The reports refer to E621, E631 and E632 (monosodium glutamate or vetsin).

Is the Commission aware of these reports?

Have the side-effects of these substances, as mentioned above, been taken into account in any decisions concerning these substances? What were the conclusions concerning the side-effects?

Does the Commission intend to investigate the possible harmful effects of the substances in question or take any action? If so, when? If not, why not?

Anwer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

Monosodium glutamate (E 621) is authorised according to the Community legislation for use in foodstuffs in general with a maximum level of 10 gram per kilogram (g/kg); disodium and dipotassium inosinate (E 631 and E 632) are authorised for use in seasonings and condiments according to good manufacturing practice. These substances have undergone, as with all food additives, a safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee on Food prior to their authorisation.

In particular, monosodium glutamate and the so-called ‘Chinese restaurant syndrome’ were evaluated within the report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Food in 1995.

In this report, it is stated that tests on individuals who identify themselves as suffering from the ‘syndrome’ have often failed to confirm the role of monosodium glutamate as the provocative agent. Moreover, these substances are widely distributed in all animal and plant tissues.

Therefore, the Commission sees no need to revise the legislation in force on glutamates and inosinates in the current situation, but will, as a matter of course, keep the situation under review in the light of scientific progress in this, as in any other area. C 187 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0127/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Illegal arrest of Greek Cypriot by Turkish-Cypriot regime

Approximately one month ago, the Turkish occupation forces abducted and arrested the Cypriot citizen, Panikkos Tsiakourmas, from the territory of the sovereign British bases in Cyprus with a view to exchanging him for the Turkish-Cypriot drug-trafficker arrested a few days previously on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, in whose possession a substantial quantity of drugs had been found.

Given that the Turkish occupation forces are using blackmailing tactics to equate a person charged under public criminal law with an innocent citizen suspected of no wrongdoing, will the Commission act within its powers to secure the release of this innocent Greek Cypriot who is being held illegally by the Turkish- Cypriot regime?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-0045/01 by Mr Zacharakis (1).

(1) See p. 168.

(2001/C 187 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0135/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Labour mobility

Will the Commission indicate any evidence it possesses concerning the extent of labour mobility in the European Union (both within Member States between regions, and between Member States) compared with labour mobility in the United States and Japan?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

In 1999, it was estimated that just under 4 % of the population aged over 15 years in the Community were non-nationals of the Member State they lived in. Net migration into the Community represents some 0,2 % of the total population. The equivalent figure for the United States is 0,35 %. Net migration in Japan is negligible (12 000 in a population of 126 million).

In 1997, around a quarter of migrants into Member States were returning nationals, a further 17 % were from other Member States and 57 % were from third countries.

In the United States, between 1998 and 1999, about 1,4 million people (3 % of movers) moved from abroad. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/193

In Europe, it was estimated that in 1996, 1 in 6 people in the labour force changed job, and just over 1½% of the working age population moved between NUTS2 (1) regions. Inter-regional migration is much higher in the northern Member States where it averages 2 % or more, than in the southern ones, where it is below 1 %. Young people in their 20s are by far the most mobile (aged between 15 and 24 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and mobility declines markedly with age.

The United States Census Bureau reports that in 1999, 43 million United States residents (15,9 % of the population) moved to a new residence. This is the lowest figure since these statistics were collected. 59 % moved within the same county, 20 % moved to a different county in the same state, 18 % of movers moved to another state.

The Japanese statistical office reports that in 1999 the number of Japanese internal migrants was 6,1 million persons, a rate of internal migration of 4,93 %. This represented a fall of 1,4 % in comparison to earlier years, the fourth successive annual decline since the data collection began in 1954.

(1) NUTS (Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales et Statistiques).

(2001/C 187 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0137/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Legislative discussions

Will the Commission, as a participant in Council of Ministers’ meetings, indicate whether it favours opening up such meetings to the press and the public when legislative matters are under discussion?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

As to the substance of the question, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer to his Written Question E-0134/01 (1). It should be pointed out that, while the Commission is invited to take part in Council meetings (Article 5 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure), it does not do so as a member.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 255.

(2001/C 187 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0138/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Timeliness of economic statistics

Given the long delays before several Member States publish quarterly estimates of their national accounts see the answer of 22 December to Written Question E-3426/00 (1) what proportion of EU and euro- area GDP is generally taken into account when Eurostat publishes its first estimates of GDP growth in a quarter?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001. C 187 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

Eurostat calculates the first estimates of quarterly gross domestic product (GDP) for the euro zone and the 15 Member States three times per quarter in accordance with the following schedule:

an initial estimate covering at least 75 % of GDP is made within 70 days after the end of the reference quarter;

a second estimate covering 90 % is made after 100 days;

a third estimate covering 95 % is made after 120 days.

(2001/C 187 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0139/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Timeliness of economic statistics

Given that the statistics for GDP, employment and productivity for the euro area are taken into account largely by the foreign exchange market when assessing the value of the euro against the dollar and the yen, and given that they must therefore compete with the figures produced for other areas, will the Commission please state the frequency and actual time-lag between the period concerned and publication of national output, employment, productivity and earnings figures in the United States of America, Canada and Japan?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

A table that gives the release dates for the United States of America, Japan and Canada for the key statistics mentioned in the question is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Commission, in full awareness of the attention devoted by foreign exchange markets to statistics such as the gross domestic product (GDP), employment or productivity, is concerned about the fact that euro area statistics are, in most cases, released later than in the United States, Japan and Canada. Therefore the Commission and the European Central Bank have recently jointly proposed an action plan, which was subsequently approved by the Ecofin Council. The implementation of this plan should lead to improvements in the data collection and statistics compilation in the National Statistical Institutes of the Member States as well as in the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat). These improvements will make a faster release of these key statistics possible.

(2001/C 187 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0145/01 by Toine Manders (ELDR) and Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Inflammable clothing

A terrible fire at a cafe bar in Volendam in the Netherlands recently cost ten people their lives as well as endangering the lives of dozens of others or leaving them permanently disfigured. One of the causes of the fire was the presence of dangerous, inflammable products, including clothing. In response to the incident, the Dutch clothing industry announced that it would be taking voluntary steps to indicate on the labels of clothing the inflammability of the material used. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/195

1. Could the Commission examine the feasibility, and desirability, of European legislation laying down a requirement throughout Europe for the inflammability of clothing to be indicated on the label, in order that consumers are aware of the risks?

2. Following on from question 1, could the Commission look into whether it is feasible, and desirable, for all consumer products which may be inflammable to carry similar warning labels for consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Clothing is not subject to specific Community legislation as far as its inflammability is concerned. It falls under the scope of Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (1), which imposes a general safety obligation. This Directive refers to European standards, conformity with which confers presumption of conformity with the general safety obligation in the new version of the Directive which is currently being revised.

In December 2000, the Commission issued a mandate to the European Committee for Standardisation, with a view to creating European standards concerning the inflammability of night-dresses in response to statistics demonstrating the particular risk associated with this item of clothing. The Commission now intends to study the need for a new mandate covering the inflammability of other types of clothing. To do this, it will initiate consultation with Member States and other interested parties, such as consumer associations and industry federations, to gather their opinions on this subject and to obtain data and statistics on accidents that have occurred over the last few years.

The Commission considers that warning labels could supplement the available technical solutions, if these solutions do not completely eliminate the risk. The standards body could provide for warnings in the absence of any other satisfactory solution.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2001/C 187 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0147/01 by Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(23 January 2001)

Subject: Asbestos risk linked with Fibronit plant in Bari

The EU attaches particular importance to policies aimed at improving the quality of urban life and generally protecting the environment and public health and promoting health and safety at work.

The Commune of Bari, meanwhile, intends to give permission to build on the site currently occupied by the former Fibronit plant, which is no longer in use, partly because of the very high levels of asbestos present in the remaining structures and toxic substances present in the subsoil.

Obviously, clearing the former Fibronit industrial plant, which is situated right in the middle of town next to the heavily populated districts of San Pasquale and Japigia, and the subsequent construction work would lead to dangerous amounts of asbestos dust being released into the environment, which would be deleterious to the health of residents and construction workers alike. C 187 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

These plans have been opposed not only by a number of political parties and associations of citizens but also by academics and experts on public health and the environment, who believe that it would be less dangerous, and therefore preferable, to transform the area into a public park after simply taking action at the site to ensure its permanent safety rather than physically removing any remaining traces of asbestos present.

In view of the foregoing:

1. What action has the EU taken, or does it intend to take, to monitor and decontaminate industrial sites containing high levels of asbestos?

2. What form of action does the EU consider it preferable to take in cases involving the removal of asbestos from industrial sites in urban areas such as the one in question?

3. Is it not preferable, in the light of past experience, to adopt an approach that avoids removing and disturbing huge amounts of asbestos?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Community legislation addresses the risks related to asbestos under various aspects.

Measures for the protection of workers exposed in the course of their work to dust arising from asbestos or materials containing asbestos were already introduced by Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risk related to exposure to asbestos at work (1). Council Directive 87/217/EEC of 19 March 1987 on the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos (2) introduced general measures related to the use of asbestos and its disposal. Asbestos waste shall be dealt with in accordance with Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste (3), which has been repealed and replaced by Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (4). General provisions on the safe management of hazardous waste are laid down in this legislation. Moreover, a general obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment is put upon Member States by Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (5).

Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996, concerning integrated pollution prevention and control stipulates (6) in its article 3 that ‘the necessary measures are taken upon definitive cessation of activities to avoid any pollution risk and return the site of operation to a satisfactory state’. It applies to certain categories of industrial activities characterised by a significant pollution potential, including installations for the production of asbestos and the manufacture of asbestos-based products. Installations authorised before October 1999 have to operate in line with the provisions of the Directive from October 2007 onwards. An installation already closed down, as is the case for the Fibronit plant in question, is not covered by this legal instrument.

There is, however, no Community legislation specifically dedicated to the decontamination of industrial sites containing high levels of asbestos, or to the decision to remove or not asbestos from buildings. It is up to Member States to decide, within the limits set by the above-mentioned Community legislation, how to deal with asbestos in existing building structures.

(1) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983. (2) OJ L 85, 28.3.1987. (3) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978. (4) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991. (5) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. (6) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/197

(2001/C 187 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0165/01 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Notification under the Habitats Directive

The Habitats Directive affords Member States the opportunity of implementing projects of social importance if they clash with ecological provisions. Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) says: ‘If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted’.

Can the Commission provide a full and detailed breakdown of such information it has received since the entry into force of the Habitats Directive?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

Since the entry into force of the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, on 5 June 1994, the Commission has issued, upon request of the Member States, two opinions related to the application of article 6.4(2).

These opinions concerned the following cases in Germany:

Crossing of the SPA/pSCI’s ‘Naturschutzgebiet Mecklenburgische Schweiz, Recknitz- und Trebeltal’ and ‘Peenetal vom Kummerower See bis Schadefaehre’ by the contruction of the A20 motorway in the Land of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. This case was the subject of complaint procedures 94/4764 and 97/4967. The Commission published opinion 96/15/EC of 18 December 1995 on the case (1).

Extension of the DASA aircraft factory into the SPA/pSCI ‘Muehlenberger Loch’, Hamburg. The project foresaw that the ‘Muehlenberger Loch’, a shallow lagoon under tidal influence, would be partly destroyed by a landfill necessary for the industrial extension. The case was the subject of complaint procedure 96/4181, to which seven other complaint files were attached. The Commission delivered its opinion on the case on 19 April 2000, of which a copy is sent to the Honourable Member and the Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Commission has received several notifications from Member States about activities at locations that were not (yet) designated as Natura 2000 sites. The Comission has not issued any formal reaction to these notifications, given the fact that designation of the sites should be the first step in the application of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.

(1) OJ L 6, 9.1.1996.

(2001/C 187 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0167/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Moves by Turkey to press ahead with the annexation of the occupied part of Cyprus

On 13 December 2000 Mr Panikos Tsiakourmas, a citizen of the Republic of Cyprus, was seized by the ‘authorities’ of the puppet state of northern Cyprus while he was on the territory of the British bases on C 187 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

the island. Mr Tsiakourmas who has been a refugee since the invasion of northern Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974 suffers from diabetes and is still being held, despite the obvious risk to his health. The report drawn up by the police force of the British bases on Cyprus states that this citizen of the Republic of Cyprus was taken by force to the Turkish-occupied territory and points out that there is no information whatsoever linking him to drugs trafficking, which proves that the claims made by the occupying regime are pure fiction.

This action by the Turkish army in Cyprus follows its provocative behaviour in the Strovilia region where it seized part of the no man’s land which was previously under UN control and its trench-digging actives in the no man’s land in the village of Pyla. Turkey’s behaviour in Cyprus has become increasingly aggressive since it was designated a ‘candidate country’ for accession, and a report in the Turkish newspaper ‘Sabah’ which has not been denied by the Turkish government states that Turkey is examining a plan to incorporate the occupied territories of Cyprus as part of Turkey, and to designate it as the 82nd Vilayet (i.e. administrative district) of the Turkish Republic.

Will the Commission say what actions it is taking to secure the immediate release of Mr Tsiakourmos and to prevail upon Turkey to cease its hostile activities directed against the Republic of Cyprus (a country with which the EU is conducting talks with a view to accession) and to act in a manner befitting a European state? Will it also say what view it takes of the planned annexation by Turkey of the occupied territory of an independent Member State of the UN?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The Commission is aware of the circumstances concerning the detention of the Greek Cypriot building contractor Mr Tziakourmas on 13 December 2000. It appears that Mr Tziakourmas was abducted from the territory of the Eastern United Kingdom Sovereign Base Area. As a result, the British government has raised this incident with the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community and with the authorities in Ankara. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely.

The criteria for membership agreed by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 include the guaranteeing of the rule of law and of human rights. In this context Turkey’s fulfilment of its obligations as a consequence of membership of the Council of Europe is an important factor. The Commission monitors respect of these commitments by all candidate countries and regularly reports to the Parliament and to the Member States on developments in these areas.

The enhanced political dialogue between the Union and Turkey, as mentioned in the Helsinki European Council conclusions, provides the possibility to further discuss these issues. The usual diplomatic channels will also be used for this purpose.

(2001/C 187 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0170/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Establishment of city twinning network

Municipalities in Greece, Cyprus, France and regions in other countries linked through the City Twinning Programme have set up a common network of twinned cities and regions in the Mediterranean in a bid to develop cooperation under optimal conditions. Their purpose in setting up this network is, on the one hand, to pursue joint actions and cooperation with other local authorities at various levels in Mediterra- nean countries, with scientific centres and institutes, with the EU institutions and international organisations and, on the other, to explore the cultural identity of the Mediterranean peoples. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/199

In view of the fact that the policies of the EU seek to promote decentralised cooperation between the Member States:

1. Do the EU institutions recognise the legal basis of a network of twinned cities in the Mediterranean? What preconditions and terms must it meet?

2. What scope exists for participation of the network in various EU programmes (City Twinning Programme, MEDA, Euromed Heritage, etc.)?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission recognises the existence of networks of twinned cities and particularly welcomes the fact that they have been set up, because the objective of this type of measure, which is to bring European citizens closer together and to promote mutual understanding between them, is achieved far more effectively through multilateral cooperation between local authorities.

However, in order for the measures of these networks to be eligible for financial support from the Commission, all the municipalities that take part must be twinned with each other and the application for financial support must be submitted as laid down in the corresponding call for proposals.

The cities may, in principle, take part in other Community programmes, subject to the conditions governing each of the programmes concerned and provided that this does not lead to double funding of the subsidised activity.

(2001/C 187 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0188/01 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Young footballers and child labour

We have recently learned from the press that, calling on the services of football agents outside Europe who may or may not be reliable, many famous European football clubs have secured long-term commitments from large numbers of children, many of them very young, in return for unusually small payments. The same article indicates that, among those thousands of young people, many each year come to Europe to play football. In numerous instances they are suspected of coming with false European passports, whether or not with the complicity of the clubs for whom they are to play (e.g. Leonardo for Feijenoord in Rotterdam), because without such passports it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to obtain work permits. If these young children prove successful on the football field, they are given employment contracts; if not, they are more or less abandoned to their fate.

I realise that national football federations have no way of doing anything about this, or are not empowered to do so.

1. Is the Commission aware of these practices?

2. Does the Commission agree that they contravene the European Convention on Human Rights and the ILO Convention?

3. Does the Commission agree that they contravene European competition rules and the free movement of workers, as rich clubs are evidently acting illegally or undesirably outside Europe in order to obtain employees within the internal market who are by European standards extremely cheap, while clubs which behave correctly are compelled to hire employees on the expensive European market?

4. Can the Commission do anything about these practices and if so, what? Will it take the measures available to it? C 187 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

The Honourable Member has raised several sensitive issues which have featured in the European press in recent months, i.e. the role and status of players’ agents, commercial transactions involving young players, and false passports.

With regard to players’ agents, proceedings based on competition rules are currently pending before the Commission. On this occasion, the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) indicated that it wished to modify the organisation of the profession and to make it more ethical. As a result of these proceedings, FIFA rules on players’ agents have been amended as of 1 January 2001. Some Member States have also chosen to introduce legislation placing greater restrictions on the activities of players’ agents.

The Commission has recently had the opportunity to indicate its concerns regarding commercial transactions involving young players. It did so in the Helsinki Report on Sport (1) and in the European Sports Forum held in Lille on 26 and 27 October 2000, which included a workshop on the protection of young people.

With regard to false passports, the Commission is monitoring the situation carefully. However, it should be noted that conditions governing the issue of passports, the recording of cases where false passports have been issued and the application of sanctions for false passports fall within the jurisdiction of the Member States.

All the issues raised by the Honourable Member are currently under discussion. In its Nice Declaration in December 2000 (2), the European Council expressed its ‘concern about commercial transactions targeting minors in sport, including those from third countries, inasmuch as they do not comply with existing labour legislation or endanger the health and welfare of young sportsmen and -women. It calls on sporting organisations and the Member States to investigate and monitor such practices and, where necessary, to consider appropriate measures’. With this in mind, Member States must also ensure that the provisions of Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (3) are observed.

(1) Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework Helsinki Report on Sport COM(1999) 644 final. (2) Presidency Conclusions Nice European Council 7, 8 and 9 December 2000 Annex IV: Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies. (3) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.

(2001/C 187 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0198/01 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Mine detection and clearing

In view of the urgent need to develop systems for clearing minefields in former war zones, what funds is the Commission making available to assist with developing:

(a) methods for reliably detecting concealed mines,

(b) methods for reliably clearing minefields by destroying them without injury to personnel? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/201

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Based on a systematic assessment of the state of knowledge on the detection and identification of landmines, the Commission concluded that improved tools for humanitarian demining are urgently needed in order to make the whole process safer, faster and more cost-effective.

With the significant help of the Parliament, the Commission succeeded in obtaining through a Council decision in 1997, an increase of € 15 million for Research and technological development (RTD) specific support to mine detecting technologies. A number of projects were launched and the results will soon be made public.

The current (5th) framework programme, FP5, provides for specific RTD support to actions against landmines. In 1999, seven new projects were started for a total volume of € 13 million. They aim at the enhancement of existing tools in order to improve significantly and at affordable costs the speed, safety and efficiency of humanitarian de-mining, specifically for mine field survey and detection and clearance of individual landmines.

The need to ensure the evaluation of the safety and the performance of tools for mine clearance, the Commission together with the United States, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom have founded last year an International Test and Evaluation Program (ITEP). The ITEP Secretariat is hosted by the Commission in its centre in Ispra, Italy. Since it implementation ITEP supported tests of metal detectors in Afghanistan, Cambodia and South Eastern Europe, and executed a consumer report of all existing metal detectors. At the time being it facilitates the establishment of a network of test and evaluation capabilities in South Eastern Europe. The main focus will be to improve the safety of mine clearance in the region.

(2001/C 187 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0201/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Fuel stored at filling stations in Greece

According to the findings of spot checks carried out by the Ministry of Development, seven out of ten storage facilities at filling stations in Greece fail to comply with the safety regulations. Furthermore, in Greece and in the other Member States most filling stations operate in residential areas and often on the ground floors of blocks of flats, which poses grave health and safety risks for the inhabitants. Have safety standards been laid down for the above activities? What arrangements apply in the other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned. C 187 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0219/01 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Incineration procedures for BSE-infected carcasses in all Member States

Will the Commission investigate the facilities for the safe disposal of BSE-infected carcasses in all 15 Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that the different ways of disposal of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) infected carcasses, including incineration, are being investigated in the Member States. Commission experts from the Food and Veterinary Office carry out regular on-the-spot checks in all Member States to assess the implementation of Community legislation on BSE and related matters.

(2001/C 187 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/01 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Oil spill off the Galapagos Islands

1. Is the Commission aware of the request from Ecuador’s Minister of the Environment for more international aid to clear up the large oil spill off the Galapagos islands?

2. What are the prospects for acceding to this request, in order to protect the unique flora and fauna in that region?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

On 23 January 2001, the Commission received a request for emergency aid from the Ecuadorian authorities relating to the oil spill in the Galapagos Islands.

On 24 January 2001, the Commission announced the dispatch of a European task force made up of three experts to Ecuador (1). This decision was taken under the procedure provided for in Decision No 2850/ 2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2000, setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution (2). The experts’ task was to help the Ecuadorian authorities to define the best means of reducing the impact of pollution and helping to restore the affected areas.

(1) IP/01/104. (2) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/203

(2001/C 187 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0229/01 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Turkey’s application for EU membership

Can the Commission say whether it intends to adopt any binding provisions, and if so what they are, following the unanimous vote in the French Parliament on 18 January 2001 recognising the Armenian genocide as an undeniable fact?

Turkey has prepared a series of trade and political reprisals against France.

How can the Commission accept and justify upholding Turkey’s application for EU membership?

Account should also be taken of Turkey’s continuing blatant hostility towards Armenians. We should remember that France’s national team recently had to refrain from selecting the player Djorkieff, who is of Armenian origin, for the match against Turkey.

It is inconceivable that such persistent persecutory behaviour should be one of the basic characteristics of a country which for so many reasons aspires to join the European Union.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The Commission, as guardian of the Community-Turkey Association Agreement and the Community- Turkey Customs Union, is monitoring closely the Turkish reaction to the law ‘recognising the Armenian genocide by the Turkish army between 1915 and 1917’ adopted by the French Parliament. The Commission will consider whether any measures are called for in the light of this reaction.

Turkey’s preparations for Union membership are assessed regularly by the Commission according to the same criteria as those applied to all candidates. Any decision to begin accession negotiations with Turkey will depend on its fulfilment of the political conditions for membership set out by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993.

(2001/C 187 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0231/01 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(30 January 2001)

Subject: Bank charges to non-residents

Can the Commission state whether the charging of fees for the transferral of money internally within Spain and the deposit of money from the UK into a Spanish account specific to non-residential account holders is legal under European law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

The free movement of capital as provided for in Article 56 (ex Article 73B) of the EC Treaty is one of the cornerstones of the Single Market. However, Article 58 (ex Article 73D) of the EC Treaty explicitly sets out the Member States’ right to maintain or introduce certain measures for reasons of taxation (different treatment of residents and non-residents) as well as for statistical and administrative reasons. However, such measures may not be discriminatory. C 187 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Spain imposes certain reporting requirements on their banks and financial institutions in order to obtain statistical information for establishing their balance of payments. Certain transactions from and/or to a non- resident account as well as cross-border transactions in general have to be notified to the authorities.

There is also a tax issue to be considered in this context: residents in Spain are subject to Spanish income tax on the interest from their bank accounts. Non-residents, on the contrary, are normally not subject to Spanish income tax on such income, but in their Member State of residence.

Hence, operating a non-resident account calls for additional administrative procedures for the credit institutions under present Spanish legislation. If a bank therefore decides to levy additional charges in order to cover the cost of the necessary manual handling, this decision is a commercial decision and not an illegal discrimination. The Commission deplores these circumstances and the levying of fees but cannot intervene in the banks’ price policy.

(2001/C 187 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0237/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: Forcing up of house prices in Belgium by new Netherlands mortgage tax-relief option

1. Is the Commission aware that one consequence of the extensive changes to the Netherlands taxation system, effective as at 1 January 2001 is that the option, already longstanding in the Netherlands, of deducting the interest paid on a maximum 30-year mortgage on the first dwelling from income tax is being extended to cover dwellings in other countries, provided that the owner-occupier is someone who works in the Netherlands and pays income tax there?

2. Is the Commission further aware that the tax provision referred to in paragraph 1 is strongly forcing up house prices in Belgium’s northern border region, in particular in areas of the Flemish provinces of Antwerp and Limburg within commuting distance of the Netherlands towns of Tilburg, Eindhoven and Maastricht, because Netherlands taxpayers buying there will incur much lower costs than Belgians, thereby forcing many intending Belgian house-buyers to retreat to more affordable areas further away from the border?

3. How does the Commission assess a tax provision that appears to be advantageous to those buying a house for their own use but in practice drives up prices to the advantage of sellers because the latter know that the tax concession enables buyers to afford significantly more than they would otherwise?

4. What action will the Commission take to help to solve the cross-border problem posed in this connection by protecting residents of Belgium’s northern border area against steeply rising prices and what amounts to a form of banishment as a result of tax provisions adopted in another country?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

1. The Commission is aware of the change in Netherlands tax legislation which extended tax advantages on mortgage repayments applying only to dwellings in the Netherlands until 1 January 2001 to those in other countries, provided the owner-occupier works in the Netherlands and pays income tax there.

2. The Commission understands that Dutch nationals take the new provision into consideration when deciding to purchase a dwelling in Belgium. It further understands that the increased demand for houses in the northern border region of Belgium resulting from the increased interest shown by potential buyers from the Netherlands tends to push up house prices there, a change that is advantageous for vendors. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/205

3. The Commission considers that the new tax provision adopted by the Netherlands is in accordance with Community legislation, which specifically prevents the Member States from imposing tax or other restrictions on their citizens’ freedom of movement and freedom of establishment outside their own country.

4. The Commission does not consider that any specific Community measure is necessary to deal with the issue raised in this question.

(2001/C 187 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: Conclusion of decision-making on accusations of fraud involving payments for flax growing in Spain and other accusations against Commission Members

1. Has the Commission noted the report in the Netherlands Financieel Dagblad of 23 January 2001 headlined ‘European People’s part threatens crisis’, which draws attention to the marked increase in the land area devoted to flax growing in Spain in the late 1990s from 186ha to 91 000ha, with the subsequent sharp fall to 20 000ha, and to the subsidies granted by the European Union to boost flax growing and the shared responsibility of the then Spanish Agriculture Minister?

2. Can it confirm that the OLAF anti-fraud unit opened an investigation into the lawfulness and appropriateness of the grant of subsidies referred to in paragraph 1 above, and to determine who carries political responsibility for any misuse of these payments? Can it confirm that the investigation has now been concluded?

3. What are the Commission’s conclusions in relation to the OLAF investigation? If conclusions cannot be drawn at this time, by what date can they be expected to be announced?

4. Is the Commission prepared to make the conclusions of the OLAF investigation public and submit them to the European Parliament?

5. Under what procedure and by what deadline does the Commission think the final conclusions will be reached in this matter?

6. Does the Commission agree that if fraud has in fact been committed, the subsidies paid out will have to be recovered, as has already happened in the Netherlands specifically in relation to ESF payments made in violation of the rules?

7. Does the Commission agree that one of the lessons that must be learned from the previous Commission’s resignation in 1999 is that complete openness must be maintained and that concern to protect the reputations of those involved must not be allowed to override the need for an open, transparent and reputable approach by political leaders in Europe, not least because the European Union’s image will otherwise once again be seriously tarnished? Is the Commission prepared to act promptly- in response to growing public indignation so as to meet the requirements of openness and integrity?

8. What is the Commission’s reaction to reports that an MEP from the Spanish Partido Popular now claims to be in possession of enough material to force six Members of the Commission not including the former Spanish Agriculture Minister out of office? Does it agree that this at least raises the suggestion that Members of the Commission could be guilty of disreputable conduct that could only result in their resignations if made public?

9. Does it share the view that the accusations referred to in paragraph 8 must, in the interests of administrative integrity, either be substantiated as soon as possible or be conclusively refuted? Is it prepared to take the initiative in that connection?

10. How will the Commission act to remove all foundation from accusations levelled by Members of the European Parliament against Members of the European Commission on the grounds of their possible vulnerability to accusations of fraud? C 187 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

1. Yes, the Commission is aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member. As regards the increase in sown surface areas, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer to Written Question P-1382/99 by Mr Colom i Naval (1) and the Commission’s replies to Parliament on 5 February 2001 in connection with the budget discharge for 1999.

2. Yes, as it stated in a press release issued on 9 February 2001, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) launched an investigation, which covered a number of Member States, in order to examine the legitimacy and effectiveness of granting flax subsidies. It is not OLAF’s task to establish any political responsibility. It was only on 19 March 2001 that OLAF submitted its confidential report to Parliament and the Commission.

3. and 5. The Commission is currently examining OLAF’s report in detail and will certainly take appropriate action as a result.

4. This question is no longer relevant as OLAF has already transmitted its report.

6. Yes.

7. The Commission considers that there is now greater openness in its relations with Parliament. Indeed that was one of the reasons why the two institutions concluded a framework agreement on 5 July 2000.

The Commission is convinced that preserving the Union’s image is a collective task for all players involved in the European integration process. In this context, it sets great store by the principle that any debate on matters such as those raised in the Honourable Member’s question must be based on real, objective facts.

8. and 9. The Commission has no reason to feel under threat.

The Commission has noted with satisfaction that, since the present Parliamentary legislature began and the new Commission took office, the two institutions have worked together closely in a spirit of loyal cooperation and mutual trust. It feels that this climate of understanding must be maintained, as it is vitally important if the institutions are to play a full part in building Europe. It is sure that Parliament shares this view.

10. The Commission considers that, if evidence of fraud does emerge, thought will have to be given to the question of whose responsibility it would be to pursue that fraud and to take appropriate action.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0246/01 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Internal Commission note of 12 October 1990 on BSE

A number of press reports in recent days have quoted an internal Commission note dated 12 October 1990, summarising the discussion in the Standing Veterinary Committee on 9 and 10 October of that year, which also came to light while Parliament’s committee of inquiry was conducting its investigation in 1996.

The note clearly shows that the Commission, whose mouthpiece in this instance was Mr Mansito, in fact echoing the views of his principal superior, the then Director-General for Agriculture, Guy Legras, had decided ‘not to provoke unfavourable market responses’ and hence ‘not [to] talk about BSE any more’. The Commission’s intention was ‘to request the United Kingdom … not to publish any more of their (sic) research results’, and it considered that ‘the BSE affair … [had to] be minimized by using disinformation’. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/207

Copies of the note were also sent, according to the list appearing in the note itself, to Mr Barlebo-Larsen, Mr P. Prendergast (the current Director of the Food and Veterinary Office), and Mr D. Jiménez-Beltrán (now the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency).

It is plain to see from the final report of Parliament’s Temporary committee of inquiry into BSE that senior officials of DG VI as staffed at that time were guilty of carrying out a policy of disinformation that not only extended beyond the range of public opinion, but even served to impede the Community’s ability to legislate.

It has to be recognised that, since 1996, the Commission has taken many steps to reorganise its departments in order to correct the processes that led to such exceedingly serious failures.

That notwithstanding, can the Commission say:

what have been the consequences of the ‘disinformation’ strategy set out in the note?

whether the officials who received a copy of the note indeed attended the meeting in question and helped to shape the disinformation strategy employed by the Commission from 1990 to 1996?

what action it has taken against the senior officials guilty of mishandling the BSE crisis between 1990 and 1996, bearing in mind that the only official to have been dismissed was Mr Mansito, whereas some of the others involved are now in charge of key areas of Commission activity?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

In July 1996, the Parliament established a Temporary Committee of Inquiry into the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The results of the inquiry and recommendations for the future were submitted in February 1997. The Commission’s responsibilities in the management of BSE were examined in detail by the Committee of Inquiry. In this context, the Commission submitted voluminous information to the Committee, much of which the Committee published (see Parliament document A4-0020/97 and annexes). Commission officials also gave oral evidence to the Committee. The contents of the note referred to by the honourable Member were well known to all participants in the Inquiry and were fully addressed in the oral and written proceedings.

Subsequently, the Parliament established a Temporary Committee to follow up the Parliament’s recommendations concerning BSE. The Commission submitted regular reports to the Temporary Committee on how it was following up the recommendations.

The Commission has nothing, therefore, to add to the information given to the Committee of Inquiry and the Temporary Committee about the events of the early 1990s mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question. Finally, it should be noted, in the interest of clarity that Mr Mansito was not dismissed from the Commission services.

(2001/C 187 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Kurdistan and separatism

As the Commission pointed out in its reply to Written Question E-3319/00 (1), with respect to Kurdistan the 1998 and 1999 regular reports on Turkey state that, ‘a civil solution could include recognition of certain forms of Kurdish cultural identity and greater tolerance of the ways of expressing that identity, provided it does not advocate separatism or terrorism’. C 187 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Terrorism, no matter who the perpetrators, is an outrage and an affront to human rights and, as such, is unacceptable. But why does the Commission make recognition of ‘certain’ (why not all?) forms of cultural identity conditional upon their not advocating separatism? Is the Commission opposed to exercise of the right to self-determination by peaceful and democratic means?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 85.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

The Union’s aim, as set out in the proposed Accession Partnership with Turkey, is to ensure cultural diversity and guarantee cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin. Any legal provisions preventing the enjoyment of these rights should be abolished, including in the field of education.

The Commission’s regular reports, to which the Honourable Member refers, were drawn up on the basis of an objective and balanced analysis of all relevant aspects of the situation in Turkey.

(2001/C 187 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/01 by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Commission position on ‘the European capital’

A French newspaper article, headed ‘MEPs unhappy with Strasbourg’, has claimed that Mr Romano Prodi, President of the Commission, stated in Strasbourg that Brussels would inevitably become Europe’s capital city.

Will the Commission confirm whether this reflects its position on the seat of the institutions and whether it discussed the issue before allowing its President to review its point of view in Strasbourg?

Is the Commission prepared to recognise that decisions regarding the seats of the European Union’s bodies and agencies do not fall within its sphere of competence and that it is therefore required to show discretion and restraint on this matter and to respect the letter, if not the spirit, of the decisions taken by the Council in Edinburgh?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The seats of Union institutions and bodies were laid down in the Decision on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities as well as of Europol, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the three Communities. The Decision was adopted when the Amsterdam Treaty was concluded. An annex to the Treaty recently signed at Nice includes a declaration on the proceedings of the European Councils. Statements by the President of the Commission represent his assessment of the scope of the latter decision and cannot therefore be interpreted differently and taken out of context. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/209

(2001/C 187 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Redundancies

The C. & J. Clark footwear manufacturers in Arouca (Portugal) intend to make 368 workers redundant on the grounds that orders have fallen off.

However, according to the footwear workers’ union (Sindicato dos Operários da Indústria de Calçado, Malas e Afins) of the Aveiro and Coimbra districts, the company has transferred various pieces of modern equipment from that plant to other manufacturing plants which it owns in Castelo de Paiva.

It would appear that the company has received national and Community subsidies towards plant modernisation, job creation and professional training, which has also been used to support another of the company’s manufacturing units in India.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What Community aid has the company received?

2. If the company received subsidies aimed at creating or maintaining jobs, what measures will it take to defend the jobs of workers at the C. & J. Clark plant in Arouca, Portugal?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2001)

The Honourable Member’s question concerns the management of projects cofinanced by the Structural Funds. In accordance with Community rules and in line with the principle of subsidiarity, project management is the responsibility of the Member States.

The Commission does not currently have sufficient information to reply to this question. It will ask the Portuguese authorities for the necessary information and forward it directly to the Honourable Member as soon as it has been received.

(2001/C 187 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0256/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

Does the Commission envisage the establishment of a centralised European register of all qualifying artists and their heirs under the draft Directive? If not, how are the natural or legal persons referred to in Article 9 supposed to determine the rights to a work in the event of a claim from two or more persons from outside the jurisdiction of the Member State concerned? C 187 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0260/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

What provisions will the natural or legal persons referred to in Article 9 of the draft Directive on the Right of Resale be required to make for payment of the potential right in the case of unknown and unknowable claims?

(2001/C 187 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

Does the sale price net of tax, on which basis the right is to be claimed in accordance with the draft Directive, include capital gains tax or its equivalent, and how is this to be calculated in a resale involving several different national tax laws?

(2001/C 187 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0264/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

In the event of a resale involving persons liable to two or more national VAT and/or sales tax regimes, how is the sale price net of tax to be calculated for the purposes of the draft Directive on the Right of Resale? In the event that the VAT/sales tax treatment rules have yet to be agreed, on what basis will the right be calculated?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0256/01, E-0260/01, E-0262/01 and E-0264/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

On 13 December 2000, Parliament approved several amendments to the Council’s common position of 19 June 2000 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (1). Under Article 251(3) (formerly Article 189b(3)) of the EC Treaty, it is for the Council to decide on those amendments. The Commission will therefore take the common position as amended by Parliament as the basis for its answers to the Honourable Member’s questions on certain specific provisions.

The Honourable Member is concerned about the obligations under which this Directive will place the persons mentioned in Article 9 who, under Article 1(4), will often be liable for the payment of the resale right if several persons think they are entitled to it, or if the resale right is not claimed.

The procedures for paying the resale right will depend on the way it is managed. According to the common position as amended, this question is a matter for the Member States, which may adopt specific solutions. For example, if a Member State opts for compulsory collective management of resale rights, it will be for the bodies responsible for collective management to deal with these questions. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/211

In any event, the question of payment of a debt when the identity of the creditor is uncertain arises in many other areas apart from resale rights, and the Member States have well established rules. The persons referred to in Article 9 will therefore only have to follow the procedures prescribed in their national legislation.

Establishing a centralised European register of all qualifying artists and their heirs would therefore seem to be a pointless administrative formality, and the Commission has no such intention.

The Honourable Member also wonders about the scope of Article 5. The Commission confirms that the selling price taken as the basis for calculating the resale right must not include any of the taxes, such as VAT, normally added to the net price. This Directive is therefore without prejudice to the tax systems in force in the Member States.

(1) OJ C 300, 20.10.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0275/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Noise Regulations in the European Union

Will the Commission say whether there are any European regulations covering noise emanating from domestic premises which would protect domestic residents from excessive noise coming from their neighbours’ residences?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

At this time there are no regulations at Community level against neighbourhood noise, as raised by the Honourable Member.

The Member States do not currently apply harmonised indicators of noise that relate to so-called environmental or man-made noise. This aspect will be covered by the proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and the Council relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1) adopted by the Commission on 26 July 2000.

The legislative proposal is currently under discussion in the Parliament and Council.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0278/01 by Jean-Charles Marchiani (UEN) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: European Union subsidies to twinned towns

In 1989, the European Parliament took the initiative of creating a budget heading designed to support town-twinning in Europe; as well as promoting relations between citizens of EU countries, this European Union aid is more crucial than ever both for regular endeavours at a local level and for exchanges between people of different countries, areas and cultures. C 187 E/212 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

In an announcement made at the end of summer 2000, the Commission indicated that because of a lack of budget appropriations the programme for 2000 would be brought to a close sooner than had been planned. Additionally, it seems that a more selective and discouraging procedure is be introduced, to reduce the number of applications the Commission has to handle.

In view of the success of the vast town-twinning movement in Europe, does the Commission not, on the contrary, consider it vital to propose a significant increase in the appropriations granted for European town-twinning as part of the next preliminary draft budget for 2002?

Will the Commission also confirm its intention to take pains to ensure that the procedure for submitting applications remains accessible to the largest possible number of local authorities, and in particular to the smallest ones, and to this end to ensure it has adequate means to make the procedure better, more flexible and faster?

Finally, will the Commission say what criteria it considered relevant in taking the decision to propose measures which will clearly have an adverse impact on European town-twinning?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

The Commission is aware of the importance of the initiative to promote town twinning and believes that efficient and transparent management of this procedure is crucial to its success.

Due to the significant increase in the number of applications in recent years, the time required to process applications had increased considerably; in addition, the volume of subsidies applied for had eventually exceeded the available budget resources.

In order to improve the management of this initiative at all levels selection, distribution of aid over the year, rapid processing of applications the Commission has decided, following consultation with the organisations which play an active part in the promotion of town twinning, to introduce for 2001 the call for proposals procedure normally used for managing Commission subsidies. This procedure takes account of the specific characteristics of twinning and was designed to ensure broad access for all towns, irrespective of their size, and an equitable distribution of available funds throughout the year. A meeting with the representative organisations is planned in the course of 2001 to evaluate the new procedure.

The Commission recognises the importance of town-twinning measures in developing participative and active European citizenship. The estimate of the allocation to be provided for twinning in the 2002 preliminary draft budget (PDB) will take account of the current evaluation of the general constraints the Commission will experience in drawing up the preliminary draft budget.

(2001/C 187 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/01 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: The welfare of broiler chickens

On 21 March 2000, the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare adopted a report ‘The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers)’, which concluded that the broiler industry’s determination to achieve fast growth rates leads to many broiler chickens suffering from painful leg disorders and to broilers dying of heart failure. The Scientific Committee also indicated that the stocking density must be 25 kg/m2 for major welfare problems to be largely avoided and that above 30 kg/m2, even with very good environmental control systems, there is a steep rise in the frequency of 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/213

serious problems. The committee also concluded that the severe feed restrictions to which broiler breeders are subjected result in unacceptable welfare problems and that the welfare of breeding birds must be improved.

Moreover, at the November 2000 meeting of the Agriculture Council, several delegations urged the Commission to prepare as quickly as possible a proposal for a Directive on the protection of broiler chickens.

In light of these developments, when does the Commission intend to prepare a proposal for a Council Directive to address the broiler health and welfare problems highlighted by the Scientific Committee’s report?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the joint reply it gave to Written Questions E-1809/00 and E-1848/00 by Mrs McAvan (1) on the same subject.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 89.

(2001/C 187 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/01 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Child labour

The Commission did not give a precise reply to my Question E-3639/00 (1). Can the Commission state precisely which EU Member States and which ACP countries have not yet ratified ILO Convention No 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2001)

The Honourable Member is informed that, with regard to her question concerning the Member States which have not yet ratified International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No 182 on the worst forms of child labour, a matter on which the Commission adopted a Recommendation to Member States on 15 September 2000 (1), the following Member States had not ratified the Convention in question as of 8 February 2001: Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria and Sweden.

With regard to the Honourable Member’s question regarding which African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries have not ratified ILO Convention 182, a list of ratifying countries (including ACP countries) as of 8 February 2001, as provided on the ILO’s public Ilolex information system, is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 243, 28.9.2000. C 187 E/214 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0303/01 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Information concerning the use of EU funds for employment and training administered by the Municipal Institute for Enterprise Training and Employment (IMEFE) in Madrid

On 29 January the Spanish daily El Pais published a report under the headline ‘Business networks affiliated to the Partido Popular (PP) receive 1400 million to train unemployed in Madrid. Companies sweep the board in award of EU funded courses’. The article reported that, after careful scrutiny of all contracts awarded in this field by the Madrid IMEFE, the socialist councillor on the Madrid municipal authority, Isabel Vilallonga ‘believed that the companies concerned had clearly been given favourable treatment and, more seriously, suspected that all the courses paid for may not actually have been provided’.

Bearing in mind the justifiable public concern in Madrid generated by these reports and the fact that the questions concern activities funded from Community resources, can the Commission say what Union funds have been allocated for training and employment and administered by the IMEFE since 1995 and what were the programmes concerned? Will the Commission use the appropriate mechanisms to investigate the cases referred to by the abovementioned report in order to ensure that the European funds allocated for training and employment and administered by the IMEFE since 1995 have been properly used? Will it bring the matter to the attention of the relevant or competent Spanish authorities? What measures will it take if irregularities are detected?

(2001/C 187 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0355/01 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Important new information on the misuse of Community funding for training and employment managed by Madrid City Council’s IMEFE

Following on from what they published on 29 January, the Spanish media have today reported that Ricardo Peydró, the director of the Madrid City Council’s Instituto Municipal de Empleo (IMEFE Municipal Employment Institute) yesterday announced that the IMEFE would be bringing criminal charges against the Ifomar company for alleged fraud and falsification of documents, and further claimed that there was ‘sufficient evidence’ that the company had ‘simulated’ courses in prisons which it did not actually hold, but for which it received municipal and European funding.

These statements confirm the seriousness of the news published this week, which led me to table a priority written question on Monday, 29 January.

The Commission must take effective action with all possible speed to ensure that the criminal actions of certain, unscrupulous operators do not prejudice companies making proper use of funds managed by the IMEFE (and thus performing a social task of the first importance as regards training and employment) or their students.

In view of the facts, what measures does the Commission intend to take under current Union legislation to investigate the full scope of the alleged crimes and fully guarantee the proper use of European taxpayers’ money, thus ensuring that the training and employment programmes can continue, despite whatever acts of fraud may have been committed? Has the Commission already approached the appropriate Spanish authorities, i.e. the Madrid City Council, or has it been contacted by that body? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/215

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0303/01 and P-0355/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

In accordance with the sixth recital of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1) and Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2) for the 2000-2006 programming period, the implementation of assistance is the responsibility of the Member States.

For this reason the Commission, which does not manage the Fund directly, wrote to the Spanish authority responsible for implementing the European Social Fund on 1 February 2001, asking it to carry out the necessary investigations concerning information published in the Spanish daily newspaper El País on 29, 30 and 31 January.

By fax dated 1 February 2001, the Spanish Ministry of Employment informed the Commission that on 31 January 2001 its services had asked the Instituto Municipal de Empleo de Madrid for information concerning any cofinancing by the European Social Fund of training courses related to the information published in the press.

Once the Ministry of Employment has officially submitted its conclusions to the Commission, and in the event of any apparent irregularity in the use of the European Social Fund, the Member State and the Commission will make the appropriate financial corrections in accordance with the procedures provided for by Community and national standards.

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has indicated that it is aware of the articles published in the press and that it is in contact with the national authorities responsible for communications under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field (3).

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. (2) OJ L 161, 21.6.1999. (3) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.

(2001/C 187 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0306/01 by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Transmission of BSE

It appears that one of the ways in which BSE can be transmitted is from a cow infected with the disease to its own calf, which is then born with the disease.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1. what security is provided by conducting tests on calves more than 20 or 30 months old?

2. what percentage of animals tested, although infected, may have been able to slip through the net?

3. finally, whether there is any truth in the report which appeared in The Times last summer concerning a baby born with BSE that had been transmitted during the mother’s pregnancy? C 187 E/216 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

According to the scientific advice available to the Community, epidemiological studies point at an enhanced risk of approximately 10 % of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in offspring born to BSE affected dams within 12 months of onset of clinical signs of BSE. However the mechanism for the transmission is not known and it is still unclear if maternal transmission of BSE in cattle in the traditional sense occurs. Even if maternal transmission does occur it appears to be of minor importance compared to feed-borne transmission.

The current tests for BSE are used to detect clinical BSE cases or BSE infected animals close to the clinical phase. As the tests cannot detect the infection early in the incubation period, a negative test result is not a guarantee that the animal was not infected. The most important direct public health protection measure is therefore the removal of specified BSE risk material at slaughter. At present it is not possible to establish what percentage of the animals tested negative have actually been infected.

The Commission does not have the information requested in the Honourable Member’s third question. However, up to now, no case of transmission of human transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) from mother to child has been substantiated.

(2001/C 187 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Termination of the europartenariat scheme

Will the Commission explain why a decision was taken to terminate the europartenariat programme before the results of the evaluation of the scheme were known?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

The Commission has been reviewing its priorities and the means it has to carry out its work. In this context, and following the work of the Peer Group as set out in the Communication from the Commission ‘Matching the Commission’s activities with its human resources’ of 26 July 2000 (1), it has decided that it will no longer be directly involved in the management of Europartenariat events.

The Europartenariat evaluation study that is being carried out has as its objective to examine the impact that the programme Europartenariat has had over the 10-12 year period of its existence, and to suggest improvements to the formula. The decision of the Commission not to continue investing its own resources in managing this programme does not preclude that the formula developed over the years may be used by other interested parties, particularly those who have recognised the benefits of past programmes. In this context the evaluation will be a useful tool for such interests. The Commission is ready to make available the management tools it has developed such as the organisers guide and the software package to new organisers.

(1) SEC(2000) 2000. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/217

(2001/C 187 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0323/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: The European Year of Languages and the planned closure of the Frisian language and literature department at the Arts Faculty of the University of Amsterdam

The Union has officially declared 2001 the European Year of Languages (European Parliament and Council Decision 1934/2000/EC (1)). For 12 months, the spotlight will be on Europe’s linguistic diversity. Languages are an important part of Europe’s cultural heritage and are vital to the future of Europe (see European Year of Languages on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/languages/actions/year2001.html).

Attention will be devoted to all European languages, including so-called ‘regional’ languages, the languages of minorities and sign languages. The principal message of the advertising campaign for the year, ‘Learning languages opens doors, and everyone can do it: it is never too late or too early’, is neutral and not geared to any particular language or group of languages.

On 30 October 1987 the European Parliament adopted the Kuijpers resolution on promoting minority languages in education, the media and communication with the authorities. This represented a major step forward in the recognition accorded to the less widely used languages, such as Frisian.

The University of Amsterdam’s plan to close its Frisian language and literature department is diametrically opposed to the objectives of the European Year of Languages and the Kuijpers resolution. The University of Amsterdam is the only institution of university level in the densely populated West Holland conurbation where Frisian language and literature is taught. There have been numerous protests about the university authorities’ proposal for this cut.

Does the Commission consider that the University of Amsterdam’s plan to close down its ‘doctoraal’ course in Frisian language and literature is diametrically opposed to the broad, ambitious objectives of the European Year of Languages and the Kuijpers resolution?

(a) If so, what will the Commission do to: 1. draw the University of Amsterdam’s attention to the importance of its ‘doctoraal’ course in Frisian language and literature for the objectives of the Year of Languages? 2. urge the University of Amsterdam to continue this ‘doctoraal’ course without in any way diminishing it? 3. draw the Netherlands Government’s attention to the importance of the University of Amsterdam’s ‘doctoraal’ course in Frisian language and literature for the objectives of the Year of Languages? 4. urge the Netherlands Government to continue the University of Amsterdam’s ‘doctoraal’ course in Frisian language and literature without in any way diminishing it?

(b) If not, how can the Commission reconcile the planned closing down of the University of Amsterdam’s ‘doctoraal’ course in Frisian language and literature with the broad, ambitious objectives of the European Year of Languages?

(1) OJ L 232, 14.9.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its written reply to Oral Question H-0254/01 put by Mr Staes during question time at Parliament’s April 2001 part-session (1).

(1) Answer of 3.4.2001. C 187 E/218 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0344/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Extension of the Athens underground railway

The Greek Government has decided to extend the existing Athens underground railway line from Ethniki Amyni, its current terminus, to Stavro Aghias Paraskevis, in order to facilitate connections with Athens’s new airport. The government claims that for reasons of speed and economy it has decided to dispense with four of the five originally planned stations in the new section of the extension, which would have served the districts of Holargos, Aghias Paraskevis etc.

Additionally, it appears that the Community appropriations which will be used to fund this extension have already been authorised for use on the extension of the underground railway to Aigaleo, a primarily working-class area of Athens, whose railway line has been postponed until much later. This would amount to sacrificing connections for impoverished areas of the city to an attempt to serve the airport; it should, however, be pointed out that the utility of this attempt is highly questionable, since the planned Stavro station is several kilometres away from the airport.

Has the Commission been informed of these important changes, and what is its assessment of them?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-3658/00 (1).

(1) See page 25.

(2001/C 187 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0346/01 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Distribution of euros before January 2002

The chart reproduced at the end of the Commission’s monthly bulletin entitled ‘Preparation for the changeover to the euro’ indicates that retailers are to be supplied in advance with euros in the period between 1 September and 17 December 2001.

Could the Commission confirm whether the above information is correct and say whether it believes that the public at large should be supplied in advance with € 5 and € 10 notes from 1 December 2001?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The table reproduced at the end of the Commission’s monthly bulletin entitled ‘Preparation for the changeover to the euro’ was compiled by the Commission on the basis of contributions provided by the participating Member States.

The Member States of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) have agreed to reduce the period of dual circulation of banknotes and coins in 2002 as much as possible. This is in order to reduce the possibility of confusion for the citizens and to alleviate the necessity for the retail sector to operate in two currencies. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/219

A banknote frontloading to the public could in effect lengthen the dual circulation period and could run counter to the reasons that led to its shortening. Moreover, banknote frontloading to the public could entail the risk of early circulation of the notes before 1 January 2002. This is why the Ministers of Finance and the Commission have concurred with the European Central Bank’s position not to frontload banknotes to the public.

(2001/C 187 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0348/01 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Contract awarded by the municipality of Messina for a tramway to be financed with European funding

In its reply of 6 June 2000 to this Member’s Question E-1243/00 (1) of 14 April 2000, the Commission said it ‘will decide on the financing of the project’, implying that the decision had yet to be taken.

According to local media, in October 2000 the President of the Region of Sicily, Mr Vincenzo Leanza, publicly announced that the funding would be granted.

Can the Commission clarify whether any, and if so what, decisions have been taken regarding the financing of the project for the tramway in question?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 30.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission has not taken a formal decision on part-financing this project under the Structural Funds because the Region of Sicily has not yet provided it with the information requested on the environmental impact assessment.

(2001/C 187 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0354/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Moroccan fisheries agreement negotiations

I have been told at first hand from the highest level of the Moroccan Government that the round of talks on signing a fresh fisheries agreement, which began last Thursday between the Commission and Moroccan Government representatives broke off on Friday, with no date set for their resumption, when Mr Smidt, the Commission’s Director-General for Fisheries, announced that he was returning to Brussels for the weekend.

This kind of behaviour, which makes a laughing-stock not only of Fisheries Commissioner Franz Fischler, who is strongly in favour of the agreement, but also Commission President Romani Prodi himself, who gave his word to the Moroccan authorities that the Commission would be fully committed to the negotiations, would appear to suggest that Mr Smidt is not the best person to carry these talks into their next round. C 187 E/220 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Is Mr Fischler aware of these facts, and has he been in receipt of any protest on the part of the Spanish Government in this connection?

The fishing fleet has now been forced to remain tied up for fourteen months. Does the Commission intend to make changes in the negotiating team, so as enable an agreement to be concluded?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 February 2001)

The Commission agreed with the Moroccan authorities to hold a one-day meeting on 25 January 2001 in order to continue the negotiations on a future fisheries agreement, the previous session having ended on 9 January 2001.

During this meeting, on 25 January 2001, some progress was made and the Moroccan side introduced new proposals that the Commission needed to examine carefully. Therefore both parties agreed to have another technical meeting the following week. This explains why the Commission officials returned to Brussels.

The discussions remain open and both delegations are continuing their efforts to reduce the distance between their respective positions on the key issues.

(2001/C 187 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0359/01 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (8 February 2001)

Subject: Cat and dog fur trade

Is the European Union aware that we may face an embarrassing situation recently revealed by undercover investigators looking into the trade in cat and dog fur from Asia?

At one Asian showroom, the investigators documented life-size tigers made of dog fur ‘groupee’ as the Asian merchants call it. Asian representatives told the investigators who posed as businessmen that those large statues are being sold to hotels and museums in Europe for USD 5 000 each.

Would our tourists be happy to hear that dog and cat fur is being used in our facilities? Would the Commission please comment on whether it intends to halt this trade before it tarnishes our businesses and tourism?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (8 March 2001)

The Commission does not have at his stage precise official information nor any data on imports of cat and dog furs into the Community.

On the question of whether the Commission intends to stop this trade, it should be recalled that trade policy is only an outward projection of the internal policy of the EU. According to the information available, no Member State prohibits the commercial use of such furs. This is why, at this stage, and in the absence of an internal prohibition, the Commission does not intend to propose a prohibition of imports of cat and dog furs which would be contestable as discriminatory and an obstacle to the principle of national treatment.

Nevertheless, in the light of public concern about the commercial exploitation of cat and dog furs, including in international trade, the Commission will follow up this question in order to examine whether it should propose measures at European level, taking into consideration the principle of subsidiarity, and will report back to the Parliament on the matter. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/221

(2001/C 187 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0380/01 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Freedom of establishment in the Netherlands

A German refrigeration plant manufacturer wishing to work in the Netherlands applied for exemption from the CFC exam required by that country. This application was rejected with reference made to the ‘unique requirements’ of Dutch training. Furthermore, his master craftsman’s certificate has not been recognised, even at the request of the LGH.

1. What is the Commission’s view of this case in the context of freedom of establishment?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take, should it establish that the Dutch authorities have breached the right of establishment?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

In the case of the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the profession of refrigeration system engineer inasmuch as it comes under the construction of machinery and electrical supplies is covered by Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the professional activities covered by the Directives on liberalisation and transitional measures and supplementing the general systems for the recognition of qualifications (1).

Under Article 4 of the Directive which incorporates without amendment the corresponding provision of Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures in respect of activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and processing industries falling within ISIC Major Groups 23-40 (Industry and small craft industries) (2), which is no longer in force where, in a Member State, the taking-up or pursuit of an activity is subject to possession of general, commercial or professional knowledge and ability, that Member State shall accept as sufficient evidence of such knowledge and ability the fact that the activity in question has been pursued, generally for six years, in a self-employed capacity or as a manager of an undertaking in another Member State

After the full transposition of the Directive the deadline for which is 31 July 2001 those who do not satisfy the conditions of professional experience laid down in Article 4 will also be able to apply for recognition of their diploma, certificate or other qualifications in accordance with Article 3 of the Directive.

It follows from the above that Directive 1999/42/EC does not currently allow applications to be made for the recognition of training qualifications. However, in accordance with Articles 43 and 49 (ex Articles 52 and 59) of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice (‘Vlassopoulou’ judgement), the Member States must henceforth take account of training qualifications acquired in another Member State and conduct an examination to compare the qualification acquired by the migrant in his country of origin and that required in the host Member State. While any discrimination based solely on the origin of qualifications is banned by Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, these articles nevertheless do not unlike the Directive in question indicate any specific requirement with regard to the result of such a comparative examination.

In the absence of more detailed information on the professional experience of the person in question and the reasons for the rejection of his application, the Commission is not in a position to comment on the compliance with Community law of the decision that the Dutch authorities took in this instance.

As for the measures planned by the Commission, it should be pointed out that the infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty is appropriate when a Member State’s national legislation does not comply with Community law or when, although the legislation complies, there is a recurrent administrative practice that is contrary to Community law. On the other hand, the Commission C 187 E/222 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

is not in a position to deal directly with individual cases. Neither the Commission nor the Court of Justice has the power to repeal a decision made by a national authority or to insist that a Member State pay compensation to individuals. The national courts have sole competence in this. In order to facilitate informal settlement of individual cases, however, a network of national contact points has been set up.

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.1999. (2) OJ 117, 23.7.1964.

(2001/C 187 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0387/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Galapagos Islands

What EU assistance, if any, is available to the Ecuadorian Government to help protect the fragile ecosystems of those Galapagos islands (San Cristobal, Espanola, Santa Fe) most directly affected by the recent oil spill?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Since 1994, the Commission has supported the Charles Darwin Foundation (an independent body responsible for research, training and educational activities for conserving the archipelago) as part of a project to step up its scientific and educational programme (project ref. ECU/RELEX/1994/0046, for € 862 000). The Foundation is at present involved in a Community research programme on the management of marine resources and the conflict resolution in island ecosystems financed in 1998 (ref. IC18- CT98-0297, € 550 000).

On 23 January 2001, the Commission received a request for emergency aid from the Ecuadorian authorities concerning the oil slick in the Galapagos Islands. On 24 January 2001 the Commission announced that it was sending a European task force made up of three experts (1). This decision was taken under the procedure provided for in Decision 2850/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2000, setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or intentional marine pollution (2). The experts’ task was to help the Ecuadorian authorities to define the best way of reducing the impact of pollution and helping to restore the affected areas.

Lastly, the call for proposals which is under way for the ‘environment in developing countries’ (ref. SCRE/ 111699/C/G) is open to organisations equipped to help preserve the archipelago’s ecosystem.

(1) Press release IP/01/104. (2) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0417/01 by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Job losses at Corus plants in the United Kingdom

The steel producer Corus announced last week that 6 000 workers are to lose their jobs at the company’s plants across the United Kingdom with about 3 000 of these redundancies occurring at the company’s plants in Wales. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/223

Will the Commission now investigate the procedures and actions undertaken by Corus which have led to their announcement in order to ensure that the company has complied fully with all relevant European legislation presently in place and, if such an investigation shows that Corus did breach European law, what action can the Commission take?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) stipulates in Article 2 that where an employer is contemplating collective redundancies, he shall begin consultations with the workers’ representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement.

These consultations shall, at least, cover ways and means of avoiding collective redundancies or reducing the number of workers affected, and of mitigating the consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures aimed, inter alia, at aid for redeploying or retraining workers made redundant.

The Directive also stipulates that Member States shall ensure that judicial and/or administrative procedures for the enforcement of obligations under Community law are available to the workers’ representatives and/ or workers.

In view of the above, and since the United Kingdom has transposed the Directive in question into national law, it is up to the national courts and/or administration to recognise and resolve any contentious issues that may arise in this particular case.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2001/C 187 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0418/01 by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Absence of an index in the selected instruments taken from the Treaties

Can the Commission say why there is no index in the paper version of the selected instruments taken from the Treaties; why the protocols, declarations and institutional acts and texts are missing from the Intranet version; why the Intranet version is not available in the usual Word format?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

As the ‘author’ of this publication is the Council of the European Union, the Commission is not in a position to reply to the question posed by the Honourable Member.

The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities which serves all the EU institutions and agencies has followed the instructions of the Council for both the paper edition of this publication and the version available on the Internet. C 187 E/224 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0443/01 by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission (13 February 2001)

Subject: Activities of the Racine association

The French private-law association Racine (Network for the Support and Capitalisation of European Innovations) which is active in the areas of employment and professional training has as its aim ‘helping to ensure that Community guidelines are given practical effect in the French context’ by providing technical assistance to project organisers. It receives considerable support from the ESF which seems to provide 90 % of its operating budget.

Is the Commission in a position to assess the contribution the association actually makes, which certainly does not appear to have a high profile among those active in social affairs? Are details of how it uses its funds and full accounts publicly available?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (27 March 2001)

Racine (an association within the meaning of the 1901 Act on the creation of non-profit associations) makes an active contribution to the implementation of various employment and social policy programmes.

Its tasks include the following: work connected with the Community initiatives Adapt and Employment; operations under Objectives 3 and 4 of the Structural Funds; the ‘surveys and analyses’ strand of the first phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme (1995-1999); for the French State: organisation of study visits under the Leonardo da Vinci programme managed by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP); strategic monitoring of new provisions; for the Délégation interministérielle de la ville (interdepartmental office for urban matters): specific activities targeting local committees; Racine is also involved in PHARE activities.

In connection with project monitoring, Racine is in regular contact with social players, who are also represented in one of the management board’s three constituent groups (public institutions, social partners and qualified experts).

As Racine is an association under the 1901 Act, its accounts are subject to scrutiny by an auditor.

The association is also under state surveillance in that a financial controller appointed by the French Budget Ministry performs this function and attends meetings of the association’s management board.

(2001/C 187 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0449/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 February 2001)

Subject: EU-Turkey partnership

The French National Assembly recently adopted a resolution recognising the genocide of the Armenians. Turkey responded with retaliatory measures of a mainly economic nature, cancelling a number of contracts with French companies. On 13 December 1999, the European Council meeting in Helsinki decided to recognise Turkey as a candidate country for accession to the EU, and to draw up an accession partnership and a single financial framework to assist Turkey towards accession. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/225

Does the Commission consider that Turkey’s ‘economic retaliation’ against France, and its unilateral termination of contracts are politically and legally compatible with the EU-Turkey customs union or that such conduct is consistent with the criteria laid down by the European Council in Copenhagen?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

The Commission is monitoring closely the Turkish reaction to the law ‘recognising the Armenian genocide by the Turkish army between 1915 and 1917’ adopted by the French Parliament. In the light of this reaction, it will consider whether and, if so, what measures are called for.

(2001/C 187 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0480/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Availability for questioning of Commission official by Swedish legal authorities

The former head of the Commission’s Stockholm information office is now based at the Commission in Brussels. The Public Prosecutor in Stockholm wishes to question the official about irregularities at the Stockholm information office which have been exposed in the Swedish media for over a year.

The former head of the office has, however, announced that she does not have time to travel to Stockholm and is therefore unable to attend the inquiry. The Stockholm Public Prosecutor therefore wishes to travel to Brussels to question the official but this requires authorisation from the Belgian legal authorities, which takes time to obtain.

To the Swedish public, it appears absurd that Commission officials can sidestep a legal inquiry in this manner.

Can the Commission instruct the former head of the Stockholm information office to assist the Swedish Public Prosecutor with his investigation into irregularities at the Stockholm information office so that the entire affair can be clarified and laid to rest once and for all?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

At the request of the law enforcement authorities in Sweden, the Commission withdrew the immunity of the official in question, and the prosecutor then approached the official direct asking to be allowed to interview her in connection with the matter of the Commission Representation in Sweden. No formal application was made to the Commission in this regard.

The situation described by the Honourable Member is consequently the result of a personal decision by the person concerned, for which the Commission is in no way responsible.

There is no common Union policy in criminal matters, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the Swedish law enforcement authorities should have to obtain the authorisation of the Belgian authorities in order to conduct investigations in Belgium. If they have do so, it is not because the person concerned is a Commission official, but solely because of the rules that currently govern cooperation between criminal law enforcement authorities. C 187 E/226 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Illegal detention of a Greek Cypriot by the Turkish Cypriot authorities

On 13 December 2000, a group of Turkish Cypriots kidnapped Mr Panikos Tsiakourmas whilst he was on British military base property and removed him by force to the territory occupied by Turkey, where they abandoned him, leaving with him one-and-a-half kilos of Indian cannabis. ‘Within moments’ Turkish Cypriot police officers’ appeared and arrested him for possession of drugs.

Since then, Mr Panikos Tsiakourmas has been held by the illegal Turkish Cypriot authorities under inhuman conditions and without medical care despite the fact that he suffers from diabetes.

Given that Mr Tsiakourmas has no criminal record and, according to a statement by the police authorities on the British bases there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that he is involved with drugs it is clear that his kidnapping was an act of terrorism and his imprisonment by the illegal Turkish Cypriot authorities amounts to hostage taking.

What action will the Commission take with a view to securing the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Tsiakourmas? What pressure will it bring to bear on Turkey which is solely responsible for actions by the illegal occupying authorities in Cyprus performed entirely on its orders?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-0045/01 by Mr Zacharakis (1).

(1) See p. 168.

(2001/C 187 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0505/01 by Gerard Collins (UEN) to the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Free movement of workers

The European Federation of Geologists (EFG) is a federation comprising 20 national geological associations in Europe, including those from all of the Member States within the European Union.

Geological science is a rapidly changing discipline. The activity of geoscientists impinges in an ever- increasing way upon the safety of the public. Educational and training provisions need to adapt to respond to those changes. For its part, a professional qualifying body in geoscience needs to be vigilant in assuring qualifying standards in its own field. At European level, the EFG is that body.

Pursuant to Directive 89/48/EEC (1) and Directive 92/51/EEC (2), the EFG has adopted a system of multilateral recognition between affiliated geological associations. Candidates who meet the requirements are awarded the professional title of European Geologist (EurGeol). Award of the designation signals the preparedness of the EFG to guarantee the qualifications of those who practise at the highest levels in all areas of the geosciences. Holders of the title must comply with the EFG’s Code of Professional Conduct. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/227

A candidate for the title must have satisfactorily completed a third-level educational programme and obtained satisfactory professional experience over a combined minimum total of eight years. The requirements are thus higher than the requirements laid down in the General Directive. Applicants for registration must be recommended by their National Association and accepted by the EFG Validation Committee before they are awarded the EurGeol title.

The aim of the EurGeol designation is to:

(a) recognise the practice of geoscience at a high level,

(b) set unambiguously clear and high standards that are recognisable by government, regulatory authorities and the public alike, and

(c) facilitate free movement of geologists within the European Union by means of mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

Does the Commission support this kind of initiative as a way of facilitating the free movement of professionals in the EU?

To what extent could the EurGeol title facilitate the recognition of national qualifications among Member States?

(1) OJ L 9, 24.1.1989, p. 16. (2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

The Commission has been informed of the existence of the title of ‘European Geologist’ created by the European Federation of Geologists (EFG).

Although this title does not amount to a ‘diploma’ within the meaning of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (1), the Commission fully supports this move by the EFG, since it is likely to facilitate the free movement of geologists within the Community.

On the one hand, the title of ‘European Geologist’ can be useful both to the national authorities entrusted with examining applications for the recognition of qualifications and diplomas acquired in another Member State, and to potential employers who have to assess the qualifications of candidates in possession of foreign diplomas.

On the other hand, in view of the criteria for awarding the title of ‘European Geologist’, possession of that title is evidence of a high level of competence regardless of the initial academic training of the professional concerned. In so far as, by virtue of the case law of the Court of Justice (2), the Member States must take account of the professional experience acquired by the migrant in addition to his diploma, when deciding on his application for recognition, the Commission considers that a geologist who has obtained the title of ‘European Geologist’ should in principle not have to take an aptitude test or complete an adaptation period pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 89/48/EEC or Article 7 of Directive 92/51/EEC.

Finally, in its Communication of 7 February 2001 entitled ‘Realisation of the European Union’s potential: Consolidating and extending the Lisbon strategy’ (3), the Commission announced that it would be presenting, in 2002, proposals aimed at making the rules on the recognition of professional qualifications more uniform, more transparent and more flexible. Whilst based on the current general system for C 187 E/228 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

recognition, more systematic involvement of the professional organisations and encouragement for the development of common platforms such as the one set up by the EFG should ensure a greater measure of automatic recognition of professional qualifications within the Community.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. (2) Case C-340/89, Vlassopoulou, ECR I-2357. (3) COM(2001) 79, followed by a second Communication adopted by the Commission on 28 February 2001 and entitled ‘New European Labour Markets, Open to all, with Access for All’, available in English on the Commission’s site at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl&esf/news/labour.pdf.

(2001/C 187 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0522/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Lower employers’ contributions

A political party in Sweden has suggested that lower employers’ contributions could be introduced for everyone over the age of 57 in Sweden. Employers’ contributions for those over 57 could be lowered by 10 per cent to encourage employers to recruit older workers.

In the light of previous discussions in Sweden when employers in northern Sweden had their reduction of contributions withdrawn as it was considered detrimental to internal market competition, will the Commission say whether it is possible for a Member State unilaterally to lower employers’ contributions for a particular age-group on its national labour market?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The Commission is in favour of the objective to increase labour market participation for so called ‘older workers’ and to promote active ageing. This objective has also been enshrined in Council Decision 2001/ 63/EC of 19 January 2001 on guidelines for Member States’ employment policies for the year 2001 (1), guideline 3 of which stipulates that Member States will develop policies for active ageing with the aim of enhancing the capacity of, and incentives for, older workers to remain in the labour force as long as possible, in particular by reviewing tax and benefit systems in order to reduce disincentives and make it more attractive for older workers to continue participating in the labour market. Furthermore, guideline 12 asks Member States to reduce non-wage labour costs for specific target groups. The measure described by the Honourable Member appears to be in line with these objectives provided that it is implemented horizontally across all sectors of the economy, so as not to favour specific sectors or companies.

In its notice on monitoring of State aid and reduction of labour costs (2), the Commission has clarified that measures targeted at certain categories of employees do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 (ex-Article 92) (1) EC Treaty, provided that they apply automatically over the whole Member State without discrimination between firms. Under the latter conditions, a reduction of employer’s contributions for older workers would therefore not fall under the State aid rules.

Finally, the Commission reiterates that responsibility for the design and financing of social protection systems lies with the Member States (Council Recommendation 92/442/EEC of 27 July 1992 on the convergence of social protection objectives and policies (3)).

(1) OJ L 22, 24.1.2001. (2) OJ C 1, 3.1.1997. (3) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/229

(2001/C 187 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0532/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Independence referendum in the Faeroe Islands

The Danish government is threatening to suspend its subsidy to the Faeroe Islands with immediate effect if the people of the Faeroes support their government’s plan for independence. In doing so the Danish government is seeking to subvert the Faeroe government’s initiative to set up an independent state in 2012.

On Saturday, 26 May the Kallsbergh government will be submitting its proposal to a referendum of the people. The proposal seeks a gradual transition to independence, coupled with a systematic reduction in the Danish subsidy. In 2012 a final decision would be taken on whether or not the Faeroe Islands should become independent after 600 years’ Danish rule.

1. What is the Commission’s view of the Danish government’s threat to suspend its subsidy to the Faeroe Islands with immediate effect if the people of the Faeroes support their government’s plan for independence?

2. Does the Commission think this threat is in accordance with the principles of good governance? If so, on what grounds?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the remit of the Union, as it comes under a field of competence that is exclusive to the Member State. Therefore, the Commission does not wish to make any comment on this subject.

(2001/C 187 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0536/01 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: EU assistance to Hungary

1. Is the European Union subsidising gastronomic projects in Hungary, particularly the building of a thermal spa hotel (in Sopron county), the amount to be invested in which is estimated at 3 billion forint?

2. If so, who is the contact for applications for such assistance?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

The Commission can confirm that PHARE has not supported any project similar to what is described, either in Györ-Moson-Sopron county or elsewhere in Hungary. Indeed, no individual investment projects of this size (3 billion forints = € 11,2 million) have been supported under PHARE. Certain projects have supported thermal bath infrastructure, mostly through supply of therapeutic equipment and on a far smaller scale, not as part of a hotel, nor in the country mentioned. C 187 E/230 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0578/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: European Union aid for a tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar

The recent agreement between France and Italy to build a 52-kilometre tunnel under the Alps to provide a rail link between Turin and Lyon has once again highlighted the advantages of tunnels as an ideal means of connecting two points which it would otherwise be difficult to link.

This situation brings to mind the long-standing desire to build a tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar to provide a permanent link between Africa and Europe and foster the economic flows which could stem from closer ties between the Maghreb region and the European Union’s southern flank.

Does the Commission intend to propose carrying out studies to establish the potential of a project such as a tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar, including the advantages inherent in bringing the Maghreb region closer to the European Union’s southern flank?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission adopted the 2000-2002 MEDA indicative programme for Morocco in December 2000 following consultations between the Moroccan government and the Member States.

As yet the Commission has received no request from the Moroccan government about the financing of cost and feasibility studies on the tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar.

(2001/C 187 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0586/01 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Birth defects in Sicily

The paediatrics department of the Muscatello hospital in Augusta has published data for the year 2000 concerning birth defects in Sicily. The situation in the industrial triangle of Augusta-Melilli-Priolo is deeply disturbing, since the rate of birth defects is around 6 %, whereas the World Health Organisation (WHO) considers that rates of 2 % and above should be seen as a danger signal.

Are there any provisions for Community rules and/or measures to protect the health of those living in highly industrialised areas? Are there any Community measures for the prevention and treatment of birth defects?

Will the Commission take steps to remedy the serious situation described above?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/231

(2001/C 187 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0618/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Defence budgets of European NATO countries

What are the national defence budgets of the European countries assigned to NATO for the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

The matter in question does not come within its jurisdiction of the Commission.

(2001/C 187 E/261) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: German chemical weapons in Turkey

In December 1999, the German Defence Ministry admitted that it was prepared to help with the construction of a military chemicals laboratory in Turkey. The project would have a ‘purely defensive function’. However, the German TV programme ‘Kennzeichen D’ (broadcast by the second public channel ZDF) has quoted military sources which claim that, on 11 May 1999, the Turkish army used chemical weapons against the Kurdish PKK movement. Research carried out by the University of Munich shows that the heads for the chemical shells used by the Turkish army were supplied by two German companies, Buck and Depyfag. It is now fourteen months since questions were tabled to the Commission about these two issues. In its answer to Written Question E-3876/00 (1), the Commission stated that the implementation (of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 (2)) was the responsibility of the Member States. According to Commissioner Patten, it was, therefore, the task of the Member State in which the exporter had his/her registered office to take a decision on requests for authorisation and to ensure the execution thereof.

There is nothing in that answer to suggest that there is any obstacle to the Commission taking an initiative under Article 22 of the EU Treaty. On the contrary, Article 22 lays down expressly that ‘Any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council.’

1. Will the Commission ‘submit proposals to the Council’ pursuant to Article 22 of the EU Treaty in order to secure information from the University of Munich on the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of the mortar heads used by the Turkish army in a chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999? If not, why would the Commission refuse to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the EU Treaty?

2. Will the Commission ‘submit proposals to the Council’ pursuant to Article 22 of the EU Treaty in order to secure information from the German Defence Ministry about that Ministry’s help with the construction of a military chemicals laboratory in Turkey? If not, why would the Commission refuse to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the EU Treaty?

(1) See p. 75. (2) OJ L 159, 30.6.2000, p. 1. C 187 E/232 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-3876/00 (1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) See p. 75.

(2001/C 187 E/262) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0675/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Fishing-licence fees in the EU’s international fisheries agreements

1. Could the Commission provide information regarding the amount of funding allocated to development cooperation under each of the fisheries agreements concluded between the EU and third countries and currently in force?

2. Could the Commission provide information regarding the finanical contribution made by Commu- nity shipowners in the form of payments for fishing-licence fees under each of the fisheries agreements concluded between the EU and third countries and currently in force?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2001)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

(2001/C 187 E/263) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0750/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Intervention buying of beef and the BSE crisis

What view does the Commission take of the fact that the taxpayer has had to foot the entire bill for the BSE crisis, even though it is well documented that producers of meat meal and animal feedingstuffs are guilty of serious negligence?

Has it examined whether the industry may be held liable and be open to claims for compensation? If not, why not?

Does the it intend, at least in cases in which there have been clear breaches of the law, for example in Bavaria, where the temperature was not high enough in the production process, to recommend to the Member States to make claims for liability? 3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/233

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

These issues have been previously addressed in a number of contexts including the report of the Committee of Enquiry about BSE and its follow-up. The Commission is once more reviewing this information and will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 187 E/264) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0944/01 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Poultry imports to the EU

Can the Commission indicate the quantities of poultrymeat imported annually into the EU and the countries from which those imports come?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2001)

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.

(2001/C 187 E/265) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1157/01 by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Protected designation of origin (PDO) products: use of additives and preservatives in cheese- making

Bearing in mind that:

the rules and specifications laid down for the production of Grana Padano DOC (controlled origin denomination) cheese do not provide for the use of preservatives and, more particularly, the additive E1105 (lysozyme),

paragraph 2D of Ministerial Decree 209/1996, which implements Community Directives 94/34/EC (1), 94/35/EC (2), 94/36/CE (3), 95/2/EC (4) and 95/31/EC (5) by laying down rules on additives, specifies that an additive may be used provided it is not used to conceal the use of inferior raw materials or undesirable practices or techniques (including unhygienic practices),

the preservative E1105 (lysozyme) is used in the production of Grana Padano DOC cheese because it makes it possible to use milk that does not comply with the hygiene standards laid down in Directive 92/46/EEC (Annex A, Chapter IV) (6),

the Italian Minister of Health has confirmed, in a note of 18 June 1999 sent to the Commission (DG XXIV), that almost all the Italian milk that does not comply with those standards is used for the production of Grana Padano DOP or Parmigiano Reggiano DOP,

the CSQA (body for the Certification of Quality Systems in the Agri-Food sector), the only certifying body recognised by the Italian government for the certification of Grana Padano, allows the addition of lysozyme as a preservative in its inspection plan even though it is not allowed by the production specifications for Grana Padano DOP. C 187 E/234 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001

In view of the foregoing, Can the use of the preservative E1105 be allowed even if there is no express provision for its use in the rules and specifications for the production of Grana Padano DOP, or has the Commission granted special exemptions? Is the use of lysozyme not regarded as an obvious subterfuge to allow DOP cheese to be made from milk that does not meet the requirements laid down in Directive 92/46/EC? Does the Commission regard lysozyme as completely innocuous to consumers’ health?

(1) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 1. (2) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 3. (3) OJ L 237 of 10.9.1994, p. 13. (4) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995, p. 1. (5) OJ L 178, 28.7.1995, p. 1. (6) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 April 2001) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.