Official Journal C 151 E Volume 44 of the European Communities 22 May 2001

ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 151 E Volume 44 of the European Communities 22 May 2001

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 151 E/001) E-1692/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Sampling of bathing water in Swedish municipalities ...... 1 (2001/C 151 E/002) E-2200/00 by Marco Cappato to the Commission Subject: Religious freedom in Greece ...... 2 (2001/C 151 E/003) E-2373/00 by Dana Scallon to the Council Subject: Child soldiers and small arms in African conflicts ...... 3 (2001/C 151 E/004) E-2377/00 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the Commission Subject: Communication on the Community strategy for equality between men and women (2001-2005) and the proposal for a directive on sexual harassment in the workplace ...... 3 (2001/C 151 E/005) E-2392/00 by Mathieu Grosch to the Commission Subject: Bank charges ...... 4 (2001/C 151 E/006) E-2429/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: EU enlargement and the regions ...... 5 (2001/C 151 E/007) E-2438/00 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission Subject: Failure to respect linguistic diversity by the European Commission ...... 6 (2001/C 151 E/008) E-2446/00 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the Commission Subject: Islands ...... 6 (2001/C 151 E/009) E-2466/00 by Paulo Casaca, Isidoro Sánchez García, Margie Sudre, Roy Perry, Mariotto Segni and Jean-Claude Fruteau to the Commission Subject: Islands ...... 7 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2446/00 and E-2466/00 ...... 7 (2001/C 151 E/010) E-2484/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Council Subject: Meetings with third countries during the French Presidency ...... 8 (2001/C 151 E/011) E-2538/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Erasmus programme: taxation of students ...... 9 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/012) E-2548/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Failure by Spain to comply with Article 12(5) of the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive (advertising during children’s programmes) ...... 10 (2001/C 151 E/013) E-2569/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Support for drug addicts living on the street to persuade them to seek treatment ...... 11 (2001/C 151 E/014) E-2628/00 by Guido Viceconte, Antonio Tajani and Mario Mantovani to the Commission Subject: Community plan to halt the AIDS scourge in Africa ...... 12 (2001/C 151 E/015) E-2652/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Water management and administration of the related Community funding in Sardinia ...... 12 (2001/C 151 E/016) E-2675/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Protection of European firms in Kosovo ...... 14 (2001/C 151 E/017) E-2676/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Functioning of sewage treatment plants in Central Greece ...... 15 (2001/C 151 E/018) E-2687/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Parliamentary Question E-0561/00 ...... 16 (2001/C 151 E/019) E-2763/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Funding for tuberculosis treatment in states signatory to the Convention of Lomé ...... 16 (2001/C 151 E/020) E-2808/00 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: Promoting a ‘European Dimension’ in schools ...... 17 (2001/C 151 E/021) P-2811/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Improving the standard of slaughterhouses in candidate Member States (Supplementary Answer) ..... 18 (2001/C 151 E/022) E-2831/00 by Richard Howitt to the Commission Subject: Warner Jenkinson Europa, Oldmeadow Road, Kings Lynn, Norfolk PE30 4LA ...... 19 (2001/C 151 E/023) E-2865/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Distribution of the Structural Funds within the RDP for 2000-2006 submitted by the Spanish state .... 20 (2001/C 151 E/024) E-2873/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: The Cohesion Fund and the project for constructing a new airport in Madrid in addition to the previous investment of ESP 300 billion in the existing Madrid airport ...... 20 (2001/C 151 E/025) E-2876/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: The EU and world poverty ...... 21 (2001/C 151 E/026) E-2911/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Austria/Sanctions ...... 22 (2001/C 151 E/027) E-2912/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Austria/sanctions ...... 23 (2001/C 151 E/028) E-2913/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Doubts over the effectiveness of sanctions policy ...... 24 (2001/C 151 E/029) E-2914/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Austria/sanctions ...... 24 (2001/C 151 E/030) E-2920/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Sporting and leisure activities in Andalusia ...... 25 (2001/C 151 E/031) E-2935/00 by Brian Simpson to the Commission Subject: Cyprus ...... 25 (2001/C 151 E/032) E-2939/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Common asylum and immigration policy ...... 26 (2001/C 151 E/033) E-2940/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Abolition of tax privileges for diplomats ...... 27 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/034) E-2953/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: The outermost regions ...... 28

(2001/C 151 E/035) E-2955/00 by Emmanouil Mastorakis to the Commission Subject: European Union regional policy ...... 28

(2001/C 151 E/036) E-2966/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci and Mariotto Segni to the Commission Subject: Sicily and Sardinia after 2006 ...... 28

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2955/00 and E-2966/00 ...... 29

(2001/C 151 E/037) E-2959/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Problem of the ‘flooded’ cereals harvest ...... 29

(2001/C 151 E/038) E-2961/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Council Subject: Right-wing extremism in the Member States ...... 30

(2001/C 151 E/039) E-2962/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Right-wing extremism in the Member States ...... 31

(2001/C 151 E/040) E-2968/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Making school milk an integral feature of a healthy food policy ...... 31

(2001/C 151 E/041) E-2969/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Making school milk an integral feature of a healthy food policy ...... 32

(2001/C 151 E/042) E-2970/00 by Erik Meijer to the Council Subject: Incomplete information about the composition of the Council ...... 33

(2001/C 151 E/043) E-2976/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Funding of European Union island regions ...... 34

(2001/C 151 E/044) E-2986/00 by Vittorio Sgarbi to the Commission Subject: Communications in Sicily ...... 35

(2001/C 151 E/045) E-2990/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Habitats Directive 92/43 EEC ...... 36

(2001/C 151 E/046) E-2994/00 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: East Timor ...... 37

(2001/C 151 E/047) E-3000/00 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: Common standards for tunnels in the European Union ...... 37

(2001/C 151 E/048) E-3002/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Procedure whereby the income derived from share-based investment funds is halved for tax purposes pursuant to the German Law on Tax Reductions ...... 38

(2001/C 151 E/049) E-3005/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: EU human rights aid ...... 39

(2001/C 151 E/050) E-3007/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Town twinning and eligibility criteria ...... 39

(2001/C 151 E/051) E-3021/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Ban on driftnets ...... 40

(2001/C 151 E/052) E-3023/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Planned construction of the La Cañada dam on the Turia River (Valencia, Spain) ...... 41

(2001/C 151 E/053) E-3027/00 by Elisabeth Jeggle, Karl von Wogau and Rainer Wieland to the Commission Subject: Notice on town-twinning grants ...... 42

(2001/C 151 E/054) E-3032/00 by Carlos Lage to the Commission Subject: Consequences of building a harbour on the Vila Praia de Âncora coast ...... 43 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/055) P-3033/00 by Giorgos Katiforis to the Council Subject: EU-Turkey Partnership Agreement ...... 44

(2001/C 151 E/056) P-3037/00 by Samuli Pohjamo to the Commission Subject: Recruitment difficulties in connection with the Northern dimension ...... 45

(2001/C 151 E/057) E-3041/00 by Joachim Wuermeling to the Council Subject: Harmonisation of hallmarking provisions for goods made from precious metals ...... 45

(2001/C 151 E/058) E-3044/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Red diesel ...... 46

(2001/C 151 E/059) E-3046/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: EU centres for study and research ...... 47

(2001/C 151 E/060) E-3051/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Funding for education about wildlife ...... 47

(2001/C 151 E/061) E-3053/00 by Sérgio Sousa Pinto to the Commission Subject: Discrimination against non-nationals in French law (Organic Law No 98-404 of 25 May 1998) ...... 48

(2001/C 151 E/062) P-3056/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Ending of support for indigenous breeds in Portugal (Supplementary Answer) ...... 49

(2001/C 151 E/063) E-3059/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Manufacturing ban on high-tar cigarettes ...... 50

(2001/C 151 E/064) E-3063/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Discharge of fuel oil into the River Tajo (Toledo, Spain) ...... 51

(2001/C 151 E/065) E-3065/00 by Sergio Berlato to the Commission Subject: Olive pressers ...... 52

(2001/C 151 E/066) E-3066/00 by Sergio Berlato and Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Seventh EU campaign to promote the consumption of olive oil ...... 53

(2001/C 151 E/067) P-3067/00 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: International Year of Mountains ...... 54

(2001/C 151 E/068) E-3074/00 by Mikko Pesälä and Samuli Pohjamo to the Commission Subject: Information about funding available for the Nordic dimension ...... 55

(2001/C 151 E/069) E-3075/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Electronic sales of drugs ...... 56

(2001/C 151 E/070) E-3076/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Community aid for dairy cattle farmers ...... 57

(2001/C 151 E/071) E-3077/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Sale over the Internet of substances for human consumption which are regarded as harmful in America .58

(2001/C 151 E/072) E-3086/00 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Article 192 of the EC Treaty ...... 59

(2001/C 151 E/073) E-3096/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Unchecked dumping of waste by oil tankers ...... 61

(2001/C 151 E/074) E-3097/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Rising price of oil ...... 62

(2001/C 151 E/075) P-3105/00 by Florence Kuntz to the Commission Subject: VAT rates applicable to the catering industry in the European Union ...... 63

(2001/C 151 E/076) P-3109/00 by Freddy Thielemans to the Commission Subject: Implementation of project ALA/92/47 and ALA/92/35 to protect the town of Montero against flooding .64 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/077) P-3111/00 by Albert Maat to the Commission Subject: Commission proposal for an egg classification system ...... 65

(2001/C 151 E/078) P-3112/00 by Evelyne Gebhardt to the Commission Subject: Disbursement of grants authorised under the Socrates Comenius programme ...... 66

(2001/C 151 E/079) P-3113/00 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Proposed reaction to reform of the new Foreign Sales Corporations bill ...... 67

(2001/C 151 E/080) E-3118/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Use of animal cadavers in meat-and-bone meal ...... 68

(2001/C 151 E/081) E-3119/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: Allocation of UTMS licences in Spain ...... 70

(2001/C 151 E/082) E-3124/00 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: URBAN II ...... 71

(2001/C 151 E/083) E-3130/00 by Íñigo Méndez de Vigo and Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: ‘Get up and go’ project ...... 72

(2001/C 151 E/084) E-3131/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Commission decision to cancel the funding for the ‘Get up and go’ programme ...... 72

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3130/00 and E-3131/00 ...... 73

(2001/C 151 E/085) E-3132/00 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco and Anna Terrón i Cusí to the Commis- sion Subject: ESF funding for women-only training courses in female-dominated sectors ...... 74

(2001/C 151 E/086) E-3134/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Rules for single-hull oil tankers ...... 75

(2001/C 151 E/087) E-3136/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: The fuel revolt ...... 76

(2001/C 151 E/088) E-3137/00 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco to the Commission Subject: Committee on ALA developing countries standstill and shrinking cooperation with Latin America .... 78

(2001/C 151 E/089) E-3143/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: A discotheque at Auschwitz ...... 79

(2001/C 151 E/090) E-3150/00 by Olle Schmidt to the Commission Subject: EU funding to combat child sex tourism ...... 80

(2001/C 151 E/091) P-3153/00 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Blacklisting ...... 81

(2001/C 151 E/092) E-3158/00 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Out-of-court settlement offices ...... 82

(2001/C 151 E/093) E-3160/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Delays in second Community support framework projects ...... 84

(2001/C 151 E/094) P-3167/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Cyprus and the Loizidou case ...... 84

(2001/C 151 E/095) E-3171/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Crisis in the olive oil market in Puglia (Italy) ...... 85

(2001/C 151 E/096) P-3172/00 by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo to the Commission Subject: Obstacles to the contracting of non-EU workers by sports clubs ...... 85

(2001/C 151 E/097) P-3176/00 by Arlindo Cunha to the Commission Subject: Agenda 2000 ...... 86 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/098) P-3186/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the Commission Subject: Negotiations on Turkey’s accession to the European Union and acknowledgement of genocide against Armenians ...... 87 (2001/C 151 E/099) P-3187/00 by Carlos Costa Neves to the Commission Subject: Milk production in the Azores ...... 87 (2001/C 151 E/100) E-3189/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Developments with regard to the Accounting Directives ...... 89 (2001/C 151 E/101) E-3191/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Pollution of Lake Vegoritis in Greece ...... 90 (2001/C 151 E/102) E-3193/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Illegal fishing in West African waters ...... 90 (2001/C 151 E/103) E-3195/00 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: Research into alternative uses of tobacco ...... 91 (2001/C 151 E/104) E-3200/00 by Mario Mauro to the Commission Subject: International body’s discrimination of a sports company which has actively fought doping ...... 92 (2001/C 151 E/105) P-3202/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: American obstacles to European humanitarian initiatives on Iraq and the ‘flight to Iraq’ ...... 93 (2001/C 151 E/106) E-3203/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Maritime safety ...... 94 (2001/C 151 E/107) E-3205/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Regulation for statistical monitoring of tuna ...... 95 (2001/C 151 E/108) P-3325/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: United States ban on Community exports of yellowfin tuna and by-products ...... 96

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3205/00 and P-3325/00 ...... 96 (2001/C 151 E/109) E-3206/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: EU-Cape Verde fisheries agreement ...... 96 (2001/C 151 E/110) P-3210/00 by Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Use of agricultural products for non-food purposes ...... 97 (2001/C 151 E/111) P-3211/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: EU legislation to combat legionella infection ...... 98 (2001/C 151 E/112) E-3233/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel and Jules Maaten to the Commission Subject: Failure to publish information about cases of legionnaire’s disease in European hotels ...... 99 (2001/C 151 E/113) P-3239/00 by Dorette Corbey to the Commission Subject: Legionnaires’ disease ...... 100

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3211/00, E-3233/00 and P-3239/00 ...... 100 (2001/C 151 E/114) P-3212/00 by Hans Kronberger to the Commission Subject: Take-off campaign on renewable energy ...... 102 (2001/C 151 E/115) P-3215/00 by Jan Wiersma to the Commission Subject: EU-UN co-operation on crisis management and conflict prevention ...... 103 (2001/C 151 E/116) E-3219/00 by Elizabeth Lynne to the Commission Subject: Maintenance payments relating to children of divorced parents ...... 104 (2001/C 151 E/117) E-3222/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Tobacco Directive derogation ...... 105 (2001/C 151 E/118) E-3225/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission Subject: European School in Alicante ...... 106 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/119) E-3228/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Oil crisis ...... 106 (2001/C 151 E/120) E-3229/00 by Olivier Duhamel to the Commission Subject: Sanctions in Austria ...... 107 (2001/C 151 E/121) E-3232/00 by Stefano Zappalà, Antonio Tajani, Guido Viceconte, Generoso Andria, Amalia Sartori, Giorgio Lisi and Mario Mantovani to the Commission Subject: Female circumcision in the European Union ...... 107 (2001/C 151 E/122) E-3241/00 by Gabriele Stauner to the Commission Subject: Health risks from adulterated butter ...... 109 (2001/C 151 E/123) E-3243/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Short sea crossings ...... 110 (2001/C 151 E/124) E-3245/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Orphan funds held by life assurance companies ...... 111 (2001/C 151 E/125) E-3247/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Negotiations with Cape Verde for a new fisheries agreement ...... 112 (2001/C 151 E/126) E-3249/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: EU aids for olive oil marketing ...... 113 (2001/C 151 E/127) E-3250/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: The EU’s cork policy ...... 113 (2001/C 151 E/128) E-3251/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Community penalties for dumping of oil at sea ...... 114 (2001/C 151 E/129) E-3254/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: EU aid for the European Diabetics’ League ...... 116 (2001/C 151 E/130) E-3267/00 by Elspeth Attwooll to the Commission Subject: Impact of aquaculture upon toxic blooms ...... 117 (2001/C 151 E/131) E-3268/00 by Elspeth Attwooll to the Commission Subject: The impact of long-line fishing upon seabirds ...... 118 (2001/C 151 E/132) E-3378/00 by Mary Banotti to the Commission Subject: Sea birds and longline fishing ...... 118 (2001/C 151 E/133) E-3379/00 by Richard Howitt to the Commission Subject: Longline fishing for tuna by EU fishermen ...... 119 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3268/00, E-3378/00 and E-3379/00 ...... 119 (2001/C 151 E/134) E-3269/00 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: The violence erupting against Christian communities in the Moluccas ...... 119 (2001/C 151 E/135) E-3271/00 by Dominique Vlasto to the Commission Subject: Single price for books in Europe ...... 120 (2001/C 151 E/136) E-3288/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Strategic oil reserves ...... 121 (2001/C 151 E/137) E-3291/00 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: Publicising the work of the EU ...... 122 (2001/C 151 E/138) E-3292/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Destruction of the wetland habitat of the Messolonghi lagoon ...... 123 (2001/C 151 E/139) E-3295/00 by Mathieu Grosch to the Commission Subject: Cross-subsidisation and setting-off of losses in the railway sector ...... 124 (2001/C 151 E/140) E-3297/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Tobacco advertising/sponsorship ...... 125 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/141) E-3299/00 by Eryl McNally to the Commission Subject: Generic Medicines ...... 126 (2001/C 151 E/142) E-3300/00 by Eryl McNally to the Commission Subject: Soy products ...... 127 (2001/C 151 E/143) E-3302/00 by Eryl McNally to the Commission Subject: Turkey and human rights ...... 128 (2001/C 151 E/144) E-3305/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Lido Pizzo ...... 128 (2001/C 151 E/145) P-3307/00 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: European Union sugar regime ...... 129 (2001/C 151 E/146) P-3309/00 by Esko Seppänen to the Commission Subject: Remuneration of the experts assessing the situation in Austria ...... 130 (2001/C 151 E/147) P-3310/00 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the Commission Subject: Illegal building works (Supplementary Answer) ...... 130 (2001/C 151 E/148) P-3311/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Alitalia air fares ...... 131 (2001/C 151 E/149) P-3313/00 by Gianfranco Fini to the Commission Subject: Agenda for the Biarritz summit and the paedophile crisis ...... 132 (2001/C 151 E/150) P-3314/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Tourism and property development along the coast of Cala Giunco-Stagno Notteri, Villasimius, Sardinia, Italy ...... 133 (2001/C 151 E/151) E-3316/00 by Claude Turmes and Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Malta: power station visit of Commissioner Wallström ...... 135 (2001/C 151 E/152) E-3323/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Sugar supply requirements in the Azores in Regulation No 1481/2000 ...... 135 (2001/C 151 E/153) P-3324/00 by Bernd Lange to the Commission Subject: Noise emitted by high-speed trains ...... 136 (2001/C 151 E/154) E-3328/00 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission Subject: Damages for pain and suffering after air accidents ...... 137 (2001/C 151 E/155) E-3330/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Protection of animals during transportation ...... 138 (2001/C 151 E/156) E-3334/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Supplementary social security and health insurance schemes ...... 138 (2001/C 151 E/157) E-3338/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Golf course in the commune of Settimo San Pietro, Cagliari (Italy) ...... 139 (2001/C 151 E/158) E-3339/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Tourism-oriented property development on the Teulada coast in Sardinia (Italy) ...... 140 (2001/C 151 E/159) E-3340/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Tourism-oriented property development on the Monte Russu coast, commune of Aglientu, Sardinia (Italy) 141 (2001/C 151 E/160) E-3345/00 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission Subject: Driving licences in the European Union ...... 142 (2001/C 151 E/161) E-3349/00 by Anna Karamanou to the Commission Subject: Strengthening democratic institutions and promoting respect for ethnic minorities in Albania ...... 144 (2001/C 151 E/162) P-3389/00 by Christos Zacharakis to the Commission Subject: Irregularities and fraud during elections in Albania ...... 144 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3349/00 and P-3389/00 ...... 145 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/163) E-3351/00 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission Subject: Disposal of PVC ...... 145

(2001/C 151 E/164) E-3353/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Aid to the film industry ...... 146

(2001/C 151 E/165) E-3358/00 by Guido Viceconte, Giuseppe Gargani, Francesco Musotto, Stefano Zappalà, Luigi Cesaro, Marcello Dell’Utri, Mario Mauro, Amalia Sartori, Umberto Scapagnini, Antonio Tajani, Guido Podestà, Raffaele Lombardo and Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Youth programme: late forwarding of contracts and payments ...... 147

(2001/C 151 E/166) E-3359/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Mass redundancy ...... 148

(2001/C 151 E/167) E-3363/00 by Gilles Savary to the Commission Subject: Family producers of natural spirits ...... 149

(2001/C 151 E/168) P-3367/00 by Linda McAvan to the Commission Subject: Pig welfare ...... 149

(2001/C 151 E/169) P-3370/00 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the Commission Subject: Intercultural teaching ...... 150

(2001/C 151 E/170) P-3372/00 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: State aid and the rescue of Olympic Airways AE ...... 151

(2001/C 151 E/171) P-3373/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact and Community funding of projects ...... 152

(2001/C 151 E/172) P-3374/00 by Luciana Sbarbati to the Commission Subject: Civil protection and natural disasters ...... 152

(2001/C 151 E/173) E-3376/00 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission Subject: Positive list of medicinal products in Germany ...... 153

(2001/C 151 E/174) E-3381/00 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: European Social Fund in Catalonia ...... 154

(2001/C 151 E/175) E-3386/00 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact of the Asti-Cuneo motorway link ...... 155

(2001/C 151 E/176) P-3388/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: New aid scheme for coal with effect from 2002 ...... 156

(2001/C 151 E/177) P-3390/00 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission Subject: State aids in the manufacturing industry ...... 156

(2001/C 151 E/178) P-3392/00 by Helena Torres Marques to the Commission Subject: Taxation of Community aid to farmers ...... 157

(2001/C 151 E/179) E-3400/00 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: CD-ROM published by the Commission ...... 157

(2001/C 151 E/180) E-3401/00 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the Commission Subject: Status of spouses of self-employed workers ...... 158

(2001/C 151 E/181) E-3404/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Gianfranco Fini to the Commission Subject: Combating racism and xenophobia in Germany ...... 159

(2001/C 151 E/182) E-3405/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Gianfranco Fini to the Commission Subject: Unemployed Sicilian family deported by the Federal Republic of Germany ...... 159

(2001/C 151 E/183) E-3406/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Gianfranco Fini to the Commission Subject: Over-use of deportation procedures: infringement proceedings by the Commission against the Federal Republic of Germany ...... 160 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/184) E-3408/00 by Armando Cossutta to the Commission Subject: Deportation of Italian citizens by Germany ...... 160 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3404/00, E-3405/00, E-3406/00 and E-3408/00 . . 161 (2001/C 151 E/185) E-3413/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Trade agreement between the EU and China ...... 161 (2001/C 151 E/186) E-3414/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Size of Swedish fermented Baltic herring (‘surströmming’) tins ...... 162 (2001/C 151 E/187) E-3415/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: EU Member States and the international Convention for the protection of the European Community’s financial interests ...... 162 (2001/C 151 E/188) E-3418/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Promoting olive oil in the northern countries of the EU ...... 163 (2001/C 151 E/189) P-3419/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Cross-channel ferry operators ...... 164 (2001/C 151 E/190) E-3420/00 by Torben Lund and Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the Commission Subject: Implementation of Article 13 of the Treaty ...... 165 (2001/C 151 E/191) E-3426/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Timeliness of economic statistics from Member States ...... 166 (2001/C 151 E/192) E-3427/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Commission power over abuse of a dominant position ...... 167 (2001/C 151 E/193) E-3429/00 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez to the Commission Subject: Safety at sea ...... 167 (2001/C 151 E/194) E-3433/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Gianfranco Fini to the Commission Subject: Floods in northern Italy ...... 168 (2001/C 151 E/195) E-3436/00 by Generoso Andria, Stefano Zappalà, Giuseppe Nisticò, Vitaliano Gemelli and Guido Viceconte to the Commission Subject: Beet growing ...... 169 (2001/C 151 E/196) E-3437/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Countering the unintended catching of marine mammals by ensuring strict compliance with, and if necessary improving, existing protection measures ...... 170 (2001/C 151 E/197) P-3438/00 by Minerva Malliori to the Commission Subject: Genetically modified organisms ...... 172 (2001/C 151 E/198) P-3439/00 by Werner Langen to the Commission Subject: Distillation of alcohol intended for human consumption ...... 173 (2001/C 151 E/199) E-3455/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Unexpected situations with regard to authority and ownership discouraging cross-border tourism in the European Union (taking Manchester as an example) ...... 174 (2001/C 151 E/200) E-3456/00 by Cecilia Malmström to the Commission Subject: Regulations on tooth amalgam ...... 175 (2001/C 151 E/201) E-3461/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Communication on children ...... 176 (2001/C 151 E/202) E-3462/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: High tension power line on Mount Riaño (Castille and Leon, Spain) ...... 176 (2001/C 151 E/203) E-3463/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission Subject: High concentration of metals in the Guadalquivir (Andalusia, Spain) ...... 177 (2001/C 151 E/204) E-3466/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Sale of meat and milk from cows affected with ‘cattle-wasting disease’ ...... 178 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/205) P-3467/00 by Robert Sturdy to the Commission Subject: Legal levels of swine fever compensation ...... 179 (2001/C 151 E/206) P-3468/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: European shipbuilding industry ...... 179 (2001/C 151 E/207) E-3472/00 by John Bowis to the Commission Subject: Health Observatory monitoring ...... 180 (2001/C 151 E/208) E-3480/00 by Rosemarie Müller to the Commission Subject: European Year of Languages deadlines for applications for project subsidies ...... 181 (2001/C 151 E/209) E-3483/00 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Code of conduct on the use of menstrual tampons ...... 181 (2001/C 151 E/210) P-3497/00 by Raina Echerer to the Commission Subject: Permission from EU governments for the operation of Temelin type nuclear reactors ...... 183 (2001/C 151 E/211) E-3506/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Finland’s Natura network ...... 183 (2001/C 151 E/212) E-3508/00 by Stefano Zappalà to the Commission Subject: Circeo national park ...... 184 (2001/C 151 E/213) E-3510/00 by Jan Andersson to the Commission Subject: Receiving unemployment benefit in a Member State other than one’s home country ...... 185 (2001/C 151 E/214) E-3520/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Negotiations on fisheries agreements with Cape Verde, Brazil, Senegal and Kiribati ...... 186 (2001/C 151 E/215) E-3535/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Free movement of labour for all industries ...... 187 (2001/C 151 E/216) P-3542/00 by Torben Lund to the Commission Subject: Lead ...... 187 (2001/C 151 E/217) P-3543/00 by Albert Maat to the Commission Subject: Labelling of beef tending to disrupt the market ...... 189 (2001/C 151 E/218) P-3557/00 by Wilhelm Piecyk to the Commission Subject: Wreck of the ‘Ievoli Sun’ and the role of the RINA classification society ...... 189 (2001/C 151 E/219) E-3565/00 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: ILVA S.p.A., Taranto, Italy ...... 190 (2001/C 151 E/220) E-3580/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission Subject: Mansio Ad Quartum ...... 191 (2001/C 151 E/221) E-3593/00 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the Commission Subject: Availability of EU statistics in official languages ...... 192 (2001/C 151 E/222) E-3597/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: The Emcdda and the Santa Maria de Feira summit ...... 192 (2001/C 151 E/223) E-3603/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Gianfranco Fini to the Commission Subject: Social assistance the first step on the road to deportation ...... 193 (2001/C 151 E/224) P-3611/00 by Enrico Ferri to the Commission Subject: Implementation of Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC in Tuscany Regional Council Decision No 184 of 27 September 2000 ...... 194 (2001/C 151 E/225) E-3617/00 by Elspeth Attwooll to the Commission Subject: Import tariffs on fisheries products imported into Poland from the European Union ...... 195 (2001/C 151 E/226) P-3619/00 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the Commission Subject: Prospects for the JRC ...... 196 (2001/C 151 E/227) E-3622/00 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: Women clergy ...... 196 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 151 E/228) E-3639/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Child labour ...... 197 (2001/C 151 E/229) E-3647/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Irregularities in the placing of land registry studies ...... 198 (2001/C 151 E/230) E-3650/00 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: City guides ...... 198 (2001/C 151 E/231) E-3672/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Introduction of blind-spot mirrors ...... 199 (2001/C 151 E/232) E-3677/00 by Toine Manders to the Commission Subject: Cooperation between lawyers and accountants ...... 200 (2001/C 151 E/233) E-3678/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: WTO waiver ...... 201 (2001/C 151 E/234) P-3692/00 by John Cushnahan to the Commission Subject: The toxic nature of the Shu Gan Wan pill ...... 201 (2001/C 151 E/235) P-3694/00 by Mario Mastella to the Commission Subject: Protection of workers at the work place ...... 202 (2001/C 151 E/236) E-3715/00 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission Subject: ESF Objectives ...... 203 (2001/C 151 E/237) E-3720/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Trade in cigarettes ...... 204 (2001/C 151 E/238) E-3721/00 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Family allowances as an obstacle to freedom of movement ...... 204 (2001/C 151 E/239) E-3734/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Conversion costs of the euro ...... 205 (2001/C 151 E/240) E-3737/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Television licences ...... 205 (2001/C 151 E/241) P-3741/00 by Gerard Collins to the Commission Subject: UK road tax ...... 206 (2001/C 151 E/242) P-3786/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Adapting Directive 70/156/EEC on the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers to the requirements of technical progress ...... 206 (2001/C 151 E/243) E-3818/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Export of live cattle to third countries ...... 207 (2001/C 151 E/244) P-3826/00 by Massimo Carraro to the Commission Subject: Improper use of the Valpolicella brand name in a publicity campaign against drink-driving ...... 208 (2001/C 151 E/245) P-3877/00 by Michael Cashman to the Commission Subject: Electrically assisted bicycles ...... 208 (2001/C 151 E/246) E-3888/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Protection for shipwrecks ...... 209 (2001/C 151 E/247) E-3961/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Construction of gas turbines ...... 209 (2001/C 151 E/248) E-3983/00 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission Subject: Community subsidies for the Midi-Pyrénées Region: amounts and allocation ...... 210 (2001/C 151 E/249) P-4106/00 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea to the Commission Subject: State of affairs of farming in Apulia ...... 210 (2001/C 151 E/250) E-0005/01 by Brice Hortefeux to the Commission Subject: Distribution and use of Community financial aid in the Auvergne region 1994-2000 ...... 211

EN 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/1

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 151 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1692/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Sampling of bathing water in Swedish municipalities

Does the Commission plan to take any action against Swedish municipalities which do not comply with the requirement to report on bathing water samples within the deadline and do not take samples in the correct manner? Must Swedish municipalities report their bathing water samples in accordance with the directive, which is not considered to be geared to the Scandinavian climate?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

The bathing water quality directive, Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 (1) obliges the Member States to sample and inspect the identified bathing water areas during the bathing season at minimum frequencies laid down in the Directive (in general every 14 days). The samples are then analysed in laboratories to determine the quantities of certain pollution indicators (parameters).

In calculating the quality level the Commission takes into account two microbiological parameters (total and faecal coliforms) and three physico-chemical parameters (mineral oils, surface active substances and phenol). These are parameters for which the Directive stipulates a minimum sampling frequency and mandatory values not to be exceeded.

The local authorities in Sweden have to report to the Swedish environment protection agency, which after verification reports the information to the Commission for the publication in the annual report. The Commission’s annual report on bathing water quality is published pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 76/ 160/EEC modified by Article 3 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardizing and rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment (2), which obliges Member States to inform the Commission of the laboratory results and the inspections.

The Member States have implemented Directive 91/692/EEC in national legislation. If the Directive is not complied with e.g. non-respect for the standards, or insufficient sampling or non-reporting of monitoring results the Commission will not hesitate to take proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) EC Treaty, should this prove necessary. C 151 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

At the same time the Commission is aware of the fact that the bathing water directive of 1976 is outdated, both as regards the technical-scientific basis and the managerial approach. This is why the Commission already in 1994 submitted a proposal for a review. However, consecutive Council Presidencies did not discuss the proposal for several years, inter alia because one wanted to await the outcome of the political discussion on the water framework directive. Thus the 1994 proposal became itself outdated.

The Commission has started work leading to a new bathing water quality Directive. Following the final adoption of the water framework directive in September 2000, the Commission intends to develop the new bathing water quality directive, looking both at the latest technical and scientific facts and the managerial approach. Development of the Commission proposal should follow the same open process that proved so successful for the water framework directive, i.e. cooperation with all interested and involved parties (such as Member States, regional and local authorities, the scientific community, tourism, water users and, last but not least, consumer and environmental non-governmental organisations). The next step foreseen is a Commission communication on bathing water before the end of 2000, opening a broad consultation exercise. One of the key elements of this consultation will be a bathing water conference foreseen during the Swedish Presidency. Based on the findings of this consultation exercise, the Commis- sion will come forward with a proposal to the Parliament and the Council for a new bathing water quality directive.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976. (2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(2001/C 151 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2200/00 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Religious freedom in Greece

Chara Kalomiri, a Greek citizen, is involved in a legal case that raises grave concerns about respect for religious freedom in Greece. After having been accused by the authorities on Mount Athos of directing, from September 1994 to March 1995, a ‘centre of practical psychological philosophy’ on the Chalcidice Peninsula, she was initially convicted by the Greek courts in 1997 and then, after the Supreme Court had quashed the sentence, convicted a second time after a retrial. The judges gave as grounds for their verdict the fact that the ‘Buddhist place of worship, intended for meditation’ had not received the requisite authorisation from the Ministry for Education and Religious Affairs, which authorisation is granted only after hearing the opinion of the Orthodox hierarchy.

Does the Commission not consider that, as respect for religious freedom is a fundamental human right and a principle common to all the Member States, urgent action should be taken pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU and Article 13 of the TEC to prevent any infringement of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and any discrimination on the grounds of religion, with particular reference to Greece?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Having examined the Honourable Member’s question, the Commission considers that the action of the Member State in question does not fall within the scope of Community law. The Court of Justice has consistently refused to judge the respect of fundamental rights by the Member States when they are acting outside the scope of Community law. Consequently, and regardless of whether or not a fundamental right has been violated, the Commission does not have jurisdiction in this case to open infringement proceedings within the meaning of Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty against Greece.

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the possibility that, after exhausting the national avenues of appeal against the conviction, the citizen in question could bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/3

(2001/C 151 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2373/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council (24 July 2000)

Subject: Child soldiers and small arms in African conflicts

There are horrific stories of the devastation caused by the use of small arms and the destruction of a generation of children through conscription into armies, both unofficial and official.

It is estimated that up to 300 000 children world wide, and 120 000 in Africa alone, are serving as combatants in government armed forces or armed opposition groups.

Unfortunately, many of the arms used are manufactured in Europe and traded from Europe, sometimes through by-passing the code of conduct on Arms Exports adopted in 1998.

How can the Council ensure a more stringent and binding application of the EU code in each country of the Union?

Can the Council give more particular attention to the criteria and operative provisions at the yearly review of this code, most of all for criteria 1, 3, 7, and operative provisions 8 and 11?

Reply (22 December 2000)

1. The Council is constantly concerned by the destabilising accumulation of small arms and light weapons and their devastating effects on child soldiers enrolled in official and unofficial armies. The Code of Conduct on arms exports adopted on 8 June 1998 is directed towards establishing high common standards to be regarded by all Member States as a minimum for the control of conventional arms transfers. The Code is also aimed at strengthening the exchange of relevant information with a view to greater transparency.

2. Arms exportation policies and application of the Code are the responsibility of the Member States, which take decisions authorising or refusing arms transfers on the basis of the Code. The Member States are, however, obliged to exchange information each year, within the Council, on their arms exports. An annual report is prepared on that basis, allowing a joint evaluation of implementation of the Code and in particular of the application of each of the criteria contained therein.

(2001/C 151 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/00 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission (13 July 2000)

Subject: Communication on the Community strategy for equality between men and women (2001-2005) and the proposal for a directive on sexual harassment in the workplace

On 7 June 2000 the Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, Anna Diamantopoulou, announced to the general public and to the media that the Commission had adopted a communication on a Community strategy for equality between men and women (2000-2005) and a proposal for a directive on sexual harassment in the workplace.

In accordance with the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission, the Commission must keep Parliament fully informed of legislative or budgetary proposals and initiatives, and may not make public any legislative initiative or any other significant initiative or decision without having first informed Parliament.

How, then, does the Commission explain the fact that, at the time of writing, twenty days after it announced the adoption of these proposals in a blaze of publicity, it systematically refuses Members of this Parliament access to their content, and that none of the official documents is yet available? C 151 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

On 7 June 2000 the Commission adopted the communication ‘Towards a Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)’ (1), the proposal for a Council Decision on a supporting programme, and the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 76/207/ EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (2). These texts had to be thoroughly checked by the Commission’s lawyer-linguists in order to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the different language versions. This entailed comparing the terms used in each translation with the original language of the documents, and ensuring that the 11 language versions were consistent with each other. As stated by the Honourable Member, this meant there was a delay in making available the final versions of the documents in the 11 languages.

Whilst regretting this delay, the Commission would like to emphasise the fact that it kept Parliament properly informed throughout the process of preparing the Communication and the proposal for a Directive.

(1) COM(2000) 335 final. (2) COM(2000) 334 final.

(2001/C 151 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/00 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Bank charges

Despite the European Parliament and Council directive 97/5/EC (1) of 27 January 1997 on cross-border credit transfers, a study carried out by the IECI and presented on 5 February shows that within the 11 EURO Member States, for payments abroad:

the costs of cross-border transfers are, firstly, far too high and out of all proportion to the costs actually incurred by the banks; secondly, they vary quite considerably depending on the direction in which they are made;

despite the ban (if there is no agreement) on charging the recipient, this is nevertheless what happens in 35 % of cases in 10 of the 11 countries;

the specified time limit of 5 days is not respected in most countries.

What action does the Commission intend to take, in the interests of consumers, to prohibit this abuse which is tolerated in individual Member States?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 25.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The European Interregional Institute for Consumer Affairs (EIICA) carried out for the Commission a study to ascertain whether charges were imposed for conversion transactions between the euro and national currencies. The findings were excellent in that no charges are made for such transactions. However, where cross-border transfers are concerned, it transpired that transaction costs are invariably high and that Directive 97/5/EC is not being applied correctly as regards the breakdown of costs and the time the transaction takes. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/5

The Directive stipulates that, unless otherwise specified, all charges must be borne by the originator and yet in 25 % of cases the beneficiary is charged. It also states that the transfer must take place within six days. However, in just over 4 % of cases this deadline was not met. Consequently, on 22 June 2000 at a meeting of Member States’ legal experts held to discuss application of the relevant Community directives, the Commission pointed out that the Member States were responsible for applying Community directives correctly once they had been transposed into national law. The Member States undertook to prepare detailed reports on how the rules on double charging and the deadline for completing transactions were being implemented.

The Commission has no intention of setting the level of charges. As it explained in its communication of 31 January 2000 on retail payments in the internal market (1), the banks must improve the charging structures for small-value cross-border transfers. Numerous studies are under way into such matters as the international bank account number (IBAN) and the international payment instruction (IPI). The Commis- sion hopes to see a substantial improvement in the situation by 1 January 2002.

(1) COM(2000) 36 final.

(2001/C 151 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2429/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: EU enlargement and the regions

In the first paragraph of its reply to Written Question E-1178/00 (1) on the same subject, the Commission refers back to its reply to a question by Mrs Evans (H-666/99) (2). As the Commission rightly points out, Article 190 (2) of the EC Treaty states that ‘… each Member State must ensure appropriate representation of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community’.

Does the Commission consider that ‘appropriate’ representation is possible in view of the negotiations currently under way aimed at reducing Spain’s representation from 64 to 46 seats, bearing in mind the single-constituency system used in Spain for elections to the European Parliament?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 139. (2) Written reply of 16 November 1999.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The Commission points out that the issue of parliamentary representation was settled at Amsterdam (Article 189 EC), where the maximum number of Members of Parliament was set at seven hundred.

In its Resolution of 13 April on the Intergovernmental Conference (Dimitrakopouloulos/Leinen Report), Parliament establishes the criteria for distributing seats when enlargement takes place. The Commission can only abide by Parliament’s recommendations. It obviously cannot prejudge the positions that Member States may take during the IGC.

In addition, the electoral system in each Member State is currently governed by national legislation. C 151 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2438/00 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Subject: Failure to respect linguistic diversity by the European Commission

Can the Commission explain why it now systematically gives priority to English in the communications it issues which are of interest to the public, increasingly cutting down its use of the other ten official languages of the European Union?

Most of the information contained on the web-sites of the Commission’s directorates-general is in English and, where translations are available, these are usually confined to French or German. For example, the fact that instructions for the submission of projects are almost exclusively in English makes it difficult for non- anglophone citizens, associations or bodies to take part. In addition, the Commission frequently asks project organisers to submit interim and final reports on their activities in the Commission’s ‘working languages’ (English and French), causing pointless delays and extra administrative costs to those who do not have a good knowledge of these languages, to the detriment of the operational aspects of the project.

Does the Commission not consider that these practices promote discrimination? Are such practices not incompatible with the activities and programmes designed to promote respect for cultural and linguistic diversity geared to the European Year of Languages?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The Commission does not give preference to the use of any of the official languages of the Community by comparison with the other languages, except for the internal work of the institution, in conformity with Article 6 of Regulation No 1 of the Council of 15 April 1958 establishing the language regime of the Community (1). This Regulation still remains the guideline for the contacts of the Commission with the public and also for the publishing policy of the Commission. Regulation No 1 determines the official languages of the Community and determines that legal acts have to be published in those languages.

The Commission pays great attention to the respect of the language regime, in particular with regard to its own communication with the public, in order to guarantee non-discriminatory practices. Thus, the web- sites of the Directorates-general are usually presented in the eleven official languages too. It may happen that supplementary information can be made available in one language only. This is sometimes unavoidable due to the actuality of information and the limited resources available for translation of all information or documents in all the official languages.

Instructions for the submission of projects are generally published in the Official journal, so that citizens, companies, or organisations have the same fair chance to take part in the execution of a programme. In cases where additional information appears on a web-site in one or some of the official languages only, a request can be addressed to the Secretary general of the Commission, who will examine what further steps can be taken.

(1) OJ 17, 6.10.1958.

(2001/C 151 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2446/00 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Subject: Islands

Article 154 of the Treaty, which concerns trans-European networks, specifically refers to ‘the need to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community’. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/7

Despite this, it would appear that, on the whole, this provision of the Treaty has not been implemented in the case of islands.

Could the Commission supply a list of TEN projects (in the areas of transport, energy or telecommunications) which have benefited one or other of the islands of the European Union?

Given that the Commission has submitted a report to Parliament and the Council on the revision of the guidelines for TENs, could it also say which projects concerning islands are likely to be declared eligible?

Lastly, could the Commission also say what measures it intends to propose in order that in future a higher priority may be given, in the framework of TENs, to improving the links between islands and the central regions of the Community?

(2001/C 151 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE), Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR), Margie Sudre (PPE-DE), Roy Perry (PPE-DE), Mariotto Segni (UEN) and Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Islands

Article 154 of the Treaty, on trans-European networks, makes explicit reference to ‘the need to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community’.

It seems, however, that in the case of islands, very little has been done to put this into effect.

Can the Commission give a list of TEN projects (involving transport, energy or telecommunications) that have benefited the European Union’s islands to date?

At a time when the Commission is presenting Parliament and the Council with a report on the revision of TEN guidelines, could the Commission give a list of the projects concerning islands that are likely to be declared eligible?

Could it also say what proposals it has in mind so that in future greater priority is given within the TEN framework to strengthening links between the islands and the Community’s central regions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2446/00 and E-2466/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Many trans-European transport (TEN) projects, in energy, transport and telecommunications, concern islands. For transport and energy, the projects are identified in the guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1) and in the guidelines for the development of the trans-European energy network (2). For transport, the most important projects for islands are generally those for ports and airports. For energy, the list of projects of common interest includes the introduction of natural gas and electricity connections by submarine cable to some islands. In TEN-Telecom, islands are directly or indirectly addressed in most of the projects as telecommunications by definition link the different regions in Europe. Particular examples exist in projects dealing with tele-medicine, and tele-education aimed at reaching remotely located citizens, and in projects dealing with emergency management. C 151 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

In order to receive Community financial support, projects must first be agreed by national administrations. The full list of projects that have received financial support from the TEN budget can be found in the annual report on the TENs which is sent to Parliament. However, it should be noted that most of the financing of TEN projects in islands comes from the structural funds and Cohesion fund, as well as from national authorities. The information available on these projects can be found in the annual report on the Cohesion fund and the annual list of structural fund projects over € 50 million, both of which are sent to the Parliament.

The Commission is currently preparing a report to revise the TEN-Transport guidelines, in which it will propose to continue to support TEN projects in islands. For TEN-Energy, the Commission will underline the importance of developing renewable energies, especially in islands, and linking the production units for these energies to interconnected networks. The revision of the TEN-Telecom guidelines will only start from September 2000. As the selection of TEN-Telecom projects is through open calls for proposals, there are no specific elegibility criteria for projects related to islands. However, a better dissemination of the support available for projects in islands at the different (European and national) TEN-Telecom information days could help to strengthen links with islands.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. (2) OJ L 161, 29.6.1996.

(2001/C 151 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2484/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Meetings with third countries during the French Presidency

1. Could the Council please list all the meetings planned with third countries during the French Presidency and provide an estimate of the total cost of those meetings?

2. Could it also provide details of the total costs of meetings with third countries under the Portuguese Presidency in 2000 and under the German and Finnish Presidencies in 1999?

(22 December 2000)

1. The meetings planned with third countries during the French Presidency are as follows:

Heads of State or Government

EU/Japan Summit, Tokyo, 19 July;

EU/Ukraine Summit, Paris, 15 September;

ASEM III Summit, Seoul, 21 October;

EU/China Summit, Beijing, 23 October;

EU/Russia Summit, Paris, 30 October;

Euro-Mediterranean Summit, Marseilles, 15 and 16 November;

European Conference, Nice, 7 December;

EU/United States Summit, Washington, 18 December;

EU/Canada Summit, Ottawa, 19 December;

EU/Western Balkans Summit (proposal). 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/9

Ministerial meetings

ASEAN Regional Forum, Bangkok, 27 July;

ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conferences, Bangkok 28 and 29 July;

EU/South Korea Ministerial meeting, Bangkok, 29 July;

EU/United States Ministerial meeting, Paris, 2 October;

ASEM, Seoul, 20 October;

EU/Japan Ministerial meeting, Seoul, 21 October;

EU/ASEAN Ministerial meeting, Vientiane, 12 December;

EU/Canada Ministerial meeting, Paris, 3 November;

Barcelona IV, Marseilles, 16 November;

European Conference, Sochaux, 23 November.

EU/SADC Ministerial Conference, Gaborone (Botswana), 29 and 30 November;

Ministerial meetings held alongside meetings of the General Affairs Council in Brussels

11 July: Cooperation Councils with Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan;

19 September: EEA Ministerial Council;

19 September: Association Councils with Hungary and the Czech Republic;

9 and 10 October: Association Councils with Bulgaria and Poland;

Association Council with Morocco, 9 October;

Cooperation Councils with Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, 10 October;

The Council is unable to provide details of the total cost of these meetings, for several reasons:

when the meetings take place in the country of the Presidency, it bears the costs;

when they take place in a third country, the host country covers the costs;

Cooperation and Association Councils are held alongside meetings of the General Affairs Council. Apart from interpreting costs, no expense is borne by the Union’s budget.

2. The total cost of meetings with third countries held during the Portuguese Presidency in 2000 and the German and Finnish Presidencies in 1999 was borne either by the respective Presidencies or by the host countries.

(2001/C 151 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2538/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Erasmus programme: taxation of students

Can the Commission confirm that students participating in Erasmus exchange programmes as visiting students are exempt from liability to local taxation when resident as visiting students in the host country? Can the Commission therefore advise as to the proper course of action when a visiting student on an exchange between the UK and France receives tax demands, and ultimately ‘final demands’ from Grenoble (2nd Division) or any other such local authority? C 151 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

In the absence of harmonised Community legislation, direct taxation falls in principle under the competence of the Member States.

According to the information available in the Commission, the Erasmus grants are exempted from income taxation in all the countries participating in Erasmus. The Honourable Member’s question refers however specifically to local taxation.

There is not as such any local income tax in France. It is possible that the ‘local taxation’ mentioned by the Honourable Member in the question refers to taxes, dues or other fees charged by a town to residents for public services. Exchange students will not necessary be exempted from such duties. Nor would such duties normally be covered by double taxation conventions concluded between Member States.

(2001/C 151 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Failure by Spain to comply with Article 12(5) of the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive (advertising during children’s programmes)

Article 12(5) of Directive 97/36/EC (1) (amending Directive 89/552/EEC (2)), better known as the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive, stipulates that ‘children’s programmes, when their scheduled duration is less than thirty minutes, shall not be interrupted by advertising or by teleshopping’. Nevertheless, as was pointed out in Written Question E-2864/99 (3), Spanish television stations are broadcasting more than the permitted number of advertisements during the time slot for children’s programmes, while 5 % of those advertisements fail to comply with existing legislation. In response to this and other complaints by consumers’ associations, the Commission has opened infringement proceedings against Spain for failure to comply with the provisions on advertising laid down in the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive.

The Advertising Education Forum (AEF), the operational arm of the World Federation of Advertisers, recently expressed concern at the possible tightening of Community legislation on advertising during children’s programmes and said it would oppose any moves in that direction by the forthcoming Swedish Presidency of the EU. Since 1991 there has been a law in Sweden prohibiting advertising before, during and after children’s programmes, while countries such as Austria and Belgium have banned advertising from children’s programmes for some time, and Greece has outlawed television advertising of toys.

Is the Commission examining whether Spanish broadcasting companies are complying with Community rules on advertising, particularly Article 12(5) of the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive?

With reference to that Directive’s avowed aim of protecting minors, will the Commission propose that the banning and restricting of advertising during children’s programmes be extended, drawing on the successful experiences of countries such as Sweden, Belgium, Austria and Greece?

What progress has been made with the infringement proceedings brought against Spain for failure to comply with Directive 97/36/EC?

(1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60. (2) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23. (3) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 213. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/11

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

As already indicated in the reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2864/99 (1), infringement proceedings in accordance with Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty have been brought against Spain for its failure to comply with the rules on advertising set out in the ‘Television without Frontiers’ Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997).

Moreover, a study is currently being carried out on the impact of television advertising and teleshopping on minors. On the basis of the results of this study and other factors, the Commission will propose the most appropriate measures where necessary.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Support for drug addicts living on the street to persuade them to seek treatment

In many European countries drug addicts can been seen living on the street in company with one or more dogs. The reason why these homeless drug addicts have dogs can apparently be traced back to the law on animal protection. I have heard that in some Member States that law stipulates that the authorities must look after and seek a home for ownerless dogs. This in turn reduces the likelihood of the authorities intervening in the lives of drug addicts living on the street, for example in order to persuade them to seek treatment, since the outcome would be that dozens of neglected, ownerless dogs would be left on the street and, pursuant to the law on animal protection, would have to be cared for by the authorities.

Is this correct? If so, what steps does the Commission plan to take in order to ensure that the law on animal protection does not preclude the provision of support for drug addicts to persuade them to seek treatment? If the law on animal protection does not in itself rule out the provision of such support, are there practical obstacles to efforts to resolve the problems of the homeless?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

As the Honourable Member has noticed, some homeless drug addicts have dogs. Dogs may be kept for security reasons or for company.

The Commission is unaware of any cases where the law on animal protection has prevented drug addicts from seeking treatment or reduced the likelihood of the authorities to intervene in the lives of drug addicts living on the street. Even though caring for the addict’s pets while in treatment may be problematic in some cases, this has not been reported as an obstacle for seeking or receiving treatment or other support in any Member State. C 151 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2628/00 by Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) and Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Community plan to halt the AIDS scourge in Africa

The 13th International Conference on AIDS, held in Durban, South Africa, has painted an alarming picture of the future for many African countries. The experts listed a series of grim figures which suggest that the population will fall substantially in the next decade (by 0,1 % to 0,3 %; without AIDS it would rise by 1 % to 3 %) and life expectancy slump from 60 to 30 years.

Europe must bring its energies to bear to attempt to halt this scourge, since prevention and anti-viral treatments are now known to work. Political will is urgently needed in order to undertake a range of measures to save the people of Africa.

Could the Commission, as a matter of urgency, draw up a Community plan to be implemented immediately, in collaboration with the drug companies, so that economic aid can be earmarked to launch an information campaign on AIDS in the African countries and at the same time used to carry out preventive measures, based for example on vaccination, and operations to promote universally accessible health care?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2000)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Members about the health crisis in developing countries, badly aggravated by acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), particularly in Africa.

The Commission has recently adopted a new communication on accelerated action targeted at major communicable diseases within the context of poverty reduction (1). It sets out the policy framework, which the Commission will use to improve its response to the increasing spread and growing impact of Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the developing world. The communication proposes a single coherent set of development, trade and research policies to combat these diseases.

On this basis during the coming months, a plan of action will be prepared following the different lines of proposed interventions.

To consult on these orientations, the Commission hosted a very successful and well attended high level international round table on 28 September to discuss the Community’s policy and to steer the development of a programme of action for the implementation of the communication.

(1) COM(2000) 585 final.

(2001/C 151 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2652/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Water management and administration of the related Community funding in Sardinia

At present, Sardinia, which has a population of 1 631 000, has as many as 31 large and medium-sized reservoirs with a maximum capacity of 1 589 million m3. Final filling permission has been granted up to a volume of 1 486 million m3, and filling trials have begun at the new dam on the river Tirso, which will further increase the maximum capacity by approximately 300 million m3. That notwithstanding, Sardinia has been hit by its second serious water emergency within the space of the last ten years. The bad water management is plain for all to see. The 42 different managing bodies do not coordinate their operations. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/13

Large quantities of drinking-water are used in industry. On average, 30 % of the water carried by the urban distribution networks is lost, and the wastage rate can peak as high as 200 %. There is no water saving policy. Under the 1995 government order, the chairman of Sardinia Regional Council was appointed government commissioner responsible for the water emergency. The 73 operations carried out under the programme to tackle the emergency, funded by a budget of ITL 1 486 billion, have not proved very effective, given that Sardinia is now in the grip of an even worse emergency. Out of the above-mentioned 73 operations, 26 have been financed by the ‘water resources’ operational programme forming part of the 1994-1999 Community support framework, funded by over ITL 562 billion, and have focused almost exclusively on new dams and similar works.

1. Has the Commission considered the outcome of the operational programme in the light of the requisite ex ante assessment of operations under the 1994-1999 Community support framework (Article 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1))?

2. Has the Commission ascertained that the legislation on environmental impact assessment was observed where the above operations were concerned? Will it take steps if the EIA procedure applied to the works is shown to have been flawed?

3. How will the Commission deal with the proposals for Community funding submitted by the Sardinian regional authorities for the new Structural Funds programming period 2000-2006, especially as regards policies to promote water saving and sustainable use of water resources, and assessment of the environmental costs of water management policies? Will funding be provided for operations to reduce network leakage and recycle water for industrial uses?

(1) OJ L 161, 22.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission is aware of Sardinia’s underdevelopment as regards managing water resources.

The Commission does not yet have an ex post evaluation of the results and impact of the water resources programme for 1994-1999, since the deadline for the closure of payments is 31 December 2001. Under the regulations in force, the evaluation report must be submitted to the Commission by 30 June 2002.

The Commission has ensured that the projects proposed for part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) comply with the Directives in terms of environmental impact assessment. Inter alia within the Monitoring Committees, the Italian authorities have given assurances that such an assessment has been carried out whenever applicable. It should be borne in mind that environment ministry representatives also attend the technical committee responsible for project selection.

For the 2000-2006 programming period, the Community support framework (CSF) for the Italian regions eligible under Objective 1 has set priorities for the sector which cover two aspects: infrastructure improvement and management system administration. As regards the first, assistance will have to be concentrated on converting water conveyancing and purification facilities, adapting supply and distribution monitoring systems, and building new facilities for reusing purified water. As regards the second, effective management systems will have to be developed in order to make a clearer distinction between controlling and managing resources and to bridge the gap between assistance planning and financial responsibility.

The regional operational programme (ROP) for Sardinia lists these points under measure 1.1 of the natural resources priority. The detailed criteria set by the CSF will apply in order to ensure that the projects selected are consistent with the sectoral law in force in Italy (Legge Galli). C 151 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

The water framework Directive (1) which Parliament and the Council recently adopted strongly promotes integrated planning and management of surface waters and groundwater as regards both quality and quantity, based on six-year management plans covering the whole of each river basin. The plans must be put into operation by 2009. The water framework Directive requires Member States, in the course of preparing their river basin management plans, to analyse for each river basin its geological, hydrological, ecological and other characteristics, the impact of human activity on water status, and the economics of water use. The analyses must be completed by 2004, and an operational monitoring programme for water status must be established by 2006. The latter two deadlines fall during the period of the ROP and will provide a basis for implementing it in accordance with Community legislation.

(1) PRES/2000/283.

(2001/C 151 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Protection of European firms in Kosovo

The answer given by Commissioner Patten to Written Question E-1032/2000, despite the rather ‘embarassing’ nature of its content, shows that the role played by parliamentary control is a cornerstone of democracy, not only for the Member States but also for the European Union itself. With regard to the matter in hand, the Commission’s undertaking contained in the abovementioned answer to bring the concerns raised to the attention of UNMIK opens up a clear channel of communication between myself as a Member of the European Parliament, the Commission in its capacity as the EU authority responsible, and UNMIK, which is overseeing the crisis situation in Kosovo.

When and by what means does the Commission plan to make the necessary representations to UNMIK, as promised in the abovementioned answer, and to what extent will it keep me informed of these measures?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

In line with its statement (Written Question E-1032/00 (1)) that it would draw United Nations (UN) Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) attention to the issues raised by the Honourable Member, but it is for UNMIK to respond directly to the Honourable Member, the Commission has already sent the Honourable Member a copy of the letter which it has sent to UNMIK. The Commission has also provided the Honourable Member with the contact details of the relevant official in UNMIK.

The Commission has thus put ‘a clear channel of communication’ in place between the Honourable Member and UNMIK, the competent authority for all questions relating to the international civil administration of Kosovo.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 15. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/15

(2001/C 151 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Functioning of sewage treatment plants in Central Greece

According to reports in the Greek press, the secretary-general for the region of Central Greece has expressed fears concerning the functioning of sewage treatment plants in the area, saying that most of the mechanical equipment that has not yet been brought into service has already depreciated badly. The main problems concern Orchomenos, Arachova, Malesina, Atalanti, Kamena Vourla and Stylida, where plants which were built seven or eight years ago have never been used, with the missing equipment being blamed on thefts from storage.

1. Can the Commission say whether these remarks are accurate?

2. What funds have been allocated for these plants, which operate partially or not at all?

3. Will the Commission examine whether criminal liability can be established for these incidents?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission is unable to confirm the reports referred to in the question, some of which relate to projects which have not been part-financed by the Structural Funds or which are regarded as being in the construction phase. It has nevertheless written to the national authorities, requesting detailed information.

The Commission evaluates part-financed programmes, but does not systematically monitor how each type of project part-financed by the Structural Funds operates under those programmes. Within the partnership framework, it nevertheless intends to ask the Greek authorities to publish a report covering inter alia municipal waste water treatment plants.

In the course of monitoring compliance with Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (1), the Commission is also currently checking that Member States met the Directive’s first deadline (31 December 1998) for collection and tertiary treatment (biological treatment followed by nitrogen and/or phosphorus treatment) of liquid waste from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 discharging into sensitive areas and their catchment areas.

According to the information which the Greek authorities submitted on 15 June 2000, that deadline applied only to the town of Orchomenos referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission is currently processing the information received and at the beginning of 2001 will publish a status report covering all the agglomerations concerned.

The Commission will in due course carry out checks in respect of the agglomerations which are subject to the Directive’s two other deadlines (31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005).

Lastly, it is for the Member State to take appropriate measures if criminal acts such as theft or vandalism are committed against these works, or if public property is neglected or disregarded.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. C 151 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Parliamentary Question E-0561/00

Would the Commission given an indication as to when it may be able to provide the information it promised to communicate in answer to Parliamentary Question E-0561/00 (1) of 7 April 2000?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 218.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

The Commission provided the information on 28 November 2000.

It regrets the delay in giving this answer.

(2001/C 151 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2763/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Funding for tuberculosis treatment in states signatory to the Convention of Lomé

How does the Commission intend to tackle the growing problem of tuberculosis in developing countries?

Given that the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease estimates that € 100-150 million is needed to make a major impact on tuberculosis in the developing countries, will the Commission make funds available through the European Development Fund to combat this specific problem?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2000)

The Commission recognises the growing problem and threat posed by tuberculosis in developing countries and will increase investment in an effective response through available instruments.

There is increasing international attention to the major communicable diseases associated with poverty, namely tuberculosis, malaria and acquired immune deficiency syndrome/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV/AIDS), and unprecedented political support to address the problem. The subject has been discussed in meetings in 2000 between the Community and the United States and in the group of eight most industrialized countries (G8).

As a first response to the recommendations of the G8, the Commission adopted on 20 September 2000 a communication on accelerated action targeted at the major communicable diseases within the context of poverty reduction (1). On 28 September 2000 the Commission co-hosted with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations programme on AIDS, a high level round table to consult representatives of developing countries, international organisations, research groups, the pharmaceutical industry, civil society groups and Member States. The discussions will be of great assistance in the definition of a subsequent programme of action over coming months. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/17

The Commission recognises that the scale of the problem warrants an extraordinary response from the international development community, backed by appropriate resources and effective delivery mechanisms. The Commission wishes to provide support as part of a co-ordinated international response and is exploring with partners possible future financing and support options.

The Commission provides extensive and increasing support to the health sector. Assistance to health, AIDS and population programmes has risen from 1 % of Community aid in 1986 to 8 % in 1998. Overall commitments in 1998 amounted to over € 700 million. Much of this support is directed to improve the organisation, management and performance of national health systems including improvements to tuberculosis control programmes. Increasingly such support is provided as sector or budget support rather than targeted support to disease specific programmes.

It is not possible to quantify future specific allocations to tuberculosis control from the European development fund and there is no specific budget line for tuberculosis. The most effective approach to combat the problem will be through sustained support to health systems development complemented by targeted action through a co-ordinated global approach as proposed above.

(1) COM(2000) 585 final.

(2001/C 151 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/00 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: Promoting a ‘European Dimension’ in schools

Would Romano Prodi or the relevant Commissioner please answer the following questions:

1. How much money has been allocated to promote a ‘European Dimension’ in British schools?

2. How will the European Union promote a ‘European Dimension’? Will it be by means of leaflets, worksheets, books and conferences?

3. In line with its oft-stated desire to promote ‘Cultural Diversity’ and preserve the ‘identity of the nation- states’, how much money will be spent on promoting a British identity, as opposed to a ‘European identity’?

4. Will parents be able to exclude their children from any education which ‘promotes a European Dimension’?

5. How does the European Commission propose to advance its programme to ‘develop a European Dimension’ whilst at the same time fulfilling British legal requirements that education on controversial issues must always be ‘balanced’ (Education Act)?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that any promotion of the European dimension in schools is within the competence, and the full responsibility, of the Member States in accordance with Article 149 (ex-Article 126) of the Treaty, which states that: ‘The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity’. This Article also sets out that Community action is aimed, among other things, at ‘developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States’. C 151 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

With a view to encouraging Community cooperation in education, Parliament and the Council have adopted the Socrates (1) programme. In the field of school education, this programme contributes to promoting a European dimension by supporting projects submitted by the Member States relating to school partnerships between schools in different Member States, transnational projects in the field of teacher training, and transnational networks focusing on current educational issues.

In this context:

1. No fixed amount of money is specifically allocated to promoting a European dimension;

2. The ways of promoting this dimension depend on the contents of the projects presented by the Member States;

3. The transnational nature of projects ensures cultural diversity and respect for different national identities;

4. and 5. The organisation of the education systems, including the contents of education and access to schooling, come within the competence of the Member States.

(1) Decision No 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education ‘Socrates’ (OJ L 28, 3.2.2000).

(2001/C 151 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2811/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Improving the standard of slaughterhouses in candidate Member States

In view of the impending accession of a number of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs), representatives of the EU’s agricultural sector are establishing contacts with possible partners in those countries. It appears that slaughterhouses in the CEECs rarely, if ever, comply with the strict European standards. Representatives of the Belgian slaughterhouses also point out that a number of slaughterhouses have had to be demolished because of their limited capacity. Provided the plans are modified, there is sufficient expertise within the Union to rebuild the demolished slaughterhouses, if so requested by the CEECs, thereby enabling them to be used again.

Can the Commission say whether it supports this approach (recommissioning of old and/or dismantled slaughterhouses) and whether it is willing to provide financial aid for pilot projects for the (re-)construction and modification of these CEEC slaughterhouses so that they comply with European standards?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Commission does not have a view on the merits of re-commissioning of old or dismantled slaughterhouses in the applicant countries mentioned by the Honourable Member. It does however consider that, consistent with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (1), it is in the Community interest for support to be given to applicant countries mentioned in that regulation to improve processing and marketing of agricultural products, including meats. The Commission anticipates that in countries where there is a need for the (re-) construction and modification of slaughterhouses, Community aid will be granted so that they comply with European standards, without it being limited to pilot projects.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/19

(2001/C 151 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2831/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2000)

Subject: Warner Jenkinson Europa, Oldmeadow Road, Kings Lynn, Norfolk PE30 4LA

This company has a plant within my constituency and used dimethyl sulphate (DMS) in the manufacture of its hair dye products, I understand that a risk assessment is currently being carried out on this particular chemical, and I should like to know what progress has been made to date and what is the possible outcome of the assessment on this particular chemical.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Dimethyl sulphate (DMS) is the subject of a risk assessment under Council Regulation (EEC) no 793/93 of 23 March 1993, on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1). The discussions on the risk assessment report (RAR) have been finalised by the group of Member State technical experts and the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment (CSTEE) has delivered an opinion on the quality of the RAR.

For the environment the opinion of the CSTEE concurs with the conclusions of the RAR in spite of some limitations with its information database.

For human health the CSTEE also generally agrees with the conclusions in the RAR in spite of some limited disagreement on certain aspects (e.g. proposed classification of DMS only as a skin sensitiser, quantitative cancer risk assessment, risk characterisation of reproductive toxicity and the proposal in the RAR for occupational exposure limit values).

The RAR is scheduled to be published by the Commission Joint research centre (JRC) in the beginning of 2001.

The RAR has determined that DMS is mainly used as an intermediate and methylating agent in the production of many organic chemicals (dyes, perfumes and pharmaceuticals). Other uses reported are as a sulphating agent in the manufacturing of various products (e.g. dyes, fabric softeners).

The outcome of the RAR for workers is that there is a concern for respiratory tract irritation, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity as a consequence of inhalation exposure arising from production, processing and the use of DMS. Furthermore, a concern for adverse health effects as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure to the pregnant worker arising from the use of DMS as an intermediate has been identified. There is no need for immediate action in relation to consumers or man exposed to DMS via the environment. In addition, the RAR shows that environmental risks are not expected.

Where unacceptable risks are identified the Commission will consider risk reduction measures, as appropriate, in those areas where concerns have been indicated.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993. C 151 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Distribution of the Structural Funds within the RDP for 2000-2006 submitted by the Spanish state

A Galician media organ has claimed that the Commission has urged the authorities of the Spanish state to reform the RDP (Regional Development Plan) with a view to preventing an excessive dispersal of priorities and resources over the investments planned. Can the Commission state whether this decision has any connection with the incorrect distribution of the Structural Funds for the Objective 1 areas, which have up till now, in many cases, been utilised in the Spanish state in forms contrary to the criteria and objectives of the Union’s regulations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The amounts allocated to the Spanish regions eligible under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006, whether from the territorial or the sectoral point of view, were adopted following close consultation between the Member State and the Commission, as provided for by Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1).

On 26 July 2000, the Commission gave its agreement in principle to the Community support framework (CSF) for these regions. This draft was submitted to the various committees provided for by the above Regulation and was finally approved by the Commission on 18 October 2000 after these consultations.

The CSF took over nine of the ten priorities set out in the regional development plan. Two priorities identified in the plan (tourism and cultural heritage, collective facilities and social welfare) were merged and one new priority (technical assistance) was added. Within each priority, the draft CSF contains further information clarifying the nature of the assistance to be part-financed.

This partnership procedure is common to all the Member States receiving Community structural assistance.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2873/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: The Cohesion Fund and the project for constructing a new airport in Madrid in addition to the previous investment of ESP 300 billion in the existing Madrid airport

The Minister of Public Works of the Spanish state recently announced that not only ESP 300 billion would be spent on constructing two new runways and a new terminal building at the existing Madrid airport but work would, in addition, begin imminently on a new airport in Madrid (‘an airport for southern Spain’), the evident intention being to centralise air traffic within Spanish territory even more than at present, thus adversely affecting the airport facilities of other regions of the Spanish state, such as Galicia, whose inhabitants are obliged to change plane numerous times, starting in Madrid, if they wish to fly anywhere in Europe. Is the Commission aware of this project of the Spanish government? Is the Spanish government using Cohesion Fund monies to construct the new runways and the new terminal building of the existing Madrid airport? Following this extraordinary spending, will the Spanish government be able to use Cohesion Fund monies to construct the new airport in Madrid, in a centralising act running totally counter to any prospect of territorial and economic balance within the Spanish state? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/21

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

No Cohesion Fund aid has been given, or any applied for, for construction of new runways or a new terminal building at the existing Madrid airport.

The Commission cannot take a decision on an application for aid before it is actually made by the national authorities.

(2001/C 151 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2876/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 September 2000)

Subject: The EU and world poverty

In July 2000 the so-called ‘G8’ met in Japan, with the participation of the presidents or prime ministers of the EU’s wealthiest Member States and the President of the Commission. At this summit a resolution was passed calling for accelerated debt relief for the poorest countries, to the sum of € 111 billion, and for the more effective targeting of public aid to those countries. The governments present also undertook to mobilise investment to combat fatal infectious diseases such as AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the least developed countries. The representatives of the eight governments also recognised that the economic prosperity of the richest countries over recent decades has been accompanied by poverty and injustice in many parts of the world. This is confirmed by the statistics and analyses of the World Bank, which show that some one billion people in the US, Canada, Europe, Japan and Australia monopolise 80 % of the world’s annual income, while 57 % of the world’s population have only 6 %. This resolution was accompanied by solemn declarations to similar effect by the presidents of the EU Member States present, including the French President Jacques Chirac, who currently presides the European Council.

In view of the above, what concrete measures does the EU intend to take to act on these agreements and declarations of intent and ensure that they do not remain a dead letter, as is, unfortunately, generally the case?

(22 December 2000)

The struggle to combat poverty is at the heart of the EU’s considerable efforts in development cooperation. The particular preoccupations of the international community highlighted by the Honourable Member are fully shared by the EU. Through the various means open to it, the Council is taking action to ensure that these concerns are translated into activities with concrete impact, addressing long-term structural issues which will determine future prosperity, while also alleviating in the short term the hardship of the lives of many people in the developing world.

At its meeting on 10 November 2000, having examined a Communication from the Commission on the European Community’s Development Policy, the Council agreed on a joint statement with the Commission setting out the parameters for a new Community development cooperation policy. It also adopted a Resolution on communicable diseases and poverty in which it confirms the relevance of the broad areas identified, i.e. achieving optimum impact for health and development policies, reducing the cost of provision of care and stepping up research into new pharmaceutical products and the social aspects of these communicable diseases. Key elements of the new policy must therefore include a multidimensional approach, an emphasis upon partnership, ownership and participation, increased complementarity between Community and Member States’ development policies, and improved management. C 151 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Already, the long-established relationship between the EU and the ACP countries has just entered a new phase with the signature in June of the Cotonou Agreement, which re-asserts the primary aim of eradicating poverty, through a partnership which ensures a comprehensive and integrated approach to the intricate network of factors now recognised as essential components for sustainable development. The particular points mentioned by the Honourable Member support for debt relief, careful targeting of development strategies to ensure maximum impact, the fight against HIV/AIDS and the improvement of health systems in general are all reflected in specific provisions of the Cotonou text. Crucially, practical work in these fields will be guided by the overall approach of the Agreement, which recognises inequities in the distribution of world wealth and seeks to operate a true partnership between the cooperating countries, based on democratic principles and ownership by ACP states of the development strategies for their countries.

In another initiative earlier this year, the Plan of Action which emerged from the Africa-Europe Summit held in Cairo in April strongly reiterated the commitment to poverty reduction and sustainable development. Again, the points raised by the Honourable Member are all included in the broad range of topics covered by the Plan of Action. The assembled States welcomed debt relief initiatives and, in particular, the EU commitment to contribute 1 billion euros to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative and the link of this contribution to measures on poverty reduction. The bi-regional group of Senior Officials charged with promoting implementation of the Action Plan is to prepare a report for Ministers on the external debt of African countries. The Summit also provided for cooperation on the eradication of endemic diseases, such as malaria, tuberculosis, polio and river blindness and on a range of responses to the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

In this latter regard, the Council has asked the Commission to draw up a communication on potential additional EU efforts to confront major poverty diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis and to improve the health of people in developing countries.

The Honourable Member is assured that the Council is fully cognisant of the key concerns of the international community, including poverty focus, AIDS, debt relief and is committed to ensuring that these issues are tackled in EU internal policies and in EU action on the broader international front.

(2001/C 151 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2911/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Austria/Sanctions

In its answers to various parliamentary questions from the undersigned Member on the subject of ‘Sanctions against Austria’, the Council repeatedly had recourse to phrases such as ‘not yet examined’, ‘has no opinion’ or ‘not yet dealt with’. How does the Council justify its action, if it does not deal with or appears to not deal with a very topical issue, such as the sanctions of the 14 against Austria?

However, as the official version, the publication and the statement of the 14 by the Portuguese Presidency show, it is evident that the Council must have dealt with the subject.

In addition, according to media reports, the question of sanctions against Austria has been discussed at ministerial level at various working lunches, for example, at the General Affairs Council on 14 February, in Lisbon on 23 March, in the Azores on 5 May and at the Feira European Council on 19 June 2000.

Without a proper discussion on this topic as shown by the Council’s unsatisfactory answer it is clear that the action of the Portuguese Council Presidency both presumes and exceeds authority.

Will sanctions consequently be imposed against Portugal? Is an inquiry actually being carried out? Precisely how long will it be before there is any new information on this matter? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/23

(22 December 2000)

The statement to which the Honourable Member refers was issued by the Prime Minister of Portugal on behalf of the Government of 14 Member States. It was not discussed by the Council. The Council cannot respond in substance to the questions raised by the Honourable Member since it has never taken a view on them.

(2001/C 151 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Austria/sanctions

According to the statement presented to the APA and AFP news agencies on 26 June, the 14 EU Heads of State and Government have decided to maintain measures against the Austrian Government.

Officially, the 14 Heads of State and Government had not yet reached a conclusive agreement on the Portuguese initiative. The spokesman for the EU Presidency revealed on Tuesday evening that there was no conclusive consensus. He also announced that the Austrian Government would be informed of the plan as soon is it had been officially presented.

This approach reveals several faults:

two news agencies were clearly informed prior to the Austrian Federal Government. The Federal Government had to find out about an ‘Exit Strategy’ via the media;

there was no indication of a time-frame for the implementation of the plan;

a council of three wise men is to present a report on the basis of a thorough examination, focusing on the obligation of the Austrian Government to uphold common European values, with particular regard to the rights of minorities, refugees and immigrants.

The action of the 14 is lacking greatly in sensitivity and appears somewhat grotesque.

The Council:

1. Why did it not initially enter into direct dialogue with the Austrian Federal Government and only then pass the information onto the news agencies?

2. How does it conceive the long since necessary conclusion of the scandalous ‘witch hunt’, if it is not even willing to set down a time-frame?

3. If it really wishes to emphasise the common European values and to examine the Austrian Govern- ment in relation to the observance of minority rights, why is its commitment, as far as the embodiment of minority rights in a charter of fundamental rights for the EU is concerned, so lacking?

4. How is it possible that France and Belgium two of the most avid supporters of the sanctions have still not ratified or signed the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities?

(22 December 2000)

The Council has not taken a view on any of the issues raised by the Honourable Member, and is not therefore in a position to respond to the question. C 151 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2913/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Doubts over the effectiveness of sanctions policy

On 10 July, at their first meeting under French Presidency, the EU Foreign Ministers discussed the aims and methods of their Balkan policy. The French Foreign Minister and President-in-Office of the Council, Hubert Vedrine, stated that an increasing number of countries were doubtful of the efficacy of sanctions against Yugoslavia in relation to their goal of democratisation. The sanctions were discouraging the population rather than damaging Milosevic. He admitted that that it was obvious that our political goals were not being achieved. Our leaders are clearly embarking on a radical reappraisal of their sanctions policy, despite Milosevic’s recent attempts to retain power.

Against this background, is the Council having similar thoughts about the sanctions against Austria (unjustified by comparison with those against the undemocratic Milosevic regime) and considering removing bilateral sanctions and resuming Community dialogue with this fellow EU member and partner?

(22 December 2000)

The Council has no position on the issue raised by the Honourable Member and is therefore unable to respond.

(2001/C 151 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2914/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Austria/sanctions

During their session of 10 July 2000, the EU foreign ministers decided to release Russia’s frozen funds, despite their constant concern about the situation in Chechnya. Only in December last year, the Union froze financial aid in the region of € 58 million, in order to induce Russia to put an end to the fighting in the Caucasus region and strike up a political dialogue with the independence fighters. However, this measure has now been rescinded. Consequently, despite continuous violent repression, Moscow is this year entitled to receive the full amount of € 90 million in financial aid.

As a result, a distinctive change has come about in the EU’s Russia policy: it discards its long implemented sanction policy one which has, after all, been somewhat unsuccessful due to its half-hearted measures and demonstrates readiness to negotiate with a country, whose political views and inhuman approach in Chechnya it does not wish to condone, yet one which is essential as a partner for peace and stability in Europe.

In so far as the relationship between the EU Member States is concerned, the Fourteen are persisting with their policy of sanctions against Austria.

The Council:

would it be prepared, in accordance with its new foreign political position on sanction issues, to also consider that is, abandon the sanction policy concerning Austria, and

would the Fourteen be willing to fully re-establish the bilateral political dialogue with its partner? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/25

(22 December 2000)

The Council has not taken a view on the two issues raised by the Honourable Member, and is not therefore in a position to respond to the question.

(2001/C 151 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2920/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Sporting and leisure activities in Andalusia

Does the Commission accept that the kind of ‘leisure’ activities which took place at Ramon Romero’s ‘Seventh Heaven’ School of Riding in Chivirel, Andalusia made it an entirely unsuitable recipient of Community funds, and what steps have been taken to ensure that in future proper inspection procedures are put in place so that all projects receiving Community funds are ‘bona fide’?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The case of the project mentioned by the Honourable Member was indeed one of deflection of funds to purposes other than those specified in the application for part-financing.

This was rapidly detected through the Andalusian Regional Government’s policing arrangements. Action was immediately initiated to recover the funds in question.

The Spanish authorities’ payments were not included in the certified expenditure notified to the Commis- sion. Thus their advancing of sums did not give rise to any payment from the European Regional Development Fund.

(2001/C 151 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2935/00 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Cyprus

Can the Commission indicate what action it has taken with regard to Turkey with a view to persuading that country to lift its embargo on merchant ships that have visited Cyprus? Would the Commission agree that this action is illegal, would contravene all European Union regulations and does no credit to Turkey’s aspirations to become a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The restrictions still applied by Turkey on vessels trading with Cyprus and on those on the Cyprus register remain a concern for the Commission. C 151 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

This issue has been raised on various occasions with the Turkish authorities, most recently at the meeting of the Community-Turkey sub-committee No 6 on transport, environment and energy, including transeuropean networks, which took place on 30 June 2000 in Brussels. The Commission made it very clear to Turkey that it expects these restrictions to be lifted as soon as possible in the pre-accession process.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely and will take the issue up in the regular report for 2000, which is to be adopted by the Commission on 8 November 2000.

(2001/C 151 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2939/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Common asylum and immigration policy

With the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May 1999, the Community assumed responsibility for asylum policy, the free movement of persons, policy on visas, the rules governing the crossing of borders, immigration policy and the rights of third-country nationals. Articles 61 to 63 of the EC Treaty specify detailed targets which the Union is supposed to achieve within five years. As regards asylum and immigration policy, the measures in question include minimum standards on the reception of asylum seekers and on temporary protection, conditions of entry and residence, illegal immigration and residence and measures defining the rights of legally resident third-country nationals.

Will the Commission state what specific proposals it has drawn up in these areas, what progress has so far been made and at what stage a common asylum and immigration policy now is?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the conclusions of the Presidency at the Tampere European Council (October 1999) and the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of ‘Freedom, security and justice’ which has been officially transmitted to Parliament. An update will also be sent shortly to the Council and Parliament with a view to preparing Parliament’s annual debate on progress in the fields of justice and home affairs (JHA) in January 2001.

The proposals presented by the Commission since May 1999 as well as amended proposals following Parliament’s opinion (September 2000) are as follows:

Council Regulation (EC) concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of the fingerprints of applicants for asylum and certain other aliens (26 May 1999) and amended proposals following Parliament’s opinion (15 September 2000);

Council Directive on the right to family reunification (1 December 1999) and amended proposal following Parliament’s opinion (10 October 2000);

Council Decision creating a European Refugee Fund (14 December 1999) and amended proposal following Parliament’s opinion (September 2000);

Council Regulation (EC) determining the list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (January 2000) and amended proposal following Parliament’s opinion (21 September 2000); 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/27

Council Directive on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (24 May 2000);

Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status (20 September 2000).

A Commission working document ‘towards common standards for asylum procedures’ (3 March 1999) as well as the Commission working document: ‘Revisiting the Dublin Convention: developing Community legislation for determining which Member State is responsible for considering an application for asylum submitted in one of the Member States’ (21 March 2000) have also been adopted.

Before the end of 2000, the Commission intends to present two policy communications, one on immigration policy and another on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for persons granted asylum.

(2001/C 151 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2940/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Abolition of tax privileges for diplomats

Further to Written Question E-1996/99 (1), I should like at the outset to thank the Commissioner for drawing the conclusion that the privileges laid down in the 1961 Vienna Convention ‘in an internal market … are no longer justified and should be abolished’.

Since the Commission is accordingly of the opinion in relation to itself that the tax privileges in question are anachronistic and this has been demonstrated both by the Commission decision of 29 September 1999 and by the measures abolishing duty-free shops within the EU, will it not state whether it could advocate the necessary unanimous Council decision amending the outdated Vienna Convention from 1961?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 63.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

A Community initiative to regulate the tax and duty free privileges for diplomats would, as already indicated in the reply to Written Question E-1996/99 by the Honourable Member (1), interfere with Member States’ application of the Vienna Convention. The adoption of a Commission proposal to this effect would require the unanimous vote of the Council which is unlikely to be found. Against this background, the Commission is not currently planning to put forward a proposal on this issue. Meanwhile, existing Community legislation does not prevent individual Member States from limiting the privileges that they are granting to diplomats, as suggested by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 219 E, 1.8.2000. C 151 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2953/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: The outermost regions

With reference to the answer to Written Question E-0605/00 (1), in which the Commission explains its intention to take into greater consideration the outermost regions for the period from 2007, the undersigned would like to express his approval of such an initiative. However, does the Commission share the opinion of the member that the term ‘outermost regions’ covers not only horizontally, but also vertically remote regions, so that inevitably mountain regions may also in future be regarded by definition as Objective 1 regions?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

The concept of remote regions does not appear in the EC Treaty and is consequently not taken up in any act of secondary legislation.

Article 299 (formerly 227) of the Treaty recognises as the ‘outermost regions’ only the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.

A number of remote regions including archipelagos and mountain areas are eligible for support from the Union’s Structural Funds under Objectives 1 (regions lagging behind in development) and 2 (regions undergoing conversion).

(2001/C 151 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2955/00 by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: European Union regional policy

Given that the imminent enlargement equates to an increase in the extent of regional inequalities and a reduction in the European Union’s average per capita GDP, it is clear that the Commission must present, in good time, an integrated proposal on the form that regional policy should take, criteria for its application and the level of financial resources after 2006.

What are the Commission’s plans on this point?

(2001/C 151 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) and Mariotto Segni (UEN) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Sicily and Sardinia after 2006

The Commission has forecast that at the end of the 2000-2006 Structural Fund programming period, Sicily and Sardinia will no longer come under Objective 1. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/29

That forecast is based, among other things, on the fact that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will most probably have joined the EU by then.

Given that the loss of Objective 1 status will be a severe economic blow to the two islands,

what action does the Commission feel it should take to maintain the cohesion of Objective 1 regions, with particular reference to peripheral and island regions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2955/00 and E-2966/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (7 November 2000)

In January 2001 the Commission is to adopt the second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, which will be submitted to Parliament under Article 159 (formerly Article 130b) of the EC Treaty.

The report will consider the position and development of the regions in the context of an enlarged Union, evaluate the impact of Community policies on cohesion and propose guidelines for cohesion policy beyond 2006.

The Commission wants this second report to be the catalyst for a major debate on the future of this policy. To this end it is organising in May 2001 a forum to which the Members of Parliament and all those actively involved in regional development in the current Member States and in the applicant countries are to be invited.

(2001/C 151 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2959/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (20 September 2000)

Subject: Problem of the ‘flooded’ cereals harvest

The Commission has recently stated its willingness to modify the intervention standards for the moisture content of cereals if so required by the situation on the ground. It is now clear that the intervention standards need to be modified as a matter of necessity. After the excessive precipitation farmers are talking of a ‘flooded’ harvest.

Has the Commission already drawn up proposals for modifying the intervention standards for the moisture content? If so, when will the proposal enter into force? If not, given the seriousness of the situation on the ground, will the Commission still modify the intervention standards for the moisture content?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 October 2000)

The Commission took action following its statement on the moisture content of cereals from the 2000 harvest through Regulation (EC) No 2107/2000 of 4 October 2000 derogating, as regards the maximum moisture content of certain cereals offered for intervention during the 2000/2001 marketing year, from Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 establishing procedures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies and laying down methods of analysis for determining the quality of cereals (1).

The Regulation authorises Member States to set the maximum moisture content for common wheat, barley and rye at 15 %, subject to the price reductions given in the Annex. The Regulation is to apply from 1 November, the date on which intervention begins in the northern Member States.

(1) OJ L 250, 5.10.2000. C 151 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2961/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Right-wing extremism in the Member States

Austria has a law subjecting any form of national socialist revival activity to criminal prosecution (1947 prohibition statute, StGBl. No 13/1945, BGBl. No 25/1947); this law ranks equally with the constitution.

Paragraphs 3 to 3i list the various criminal offences and matching penalties. Penalties range, according to the offence, from one year to life imprisonment. Responsibility for implementing the procedure rests with the district courts sitting as jury courts.

Will the Council state:

which Member States have comparable legislation?

what differences exist between the Member States in terms of offences and penalties?

whether it is necessary in the light of common European values to prosecute national socialist revival activity as a criminal offence?

The Council is asked to forward to the author, where appropriate, the various comparable laws.

(22 December 2000)

The Council would like to inform the Honourable Parliamentarian that the specific information she has sought in her Question, concerning criminal offences and penalties in operation in the Member States, is not available within the Council at this stage.

The Council would, however, assure the Honourable Parliamentarian that the Council and the Presidency are committed to ensuring that criminal offences carried out for a racist or xenophobic purpose are dealt with in the Member States effectively and in a manner that reflects their seriousness. In that context, the Council might mention that the conclusions of the Tampere European Council recognised the need to step up the fight against racism and xenophobia.

The principal instrument adopted by the Council in relation to criminal offences linked to racism is the Joint Action of 15 July 1996 concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia. The overall objective of the Joint Action is to ensure that the Member States can assist each other in that area. In particular, it requires them to provide that certain forms of racist and xenophobic behaviour are punishable as criminal offences. Failing that, and pending the adoption of any necessary provisions, Member States are obliged to derogate from the principle of double criminality for such behaviour. The Joint Action is also designed to remove the risk that the perpetrators of racist or xenophobic offences might seek to exploit the fact that racist and xenophobic activities may be classified differently in Member States.

In May 1998, the Council examined a report on the fulfilment of the Joint Action by the Member States. The report concluded that the Member States had implemented the Joint Action to a very significant degree and the Council directed that a further review should take place in the year 2000. The Presidency is currently making arrangements to enable the review to be carried out. That exercise will assist the Council in assessing the overall effectiveness of the Joint Action and whether it needs to be strengthened. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/31

(2001/C 151 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2962/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Right-wing extremism in the Member States

Will the Commission state: which Member States have comparable legislation?

what differences exist between the Member States in terms of offences and penalties?

whether it is necessary in the light of common European values to prosecute national socialist revival activity as a criminal offence? whether it is planning uniform European legislation banning national socialist revival activity?

The Commission is asked to forward to the author, where appropriate, the various comparable laws.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The Joint Action of 15 July 1996 concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia (1) requires Member States to treat certain types of racist or xenophobic behaviour as offences or, failing that, to undertake in these cases to derogate from the principle of double criminality. Such behaviour includes public incitement to violence or racial hatred, public condoning of crimes against humanity and human rights violations, public denial of crimes, public dissemination or distribution of material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia, and participation in the activities of groups, organisations or associations which involve discrimination, violence or racial hatred.

The first evaluation report on implementation produced in 1998 showed that behaviour covered by the Joint Action was liable to criminal penalties in most Member States and that in those where it was not, the legislation was being amended. Judicial cooperation instruments can be applied in this area without any difficulty.

A second report is being prepared by the Council. In the light of this report, the Commission will ascertain whether additional EU rules are needed, in particular with regard to the use of the Internet for racist or xenophobic purposes.

(1) OJ L 185, 27.7.1996.

(2001/C 151 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Making school milk an integral feature of a healthy food policy

Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to 75 %. Yet it is more sensible to offer schoolchildren free milk instead of leading them astray with Fanta or Cola machines supplied by the soft drinks industry. It therefore seems appropriate to transfer the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the ‘healthy food policy’ programme.

Will the Council encourage transferring the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the ‘healthy food policy’ programme, given the particular interest in this subject expressed by the Commission and the Member States? If not, why is the Council of the opinion that the remaining 25 % should not be charged to the ‘healthy food policy’ budget? How does the Council reconcile this position with the statement by Commissioner Fischler that ‘distribution of milk in schools can help achieve nutritional and social objectives’ (answer to Written Question E-1320/00 (1))?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 126.

(22 December 2000)

The decision taken by the Council to reduce Community funding for the school milk programme to 75 % is in keeping with the Opinion of the European Parliament.

The Council would point out that its decision allows Member States to increase aid for the school milk programme to cover the remaining 25 % with a view to steering this measure towards a ‘healthy food policy’.

At this stage, the Council has not received any proposal to allocate the 25 % reduction in Community funding to a budgetary heading reserved for such a policy.

(2001/C 151 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Making school milk an integral feature of a healthy food policy

Because the school milk programme contributes to the objectives in respect of food and health policy, the Commission and the Ministers of Agriculture have decided to reduce subsidies under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to 75 %. Yet it is more sensible to offer schoolchildren free milk instead of leading them astray with Fanta or Cola machines supplied by the soft drinks industry. It therefore seems appropriate to transfer the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the ‘healthy food policy’ programme.

Will the Commission encourage transferring the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the ‘healthy food policy’ programme, given the particular interest in this subject expressed by the Commission and the Member States? If not, why is the Commission of the opinion that the remaining 25 % should not be charged to the ‘healthy food policy’ budget? How does the Commission reconcile this position with the statement by Commissioner Fischler that ‘distribution of milk in schools can help achieve nutritional and social objectives’ (answer to Written Question E-1320/00 (1))?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 126. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/33

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

In the explanatory memorandum attached to the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1) that has resulted in the Council’s decision to reduce the school milk subsidy to 75 % of the milk target price (Council Regulation (EC) No 1670/2000 of 20 July 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 (2)), the Commission has indeed recognized that this scheme could also play a role within broader general policy objectives in the health, nutritional or social fields set and operated at Community or Member State level. However, the Commission has also underlined that the Community’s tight budgetary situation, irrespective of whether it relates to agriculture expenditure or to other policies, does not allow for greater involvement in the school milk scheme.

The question of topping up the above Community subsidy is, therefore, a matter to be examined at Member States’ level, possibly in cooperation with other interested parties. The Community regulation on school milk provides indeed for a legal basis allowing for additional national aid, which may be financed by means of a contribution collected from the dairy sector. Moreover, such participation would be consistent with the strong interest and vocal support for school milk expressed by the latter during the discussions on the Commission’s proposal.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000. (2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2970/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Incomplete information about the composition of the Council

1. Is the Council aware that in the list of members of the Council of the European Union, distributed for the part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg from 4 to 8 September, the following names are given for the Netherlands: Dr A. Peper, as Minister of Foreign Affairs and National Relations; K.G. de Vries, as Minister of Social Affairs and Employment; and Dr W.A.F.G. Vermeend, as Deputy Minister of Finance?

2. Can you conform that the first-mentioned person in question 1 ceased to hold the post in question on 13 March 2000 and that the other two persons have been responsible for other policy areas since 24 March 2000? What is the reason fort continuing to refer to them as members of the Council, when continued participation on their part in the relevant councils of specialist ministers would be illegal?

3. Can you also explain why all ministers and deputy ministers are listed with their forenames and (with the exception of Germany and Austria) without their academic titles, while all the Dutch members of the Council appear without forenames but with academic titles?

What is the reason for giving the Dutch members of the Council a special status of relative anonymity, with the impression of greater distance from the people they are supposed to represent?

4. Are you prepared to work towards ensuring that subsequent lists of members of the Council are up- to-dated and uniform in nature? C 151 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(22 December 2000)

The Council thanks the Honourable Member for his questions and would take this opportunity to point out the following:

the General Secretariat of the Council regularly publishes, in all the official languages of the European Union, a list of the members of the Governments of the Member States who regularly take part in Council meetings. This list contains the names, forenames and positions of all Prime Ministers, Ministers and State Secretaries;

after each change in the composition of the Government of a Member State, this list is updated on the basis of the information appearing in the Official Gazette of that Member State. As regards the Netherlands, the list was updated in April 2000, i.e. in the month following the reshuffling of the Netherlands Government;

the lists are forwarded regularly for information to the relevant departments of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The document to which the Honourable Member refers is a document published by the European Parliament;

the composition of the Governments of the Member States is also published for information on the Internet website http://europa.eu.int/idea, under the headings ‘Search by organisational entities’, then ‘Institutions’ and then ‘Council of the European Union’ and ‘Representatives of the Governments of the Member States who regularly take part in Council meetings’;

in addition, each year, the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities publishes an ‘Interinstitutional Directory Who’s who in the European Union?’. The latest version is that of January 2000 (date of going to press) and thus contains all the members of Governments at that date, and hence also the members referred to by the Honourable Member. The General Secretariat of the Council, for its part, publishes an ‘Extract from the Interinstitutional Directory’ in the autumn of each year;

the mistakes to which the Honourable Member refers appear merely to be circumstantial ones.

(2001/C 151 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2976/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Funding of European Union island regions

In the first paragraph of the Commission’s answer of 24 July 2000 to my Written Question No E-1738/ 2000 (1) concerning the funding of European Union island regions, Commissioner Barnier states that the Commission does not anticipate creating a legal basis for such funding, despite the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Acting within its sphere of responsibilities, however, and in particular the 2001 budget guidelines, the European Parliament has decided to make such funding a budget priority, especially in view of the fact that implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty has already begun this year, 2000. It is surprising, therefore, that while the Commission should take initiatives to implement the Treaties, it appears from its answer that it is at the very least indifferent towards a matter of major importance for the development of certain regions of the EU.

What practical steps will the Commission take, on the basis of a specific timetable, to create a legal basis for the funding of EU island regions pursuant to the provisions of the relevant Treaties?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 38. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/35

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

As the Commission mentioned to the Honourable Member in its reply to Written Question E-1738/00 (1), it does not plan at this stage to create a legal basis for the financing of European Union island regions. Indeed, these regions already receive special attention under existing Community policies since a considerable number of them are eligible for Objectives 1 or 2 of the Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 programming period.

A wide range of different situations exist within the EU island regions and as a consequence, their assets and needs are extremely diverse. In order to understand these better, the Commission intends to launch a study into all the island regions of the Community. This study will analyse and compare individual situations on the basis of various statistical criteria connected with for example, demography, the socio- economic situation, existing infrastructures or the environmental situation.

The results of this study are expected by the end of the first half of 2001 and will be communicated to Parliament as soon as they are published.

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 38.

(2001/C 151 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2986/00 by Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Communications in Sicily

In the Region of Sicily, regional, national and international transport facilities motorways, railways, airports and ports are obviously underdeveloped. Meanwhile, definitive framework programme agreements for the construction of the necessary infrastructures are being drawn up in collaboration with the European Union.

Does the Commission consider that there has been excessive delay in setting the agreements in question in train and that the Italian Government has been unjustifiably slow in making the requisite financial resources available?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The Commission is aware of the lag in Sicily’s transport sector and the Structural Funds have already contributed to transport projects in the 1994-1999 programming period.

In the 2000-2006 period measures to improve the region’s transport infrastructure will be part-financed by the Structural Funds under Objective 1, either through the Operational Programme for Sicily or through the national Operational Programme for transport, covering all the regions of the Mezzogiorno.

On 8 August 2000 the OP for Sicily was one of the first Objective 1 programmes to be approved by the Commission. The regional authorities are currently drawing up the programming complement governing implementation of the programme.

The transport OP is currently being examined by the Commission. Before it can be finalised the Italian authorities must prepare an operating instrument (‘strumento operativo’) identifying the strategic choices for this sector in the Mezzogiorno, based on the strategy laid down in the general plan for transport published in July 2000. C 151 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Projects included in the framework programme agreements between the region of Sicily and the Italian government can be proposed for part-funding from the Structural Funds under these two programmes.

(2001/C 151 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2990/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Habitats Directive 92/43 EEC

1. Since the expiry of the deadline for its transposition into national law, is Directive 92/43/EEC (1)on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora directly applicable where it has not been properly transposed?

2. Is the protection scheme pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive already applicable to the areas referred to in the national lists?

3. How many sets of proceedings for treaty violations have been initiated against Austria in connection with this Directive, and how many have already been dropped?

4. To which projects and areas did these relate?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2000)

1. The Court of justice has developed in its case law the doctrine of direct effect of Community provisions, according to which a provision of a directive might be directly applicable under the following conditions: expiry of the transposition date; absence of transposition by the Member State concerned; unconditional character of the provision (the legal consequence follows directly from the provision without an intermediate act); the provision is sufficiently precise (the content, e.g. rights or obligations, deriving from the provision are unambiguous and clear); it confers on individuals some rights (i.e. favourable position with regard to public authorities). It follows moreover from Articles 10 and 249 (ex Articles 5 and 189) of the EC Treaty that Community legal provisions have supremacy over national provisions, whether these national provisions came into effect before or after Community law. Therefore national, regional or local courts and administrative authorities have to give priority to the Community provision in the event of a conflict of rules. They have to interpret national law in a way which best ensures that the Community provision is effective and, where the Community provision is of direct effect, to set aside the contradicting national rule and apply the Community provision alone.

2. According to Article 4 (5) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) a site shall be subject to Article 6 (2), (3) and (4) as soon as it is placed on the list under third subparagraph of paragraph 2. The Commission published an interpretation guideline on the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC in April 2000. It is accessible under ‘http:// europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/legis.htm’. There in chapter 1.4.2. ‘Sites based on Directive 92/ 43/EEC’, some useful information can be found. The chapter summarises with regard to sites in national lists as follows: ‘As regards sites based on Directive 92/43/EEC, it can be argued that Member States, particularly after the date for adoption of the Community list expired on 10 June 1998, have certain obligations to act in a way so as to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States are therefore advised to at least abstain from all activities that may cause a site on the national list to deteriorate.’ 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/37

3. and 4. 27 cases (complaints plus others) have been registered altogether under Directive 92/43/EEC concerning Austria, of which 15 cases are still pending at the Commission (12 been closed so far). Infringement procedures have been opened in two of them, none of which is site related.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 151 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2994/00 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council (25 September 2000)

Subject: East Timor

Is the Council aware of the incomplete nature of the list of suspects issued by the Indonesian attorney general’s office in relation to last year’s massacres?

How does the Council intend to ensure that these men are brought to justice and that they do not evade prosecution through the medium of recent constitutional amendments which will most likely bar prosecutors from charging suspects with international crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Reply (22 December 2000)

The European Union has stated on various occasions that the perpetrators of violations of human rights in East Timor should be accountable for their acts and that that would be the best means of promoting democratic stability in Indonesia and a lasting reconciliation in East Timor.

The Council has been informed that the attorney-general’s office of the Indonesian Republic has added new names to the initial list of suspects involved in the atrocities committed in East Timor in 1999. In mid- October of this year, the Troika, acting on behalf of the Council as part of the representations made to the Indonesian authorities, pointed out to them the need to arrest those who have committed acts of violence and to bring them to justice.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member of its declaration of 4 February 2000 in which it stressed the fact that the international community, through the United Nations system, has a responsibility to ensure that gross violations of human rights and of humanitarian law in East Timor are investigated and that the perpetrators are brought to justice. It would also point out that the Untaet has initiated an autonomous process of identification of and of criminal proceedings against those responsible following the establishment of institutional cooperation arrangements with the attorney-general’s office of the Indonesian Republic.

The Council will continue to follow further developments in the situation attentively.

(2001/C 151 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/00 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission (20 September 2000)

Subject: Common standards for tunnels in the European Union

The recent accidents in the Mont Blanc road tunnel between Italy and France and the Tauern tunnel in Austria have raised at European level the delicate issue of safety standards and prevention measures in the various types of tunnel in operation, but the legislation in each country appears to be different and non- uniform. C 151 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Can the Commission say whether it intends to ascertain the advisability of drawing up common standards laying down general rules aimed at achieving uniformity throughout the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Several international organisations, and in particular the World Highways Association (AIPCR) and the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE), are actively and efficiently working in order to improve tunnel safety, more especially by pooling experience and listing the various techniques and procedures. The Commission does not intend to duplicate or repeat the work in progress, especially since very long road tunnels differ too widely in geometry, location and age to justify the application of a traditional standardising approach to them.

However, tunnel safety, and that of the oldest in service must be routinely re-assessed in order to gain the greatest benefits from innovations and technical progress. Each individual set of equipment can be assessed on the basis of common criteria that are intended to raise the level and consistency of the transport system and to promote cooperation among Member States. The Commission’s intention is to provide itself with an assessment tool that has been harmonised throughout the Community.

The advanced techniques applying to traffic management, signalling and communication between drivers and tunnel operators require a higher level of interoperability, such as the development of protocols that can be understood by users regardless of nationality. There is also a preferred area of activity for the Community, while applications aimed at tunnel safety must be consistent with general applications on open roads in order to avoid any need for specific user training.

In parallel to this, as part of the Nedies (Natural and environmental disaster information exchange system) project, the Commission is organising feedback from the civil defence services on action by the emergency service during all of the major incidents taking place in recent years in tunnels on Community territory. The final report will be available on the Internet, just like all of the other feedback reports already written (http://nedies.jrc.it/).

(2001/C 151 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3002/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Procedure whereby the income derived from share-based investment funds is halved for tax purposes pursuant to the German Law on Tax Reductions

It transpires from an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 2 September 2000 that the Law on Tax Reductions, which came into force on 1 January 2000, puts foreign share-based investment funds at a disadvantage vis-à-vis share-based investment funds established under German law. German dividend income will in future be subject to what is known as the ‘Halbeinkünfteverfahren’ (procedure whereby the income is halved for tax purposes), whereas the income from non-German share-based investment funds will be subject to the previous rules, i.e. full taxation.

This gives rise to the following questions:

1. How does the Commission view these new rules under German tax law in view of the principle of equal treatment under European law and of the prohibition on discrimination?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take, if any? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/39

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (15 November 2000)

The Commission’s attention has already been drawn by a number of foreign funds to the question of tax arrangements for share-based investment funds.

1. The Commission is aware of the Law on Tax Reductions referred to in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 2 September. It is currently undertaking a detailed comparison of the tax regime for German and foreign funds in the light of the relevant Community provisions, with particular reference to the non- discrimination rule.

2. Depending on the outcome, the Commission may if it sees fit prepare a case under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 151 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3005/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: EU human rights aid

There are many organisations which receive EU human rights financial aid.

Could the Commission: 1. List all those organisations in receipt of such funding and indicate which are government organisations and which are NGOs? 2. Detail the level of funding allocated to each listed organisation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (6 November 2000)

Concerning actions financed from Chapter B7-7 of the external relations sector of the budget, the information requested by the Honourable Member has just been published by the European Human Rights Foundation, financed by the Commission, in its ‘Compendium 2000’. A copy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

Support for human rights may also be considered for funding from the internal policy section of the Community budget in accordance with the commentaries for the budget lines covering refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.

(2001/C 151 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3007/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 September 2000)

Subject: Town twinning and eligibility criteria

Under the eligibility criteria for town twinning, the EU does not provide financial assistance for exchanges between towns less than 250 km apart.

Poole (South West England) and Cherbourg (France) have a long-standing twinning agreement, but are ineligible for a grant because the two towns are less than 250 km apart. C 151 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

However, the two towns are separated by the English Channel, and any travel between them necessitates a journey by either air or sea, which can be costly.

Would the Commission consider taking into account the high cost of travel between two twinned towns that are separated by a sea border, and change the eligibility criteria accordingly?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Commission remains highly conscious of the need for effective management of the town twinning assistance programme as a precondition of its complete success.

In view of the difficulties and ensuing need for remedial action created by the large number and variety of proposals received in the past, the Commission is introducing a new procedure for 2001, which should help to improve efficiency. This procedure provides for greater flexibility in evaluating proposals involving towns less than 250 km apart.

The Commission notes the concerns voiced by the Honourable Member and will keep Parliament informed of the application of the new procedures.

(2001/C 151 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3021/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Ban on driftnets

In 1992 the Council decided to restrict driftnets to a maximum length of 2,5 km. Despite the existence of such rules, however, driftnet fishing is still practised. For this reason the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1239/98 (1), pursuant to which driftnets will be gradually phased out by 1 January 2002, at the end of a transitional period granted to enable fishing fleets to adapt.

Over the summer, however, Spanish fishermen’s organisations have complained that the above regulation has been ignored by French vessels fishing in the Atlantic and Italian ones fishing in the Mediterranean, which continue to use driftnets of up to 10 km. in length. Quite apart from encouraging unfair competition between fishermen (on account of the greater efficiency of driftnet fishing by comparison with other traditional techniques), such infringements of Community law impede the progress of other vessels and cause significant environmental damage in the form of secondary catches of species such as dolphins, whales and sharks.

What action has the Commission taken (and what further action does it intend to take) in order to ensure compliance with Regulation (EEC) No 1239/98 on the phasing out of driftnets?

How many infringements has the Commission detected annually and per country since 1998?

How many vessels (classified by countries) have been authorised to use driftnets for each of the years from 1998 to 2000?

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/41

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Respect for Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources is one of the Commis- sion’s priorities every year in the policing of fishing. Commission inspectors regularly take part in inspection operations on land and sea organised by the Member States concerned.

For the outcome of the policing carried out the Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission’s report to Parliament on the application in 1998 and 1999 of Community legislation on the use of drift nets to catch highly migratory species in the North-East Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

Since 1998 the numbers of vessels authorised by Member States to fish for albacore using drift nets have been:

1998 1999 2000 France: Atlantic 45 41 42 Mediterranean (1) 109 109 (2)nd Spain: Atlantic 0 0 0 Mediterranean nd 53 34 Ireland 18 18 18 United Kingdom 6 6 6 Italy 321 218 102

(1) Indicative number of French vessels using drift nets in the Mediterranean. (2) Not determined.

(2001/C 151 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3023/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Planned construction of the La Cañada dam on the Turia River (Valencia, Spain)

The project involving the construction of a dam to control the waters in the lower stretch of the Turia River (the La Cañada dam), which is currently at the consultation stage and which will affect the townships of Manises, Riba-roja and Paterna, has led to protests from local people who do not believe such a project to be necessary. According to the explanatory statement relating to the project, the latter is intended to improve and modernise irrigation in order to optimise the use of the available resources by reducing actual demand, whereas the local people affected consider that the planned dam will do nothing to improve irrigation infrastructure since it will merely provide a means of water retention.

Furthermore, the local people maintain that the environmental impact assessment carried out on behalf of the Spanish Environment Ministry presents major shortcomings as regards the way in which it describes, classifies and assesses the area concerned and also the species of flora and fauna found in the area. The study, which concludes that the building of the dam will have a ‘moderate negative’ impact, has been rejected by local environmental organisations and associations concerned with the protection of Mediter- ranean woodlands, who have submitted alternative studies which show that many species of fauna and flora included in Annex I (priority conservation) of the ‘habitat’ Directive 92/43/EEC (1) (e.g. Salís alba, populus alba) and Directive 79/409/EEC (2) on birds (e.g. kingfishers, the common bittern and the purple heron) and which are also protected under a decree issued by the Valencia Regional Government would be seriously threatened if the dam were to be built. C 151 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the local authorities of the townships concerned have asked the regional government to have the area which the dam would occupy declared a Municipal Nature Area. Their request was rejected by the regional government but has recently been re-submitted.

In view of the above facts, does the Commission not consider Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC to have been clearly infringed as regards species which, even though they are included in the annexes to those directives, are nonetheless threatened by the projected La Cañada dam?

Does it believe that, in this case, Directive 97/11/EEC (3) on environmental impact studies has been correctly applied?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The Commission had not been aware of the project mentioned by the Honourable Member.

However, in the light of the Honourable Member’s question, it is confirmed that the area in question has not been designated as a ‘special bird conservation area’ by Spain under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Nor is this area considered to be an ‘area of relevance to birds’.

This area has not been put forward by Spain for 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 flora and fauna. Furthermore the Commission does not have any details in its possession proving that it is required to be so.

At the moment no precise evidence shows that there has been an infringement of Directives 92/43/EEC and 97/409/EEC. The projected barrages and other water-retention structures are subject to a mandatory impact assessment under Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment, where if the amount of water retained and stored on a permanent basis is less than ten cubic hectometres, said projects must be subjected to that procedure if Member States feel that their characteristics so require. In any case, according to the information provided in this written question, the project referred to above was submitted to the impact procedure as provided for in Directive 97/11/EC.

In the light of the information available and since no infringement whatsoever of the Community laws in force can be suspected, the Commission thus feels that this is entirely a matter for the Spanish authorities.

(2001/C 151 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3027/00 by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE), Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) and Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Notice on town-twinning grants

In the context of the award of town-twinning grants, people from all parts of Europe have in the past sat round the table together in order to get to know one another, exchange experiences, work out projects and seek common solutions to problems. There is no doubt that the flexible promotion of town-twinning up to now has helped to develop close ties between people in Europe. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/43

In its notice on town-twinning grants (1), the Commission has however announced that the previous procedure will be changed and that it will issue before the end of the year 2000 a call for proposals focusing on priority topics, with clearly defined selection criteria for the award of grants.

This notice has aroused a great deal of uncertainty in the communes of Baden-Württemberg over the arrangements which the Commission intends to make in future for the promotion of town-twinning.

Can the Commission answer the following questions in particular?

1. How will the closing date for applications be calculated in future (up to now it has been a three- month period)?

2. How many calls for proposals for town-twinning will it issue each year?

3. What precisely does it mean by ‘priority topics’ and will this make it more difficult to establish new town-twinning arrangements or to revive existing ones?

4. Is it aware, in addition, that the application procedure is disproportionately complicated, especially for small communes, and can it see any way of simplifying that procedure?

(1) OJ C 238, 22.8.2000, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Commission continues to be very much aware that the town-twinning assistance programme needs to be managed effectively if it is to be a complete success.

In view of past difficulties and the needs arising from them, and given the large number and variety of proposals received, the Commission is introducing a new procedure which should help to improve effectiveness.

An information meeting on this new call for proposals procedure was held on 23 October, to which representatives of the CEMR, the national associations of the 15 Member States, the central and eastern European countries, Malta, Cyprus and Turkey, the UTO and the Assembly of European Regions were invited.

The questions raised by the Honourable Members have already been dealt with in the new call for proposals.

The Commission notes the concerns voiced by the Honourable Members and will keep Parliament informed of developments relating to the new procedures.

(2001/C 151 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/00 by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Consequences of building a harbour on the Vila Praia de Âncora coast

‘Quercus’, a nationwide Portuguese association for the protection of the environment, has written to the Commission to ask it to intervene in the scheme to build a new, small harbour at Âncora, near the town of Viana do Castelo, in northern Portugal, protesting that the construction work (which is receiving Community funding) threatens areas which form part of the Nature 2000 network and the Corine Biotope, over and above damaging the shoreline in question. C 151 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Is the Commission going to investigate the problem and take appropriate measures, or does it believe that the environmental impact assessment already carried out provides adequate guarantees?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to a letter sent by the Portuguese non-government organisation (NGO) Quercus to the Commission objecting to the projected building of the new port of Vila Praia de Âncora. That project, which would receive Community funding, would be a threat to a beach and a Natura 2000 site. The Honourable Member is asking, in this connection, whether the Commission intends to analyse the problem and take any action needed or whether, conversely, it feels that the environmental impact study conducted offers sufficient guarantees.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) states that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon should be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation aims. It has emerged that the letter in question does not provide sufficiently precise information to enable the likelihood of the sites in question being affected by the project to be analysed. For that reason the Commission has written to the plaintiff in order to request further information which might show that the project is likely to affect habitats and species whose protection has prompted the proposal concerning the site in question. Moreover, the Commission is in the process of drafting a letter to be sent to the Portuguese authorities in order to draw their attention to this matter and obtain their comments on the subject. Finally, it should be pointed out, as regards the possibility of Community funding, that the Commission will not fail to take account of this and to take any action considered to be the most appropriate.

The Commission will not fail to keep the plaintiff informed of any further action that might be taken in this instance.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

(2001/C 151 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3033/00 by Giorgos Katiforis (PSE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: EU-Turkey Partnership Agreement

At the Helsinki Summit it was decided that Turkey was a candidate for accession to the EU subject to certain specific and expressly defined conditions.

The Commission is obviously concerned to ensure that summit decisions are implemented precisely, and that the fundamental principles underpinning the outlook of European peoples and their governments are fully observed. However, the violent reaction of a section of the Turkish press to the talks held by the Commission delegation last July in Ankara creates the impression that certain parties may be attempting to exclude from the draft of the Turkey-EU partnership agreement explicit references to the conditions relating to Turkey’s candidate status.

What steps will the Council take to ensure that the conditions which the Helsinki Summit attached to Turkey’s status as a candidate for accession, namely a settlement of the Cyprus problem, an improvement in the human rights situation, resolution of the Kurdish problem, Turkish claims in the Aegean and their settlement by the International Court in The Hague, the democratisation of the political system, together with the other Helsinki political criteria are incorporated in the main body of the text and not the preamble of the prospective partnership agreement? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/45

(22 December 2000)

Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria that are applied to the other candidate States. Under the current European strategy, Turkey, like other candidate States, benefits from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms. This includes enhanced political dialogue, with the emphasis on progress towards fulfilment of the political criteria for accession with particular reference to the issue of human rights and the issues referred to in paragraphs 4 and 9(a) of the conclusions of the Helsinki European Council; those conclusions also provided for the establishment of an accession partnership on the basis of previous European Council conclusions that will define the priorities on which accession preparations must concentrate in the light of the political and economic criteria and the obligations which Member States must fulfil, together with a national programme for the adoption of the acquis.

The Commission proposal on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey was sent to the Council on 13 November 2000. The Council has begun examining it.

(2001/C 151 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3037/00 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Recruitment difficulties in connection with the Northern dimension

The Commission decided on an action plan for the Northern dimension during the Portuguese Presidency. It appears from various sources that the Commission is having difficulties recruiting people to work in this field.

That being so, what does the Commission propose to do to overcome the recruiting difficulties regarding the Northern dimension?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The European Council at Feira on 20 June 2000 endorsed the Northern dimension action plan and concluded that the Commission would take a leading role in implementing it. The action plan foresees that the Northern dimension should be implemented within existing frameworks and instruments and consequently without additional budgetary or personnel resources. The Commission assures the Honourable Member that the action plan is currently being implemented accordingly.

(2001/C 151 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3041/00 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Council

(29 September 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of hallmarking provisions for goods made from precious metals

The adoption of the European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning working in precious metals (COD 93/0472) has been held up in the Council of Ministers for some years now. In particular the C 151 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

continuance of divergent hallmarking provisions in some Member States are forming a considerable obstacle to intra-Community trade in products made from precious metals by imposing costly and time- consuming certification procedures before such products can enter the market. Although these obstacles to the free movement of goods have been known about for some time, a number of Member States are apparently holding up the urgently needed efforts towards harmonisation.

1. What reasons does the Council consider are currently still standing in the way of the rapid adoption of the common position?

2. Is the Council prepared to deal with this topic under the French Presidency and to ensure the rapid adoption of the common position which has been outstanding since 1994?

(22 December 2000)

1. As the Honourable Member’s question states, the Commission submitted a proposal on goods made from precious metals in 1993.

The Council has considered the proposal on several occasions with a view to reaching a common position.

However, it has not been possible to resolve the issue as two major problems have been encountered the provisions on marking and certification procedures.

2. At present, the Council has no plans to resume its consideration of the proposal.

(2001/C 151 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3044/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Red diesel

Can the Commission detail fuel subsidies provided to farmers in the various Member States of the Union, such as the ‘Red Diesel’ provided within the UK?

What plans does the Commission have, in the interests of free competition, to propose harmonisation of such subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The Commission does not have the information requested. According to Article 8(2)(f) of Directive 92/81/ EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (1), without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States may apply total or partial exemptions or reductions in the rate of duty to mineral oils used under fiscal control exclusively in agricultural and in horticultural works, and in forestry and inland fisheries. Directive 92/81/EEC does not oblige Member States to communicate to the Commission the duties actually applied in agriculture.

Consequently, as long as they remain within the framework set by Directive 92/81/EEC, differences between Member States in taxation of diesel used in agriculture are thus the result of this Directive. A Commission proposal for a Council directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products (2) is under examination in the Council. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/47

However, it is the Commission’s point of view that automatic derogations from Directive 92/81/EEC like that applicable to agricultural diesel also have to be considered state aid if they fulfil the conditions of Article 87 (1) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty, that means if they are selective (for example, a special rate for the producers of certain crops, or for certain types of producers). Such measures would have to be notified to the Commission under state aid rules before being implemented. If the Honourable Member has information about the existence of selective tax measures relating to agricultural diesel, the Commission would ask to be informed about this.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992. (2) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.

(2001/C 151 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3046/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: EU centres for study and research

A number of EU Centres for Study and Research exist around the world, of which several are located in the USA.

What is their purpose?

What funding do they receive?

What have they achieved over the past two years?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

There are many study and research centres around the world whose names contain the word ‘European’, including some in the United States.

However, the only research centre directly funded by the Union is the Joint Research Centre (JRC), which is a Directorate-General of the Commission. The JRC is located at a number of sites around the Union: Ispra (Italy), Karlsruhe (Germany), Petten (Netherlands), Seville (Spain) and Geel (Belgium).

The JRC helps implement the Framework Programme for research and technological development. Its activities are covered in annual reports, the two most recent having the reference numbers COM(1999) 222 final and COM(2000) 366 final.

Further information on the Joint Research Centre can be found on the JRC website at http://www.jrc.ce- c.eu.int

(2001/C 151 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3051/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Funding for education about wildlife

The Commission has acknowledged on several occasions the need to improve young people’s prospects by means of educational reforms and programmes. Do existing programmes provide for initiatives particularly aimed at improving their knowledge of fauna and the natural sciences? C 151 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that the organisation of education systems, including the types of establishment and the curricula provided, comes under the competence of the Member States. As stated in Article 149 (ex Article 126) of the EC Treaty, ‘The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States (…) while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems (…)’.

The Commission has no power to intervene in the area mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(2001/C 151 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3053/00 by Sérgio Sousa Pinto (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against non-nationals in French law (Organic Law No 98-404 of 25 May 1998)

Can the Commission state what action it intends to take, at the pre-judicial stage or by an infringement procedure, concerning a piece of French legislation (Organic Law No 98-404 of 25 May 1998) which is both incompatible with Council Directive 94/80/EC (1) and unacceptable under the Treaties.

This law requires a European citizen wishing to be entered on an electoral register to declare that he has not been deprived of his electoral rights in his Member State of origin a provision which is blatantly discriminatory by comparison with the treatment of French nationals.

In addition, the requirement that candidates should state their nationality on the ballot slips is a further grave case of discrimination on grounds of nationality, in breach of Article 12 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 38.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission was notified of Organic Law No 98-404 of 25 May 1998, which transposes into French law Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (1), on 21 July 1998.

As part of its scrutiny of the French law to ensure its compliance with the Community legislation, the Commission asked the national authorities for further information on the two points raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is now examining the information provided by the French authorities and will not hesitate to use the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty if it finds that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations.

(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/49

(2001/C 151 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3056/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Subject: Ending of support for indigenous breeds in Portugal

Support for indigenous breeds has played a key role in preserving endangered species, thereby helping to improve the quality of meat production and enhance its image in the eyes of consumers. The aid has done a great deal to revitalise the agricultural sector in certain less favoured regions in Portugal’s rural heartland.

In accordance with the last Community support framework (CSF), the aid in question was financed under the Portuguese rural development plan. The plan for the period 2000-2006, to be implemented under the new CSF, also provided for aid. However, it has emerged that the Commission is preparing to alter the rules governing the award of aid, reducing breed-related support in cases where the number of females is below 1 000. What this basically means is that no more aid will be granted in respect of over twenty indigenous breeds and 140 000 head of livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats). The resulting cut will thus amount to some PTE 2 billion.

Is it true that the aid rules are to be altered as described above? If so, why has the Commission thought fit to make this proposal? Does it not consider such a measure to be contrary to the principle of multipurpose farming and protection of high-quality production?

Is the Commission aware of the serious socio-economic consequences that the measure will entail for hundreds of Portuguese producers and many rural regions in the Portuguese heartland?

Does the Commission not consider it preferable to pursue a policy to promote quality and regional production that would grant a higher proportion of aid to small and medium-sized farmers instead of reducing that aid to further the interests of intensive mass production?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

For the period to 1999, aid for the preservation of endangered species was granted on the basis 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). To encourage farmers to rear these less productive breeds, compensation is awarded per livestock unit (LU). Above all, this measure aims to maintain biodiversity, and can under no circumstances be considered as constituting aid in respect of farmers’ income as its function is to compensate for their losses of income from rearing less productive breeds.

For the period 2000/2006, endangered breeds are supported within the framework of agrienvironmental measures laid down in articles 22 to 24 of Council Regulation 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). Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (3), aid can be granted to farmers rearing farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of exinction. In addition, local breeds must play a role in maintaining the environment in the given areas to which the measure will apply.

Under Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999, to be eligible for the measure, evidence must be provided of the endangered statute of the breed consistent with scientific data accepted by international organisations regarded as authorities in this field. The Commission has thus followed the only criterion currently available, that of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), by agreeing to assist breeds that in general C 151 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

do not exceed 1000 reproducing females. Nonetheless, the Commission is currently conducting relevant scientific consultations on the suitability of possibly adopting an approach better adapted to the Community’s specific situation.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (3) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Manufacturing ban on high-tar cigarettes

Can the Commission indicate if it has carried out an impact study into the loss of jobs caused by a ban on the manufacturing and export of cigarettes containing more than 10 mg of tar, called full-flavour cigarettes.

If not, why is the Commission recommending such a course of action?

Is the Commission aware of a study published jointly by UK & I Operations’ representatives of British American Tobacco, the MSF and the AEEU, indicating that 8 300 jobs are at risk in only two manufacturing sites in England?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

The further proposed reduction from 12 miligram (mg) to 10 mg of the tar level in cigarettes (1) continues a process begun with Council Directive 90/239/EEC of 17 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the maximum tar yield of cigarettes (2). On the occasion of the substantial reductions introduced in the 1990 directive, no negative economic or employment consequences were brought to the Commission’s attention. The Commission is not aware of any evidence to the effect that the much smaller decrease in tar level presently proposed would have serious economic or employment consequences. These observations have been confirmed in the assessment form attached to the new proposal.

According to the recent report of the World Bank ‘Curbing the epidemic’ the effect of tobacco control on employment could even be considered as positive (to the amount of 100 000 full-time equivalent jobs in the United Kingdom) because of the money freed up from tobacco purchases and injected into other areas of the economy (World Bank, Washington, 1999).

The Commission is aware of the estimates mentioned by the Honourable Member. Furthermore, the Commission has met representatives of the industry on several occasions during the last months. According to the industry itself, exports from the Community are around 15 % of total production and not all of these cigarettes would exceed the proposed ceiling.

However, in order to allow manufacturers sufficient time to adapt to these new Community standards the Commission has proposed an extended transitional period.

According to the World Health Organisation, tobacco use is responsible for more than 500 000 deaths a year within the Community.

(1) COM(2000) 428 final. (2) OJ L 137, 30.5.1990. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/51

(2001/C 151 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3063/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Discharge of fuel oil into the River Tajo (Toledo, Spain)

On 1 August 2000 fuel oil originating from spillage from a tank at the plant in Aceca de Villaseca de La Sagra (Toledo) was discharged into the River Tajo. The company which owns the plant and the Spanish authorities admit that the volume concerned was 25 000 litres, although environmental organisations in the region maintain that quantities in excess of that figure have already been removed from the river.

Managers at the Aceca plant took several hours to detect the leak which caused the discharge and to alert the authorities.

It is known that there have been major staff cuts at the plant in recent years, with the result that fewer staff are deployed to monitor the safety of the installations.

Bearing in mind that the discharge will end up in a river which the President of Castilla-La Mancha has described as ‘a sewer full of filth that is still called a river only out of historical inertia’ and that charges and counter-charges are regularly made by the Spanish Government and the Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha concerning who is responsible for the situation, will the Commission, by virtue of its powers in the field of public health and environmental protection, open an investigation to determine whether the Spanish authorities are conducting proper checks on the installations at Aceca and other plants where potential risks may arise to ensure that situations of this kind do not recur?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The facilities mentioned by the Honourable Member could be covered by Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1). That Directive requires any action needed to be taken in order to prevent major hazards involving dangerous substances and to limit the impact on human life and the environment of any such hazards. The implementation of Directive 96/82/EC depends on the amounts of those substances present at those facilities.

Article 5 of the Directive lays down the general requirements placed on operators. Article 11 of the Directive sets out in detail the requirements placed on the Member States with regard to emergency plans. Article 14 of the Directive specifies the information to be provided by operators following a major accident. Article 18 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that the relevant authorities set up an inspection system or other means of monitoring that are suited to the type of establishment in question.

Directive 96/82/EC was transposed into Spanish law via the ‘RD 1254/1999 de 16 de julio, por el que se aprueban medidas de control de los riesgos inherentes a los accidentes graves en los que intervengan sustancias peligrosas’. The requirements set out in Articles 5, 11, 14 and 18 are covered by the ‘Real Decreto 1254/1999’. This being the case and in the light of the information available the Commission cannot assume that Directive 96/82/EC has been infringed in this instance. However, if the Honourable Member were able to provide information enabling a question mark to be placed over the correct implementation of the Directive when the accident to which he refers took place, the Commission will take care the examine that information very closely in order to confirm compliance with the environmental legislation applying.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997. C 151 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3065/00 by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Olive pressers

The olive sector is in the throes of a serious crisis. The situation in Italy last year was already problematic, with 30 % of the crop not picked and olive oil from third countries, of an inferior quality, being marketed at reduced prices, with adverse effects on the entire Italian olive sector.

The impact of Regulation (EEC) No 2366/98 (1), which places onerous obligations on olive pressers to buy electronic weighing systems, adapt ENEL electricity meters, keep compulsory records of loads entering and leaving the mills, issue certificates for each individual pressing and standardise yields (unworkable given that olive yields vary according to the characteristics of the area), will worsen the crisis in the olive sector.

Could the Commission:

1. draw up measures to give olive pressers access to special tax and credit facilities, as part of the planned reform of the COM for olive oil production aid,

2. endeavour to promote the reinstatement of agricultural loans, placing them on a biennial basis,

3. consider giving olive pressers a year’s extension to acquire the equipment set out in Regulation 2366/ 98?

(1) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 50.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The Commission believes that the present level of olive oil prices in the Community is connected with the Community’s high production, and that imports accounting for less than 2,5 % of that production are not on the whole likely to influence the Community market.

Given the level of production in Italy for 1999/2000, the Commission remains puzzled by the Honourable Member’s assertion that 30 % of the Italian olive crop was not harvested.

Since Member States are responsible for tax policy and lending facilities, the common agricultural policy cannot introduce tax exemptions or loans for mills. What is more, if a Member State decided to introduce credit facilities or tax concessions, these could be regarded as state aid of questionable compatibility with the EC Treaty. That is why Member States must notify the Commission whenever they grant business- or producer-specific tax concessions or loans, so that it can examine whether the aid complies with Articles 87-89 (formerly Articles 92-94) of the EC Treaty. The Commission also considers that (despite the administrative constraints, costs and possible post-inspection penalties to which they are subject under the common market organisation for oils and fats) mills benefit greatly from the CMO which has enabled them to maintain, increase and improve production and hence their income.

As regards a possible one-year deferral of the standards stipulated by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 of 30 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 marketing years (1), the Honourable Member should refer to the Commission’s answer to Written Question P-3026/2000 by Mr Musotto (2).

(1) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998. (2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 161. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/53

(2001/C 151 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3066/00 by Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Seventh EU campaign to promote the consumption of olive oil

In view of the fact that:

almost a third of the total budget (€ 10,2 million of a total € 35 million) for the seventh EU campaign ‘Olive oil: the flavour that unites us’ has been allocated to Italy and Spain;

these two Member States are the two biggest producers and the two biggest consumers of olive oil and therefore it seems wasteful to invest so significantly in promoting the consumption of a product which in Italy and Spain is already widespread and widely known;

the previous six campaigns had poor results; they produced no significant increase in the consumption of olive oil in certain Member States, such as France, the United Kingdom or Germany, even though consumers there are highly interested in other constituents of the so-called ‘Mediterranean diet’ and have developed a considerable taste for them;

can the Commission say:

1. what allocations have been earmarked for the promotion of olive oil in the other Member States, both in the seventh campaign and in the previous ones?

2. What publicity strategies and specific goals have these allocations been used for?

3. Who has been given responsibility for the promotional measures in these countries, and how were they selected?

4. Why has the task of disseminating scientific knowledge on olive oil to doctors and health professionals in the 15 Member States been assigned to Hill & Knowlton Eurosciences Communication (United Kingdom), in cooperation with the Institute of Atherosclerosis Research at the University of Munster (Germany), without the involvement of any body from the Mediterranean area?

5. What proportion of the allocations for these Member States has been used and, if there have been any savings, how were the funds originally allocated for olive oil promotion but not used for that purpose reallocated?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

1. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a table with the information requested.

2. The general objectives of the seventh campaign are to consolidate and develop the consumption in the main producer Member States (Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal) and to boost the consumption in the other Member States. The primary target group is the consumers. The second target group is intermedi- aries between producers and consumers, such as journalists, the trade, doctors, nutritionists and chefs.

For the producer Member States the strategy aims to keep and encourage loyal consumers and to modernise the image of olive oil in order to attract the younger consumers. For the other Member States the strategies are to gain consumers who are presently not using olive oil and to increase the consumption frequency and the use of the product among existing consumers. Both taste and health aspects will be underlined. Given the importance of the market in the producer Member States, and in Germany, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom, advertising campaigns are being carried out in all these Member States. The campaign foresees medical and consumer public relations activities. C 151 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Consumption has risen significantly since 1990/1991, (e.g. France (+ 181 %), United Kingdom (+ 329 %) and Germany (+ 194 %)):

(1 000 tonnes)

France United Kingdom Germany Campaign 1990/1991 28 6,8 10,3 Campaign 1998/1999 78,8 29,2 30,3

3. The advertising and public relations activities, as well as the consumer panel studies were assigned by means of an open call for tender procedure. A list of all the agencies retained for the seventh campaign is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. This list also comprises the budget foreseen for each of them and the Member State concerned.

4. The same procedure was used for the research institute, which will develop and up-date, collect and evaluate scientific material and examine, validate and control the health related material produced by the advertising and public relations agencies.

The dissemination of scientific knowledge on the nutritional values of olive oil has been awarded in the same way.

5. The seventh campaign is now running very well. It can therefore be foreseen that the available financial resources (35.3 M€) will be completely used. This was also true for the sixth campaign.

The Commission is now preparing the selection of an independent institute to conduct evaluations in order to monitor the ongoing programme. This institute will also be chosen by tender procedure.

(2001/C 151 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3067/00

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Subject: International Year of Mountains

As the United Nations has proclaimed 2002 the International Year of Mountains, the Alpine Convention has begun to enter into force and a European Charter of Mountain Regions is currently under discussion, the concept of ‘mountains’ in the European context is increasingly being discussed in the Member States, with particular reference to the different classificatory criteria applied under their respective national laws. These discussions highlight not only the absence of any European Union definition of mountains, but also the corresponding lack of any specific European policy on mountain areas, notwithstanding the fact that such areas may be covered by existing regional policies and qualify for the funds available on various grounds, as explained in a recent Commission publication on mountains in Europe.

What initiatives are planned in connection with the International Year of Mountains, and does the Commission consider that it should draw up an appropriate strategy for Europe’s mountains, including specific measures, up to and beyond 2006, to address the need to identify the special characteristics of mountain areas and their economic development? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/55

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2000)

The Commission intends to make action by the Structural Funds more transparent and, to this end, aims to make mountain regions more aware of the opportunities available to them under Community policies. This has also led to the Commission recently publishing a booklet on structural policies and mountain areas.

Furthermore, during 2002 the Commission is planning to organise a seminar for the International Year of Mountains explaining how to better mobilise Community policies in mountain regions.

The existence of an Alpine Region is recognised in strand B, ‘Transnational Cooperation’ of the Community Initiative Interreg III for the programming period 2000-2006. This initiative makes it possible to finance cooperation projects throughout the Community’s alpine regions, which cover Austria and parts of Germany, France and Italy.

Lastly, the Commission is currently preparing the second report on economic and social cohesion which should launch the debate on the future cohesion policy, in the context of an enlarged Community.

(2001/C 151 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3074/00 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Information about funding available for the Nordic dimension

Could the Commission compile a pamphlet about the funding available for the Nordic dimension?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

The Commission does not at this stage plan to publish a booklet on the Community’s northern dimension.

It should be pointed out that financial aid allocated to Member States, including the Nordic countries, is publicised in the monthly newsletter Inforegio News (produced in the eleven Community languages) and by means of specific information disseminated via the Inforegio Internet site (http://inforegio.cec.eu.int).

Also, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 of 30 May 2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds (1) requires Member States to inform potential beneficiaries about the opportunities offered by joint assistance under the Funds.

Lastly, the Commission’s offices in each Member State also relay information on all Community activities.

(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000. C 151 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Electronic sales of drugs

The development of telematics networks has increased the volume of e-commerce. The commodities sold over the internet include drugs, the purchase of which is regulated in every Member State by laws designed to avoid the dangers associated with the use of drugs obtained without a prescription.

1. Who regulates electronic sales of drugs?

2. Who formulates pricing policy in respect of drugs?

3. What impact could this system have on distributors’ and pharmacists’ turnover?

4. Does the Commission intend to assess the situation and, if necessary, propose measures to reduce the risks connected with using drugs that have not been prescribed by a doctor?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2000)

The Commission is aware of the possible risk to the health of European citizens resulting from the internet sale of medicinal products especially where those products might be obtained without a prescription.

The authorisation, advertising and sale of pharmaceutical products within Europe is regulated by specific Community directives which apply to the sale of those products by electronic means just as they do to their sale by more conventional means. In addition, the recently adopted 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 (Directive on electronic commerce) (1) provides for transparency requirements, efficient control in the country where the online service provider is established and administrative co-operation amongst Member States. Accordingly, an electronic pharmacy established in the Community would be subject to the requirements set out in the legislation described above. Moreover, in the case of provision of pharmaceuticals by pharmacists, the latter are, of course, subject to the rules of conduct of their own professional bodies.

Consequently, whilst Community legislation does not prevent the establishment of electronic pharmacies, such developments in Europe must if they are permitted by Member States meet the terms of European legislation in this area. In particular, these provisions require that patients have access to approved information only; that prescription-only medicines are delivered to patients who can provide a prescription that reflects a meaningful contact with a qualified medical professional and that a qualified pharmacist is responsible for oversight of the dispensing process (when and as foreseen by national legislation).

However, the global nature of the internet increases the potential for the advertising and sale of pharmaceuticals to European consumers by operators from third countries bypassing the protection provided by these Community directives. A considerable amount of work has been taken forward at the international level led in particular by the World Health Organisation with the participation of the Commission and the American Food and drug administration (FDA) to ensure that patients are aware of the risks in using unregulated internet sites. In addition, the Commission has launched work with the Member States to address this problem and also to examine the potential benefits of such systems, in terms of better value for money and a more convenient service to patients. In this context, the Commission recommends the promotion of codes of conduct and the possible use of awareness campaigns for consumers. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/57

Pricing and reimbursement negotiations are the responsibility of the Member States concerned. The procedures adopted for these negotiations need to respect the terms of the ‘Transparency Directive’, Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (2) and to bear in mind the single market dimension of the European pharmaceutical market.

(1) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000. (2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2001/C 151 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3076/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Community aid for dairy cattle farmers

Knowing that:

under EC Regulation 1257/1999 (1), the European Union grants financial contributions of up to ITL 190 000 per hectare of grazing land to farmers breeding their own cattle who put them out to pasture for at least 180 days a year rather than keeping them in the cowshed;

some breeds (such as Piedmontese cattle) are progressively being replaced by others (such as Friesian and Simmental cattle) with a high milk yield;

these cattle are ill-suited to grazing in the heat of the day, particularly throughout the long, hot, summer days of southern European countries;

the rules are, on the other hand, appropriate for northern European countries (such as France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany) where the climate and environmental factors make it possible for cattle to graze in the open;

certain proposals put forward to remedy this disparity would require a change in the Community rules to enable farmers in all the Member States to qualify for this aid, even if the grass used to feed the animals was cut and brought into the cowshed;

to improve the quality of milk and derived products it is necessary to improve the diet of dairy cattle by increasing their intake of grass and hay:

insisting that cattle must spend at least 180 days per year outdoors rather than in the cowshed is an arbitrary requirement which might actually have the effect of encouraging fraud.

Does the Commission intend to consider the above-mentioned proposals, and what action does it intend to take to enable all European cattle farmers to qualify on an equal footing for the financial aid available under the above-mentioned regulation, which aid is supposed to ensure both that grazing land is preserved and that the quality of dairy products and their derivatives is improved?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission would point out that 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 (1) contains no provisions for aid to support milk production or dairy farmers. C 151 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

However, the agri-environmental measures in Articles 22 to 24 of that Regulation do provide for support to be granted to farmers who give agri-environmental commitments for at least five years concerning methods of agricultural production which protect the environment and preserve the landscape. The aid paid to the farmer in return for the agri-environmental service rendered is based on the income foregone and the additional costs arising from the commitments.

Agri-environmental support is intended primarily to encourage the management of low-intensity pasture land. To do this, some of the rural development programmes drawn up by the Member States and approved by the Commission include agri-environmental premiums for the upkeep of alpine pasture. This traditional method of stock breeding entails keeping the animals (cattle, sheep or horses) on mountain pasture for a period which varies considerably (from 80 to 180 days) depending on the area where the measure is being applied and local conditions. This highly extensive practice is considered by all concerned as essential to maintain the environmental balance of mountain areas, which are very fragile ecosystems from an environmental point of view. The maintenance of alpine pasture imposes additional costs on farmers and so this technique attracts a premium, which again varies considerably depending on the area where the measure is being applied and local conditions.

It should be noted that this support is in no way either production aid or direct aid to the beef/veal sector such as that provided under the market organisation in question.

The Commission does not therefore consider that there is any need to amend the existing rules to take account of the points raised in the Honourable Member’s question.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3077/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Sale over the Internet of substances for human consumption which are regarded as harmful in America

1. Is the Commission aware of a report published by Associated Press on 7 September and reproduced, inter alia, on the website ‘Discovery Health: Health News’ on:

http://www.discoveryhealth.com/DH/ihtIH/EMDSC000/333/333/296934.html

under the title ‘FDA Cracks Down on Laetrile Resurgence’, which refers to a product distributed in America under the names ‘Laetrile’, ‘Amygdalin’ and ‘Vitamin B 17’ by organisations with such names as ‘World Without Cancer Inc.’, ‘Health World International Inc.’ and ‘Health Genesis Corp.’?

2. Can the Commission confirm that the ingredients of Laetrile include apricot stones, which according to a long-standing popular belief can prevent cancer? Does the Commission have an opinion on the extent to which apricot stones can prevent or cause cancer? To what extent are these characteristics of apricot stones affected for better or for worse by other substances contained in Laetrile?

3. Is the Commission aware of the efforts of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to combat trade in Laetrile, on the assumption that this substance is carcinogenic and can also cause cyanide poisoning? Does the Commission have an opinion concerning the arguments for and against this adverse assessment and about the resultant ban on the substance’s sale in the United States?

4. The sale of Laetrile is now continuing over the Internet, so that it is increasingly becoming available on the European market. Other substances for human consumption whose benefits or harmful effects have not been ascertained are likewise being sold in this way. Does the Commission share the concern of the FDA, and does it therefore consider such substances harmful to European consumers? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/59

5. If the answer to Question 4 is affirmative, and bearing in mind the international nature of this problem, will the Commission promote coordinated action by the Member States and applicant countries to inform European consumers about any adverse effects which have been shown to arise from substances for human consumption available over the Internet?

Answer by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2000)

The Commission is aware of the possible risk to the health of European citizens posed by the Internet sale of medicinal products by companies established outside the Community.

For over twenty years now, products derived from laetrile have been put forward, especially in the United States of America, as an alternative to conventional cancer treatment. The research carried out on these products has established that laetrile has not been effective in the treatment of cancer and indeed could prove to be toxic in some cases. Moreover, given the ineffectiveness of the claimed indications and the side effects associated with the release of cyanide, these products are have not been authorised for marketing.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States is currently taking action to halt the manufacture, packaging, promotion, distribution and marketing of products derived from laetrile or apricot stones. Laetrile has been banned by the FDA and is not authorised for sale as a medicinal product in the Community.

The authorisation, advertising and sale of pharmaceutical products within Europe is regulated by specific Community directives which apply both to the sale of those products by electronic means and to their sale by more conventional means. In addition, the recently adopted 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 (Directive on electronic commerce) (1) provides for transparency requirements, administrative cooperation among Member States and effective control in the Member State where the on-line service is located.

Moreover, in the case of provision of pharmaceuticals by pharmacists, the latter are, of course, subject to the rules of conduct of their own professional bodies.

However, as pointed out by the Honourable Member, the global nature of the Internet allows for the advertising and sale of pharmaceuticals to European consumers by operators from third countries, thereby bypassing the protection provided by Community legislation. The Commission has begun working with the Member States to address this problem and the Commission is considering promoting the use of codes of conduct, and possibly running consumer awareness campaigns.

(1) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3086/00 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Article 192 of the EC Treaty

Under Article 192 of the Treaty of Maastricht, Parliament was given the right to request by an absolute majority of its Members that the Commission ‘submit any appropriate proposal on matters on which it considers that a Community act is required for the purpose of implementing this Treaty’.

Can the Commission confirm that six such resolutions were adopted during the 1994-1999 legislative period, namely on:

hotel fire safety (20 April 1994)

environmental damage (4 May 1994) C 151 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

settlement of claims arising from traffic accidents occurring outside the claimant’s country of origin (26 October 1995)

health cards (17 April 1996)

forest strategy (30 January 1997)

network access for renewable energies (17 June 1998)?

Is it the case that, to date, only one of those resolutions has resulted in the Commission submitting a specific legislative proposal?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2000)

The Commission recognises the importance of the six reports adopted by Parliament based on Article 192 (ex Article 138b) of the EC Treaty and in virtually all cases has acted upon them in the manner sought by Parliament. Specifically, in one case the legislation called for has already been adopted, in a second case Parliament is due to discuss the Commission proposal in first reading shortly and in a third case a framework directive will be proposed by the end of 2001. Set out below are the initiatives which have been taken in all six cases.

The Jackson report (A3-0310/94) on ‘Fire safety in hotels’ led to a study which has been sent to Parliament.

The Alber report (A3-0232/94) on ‘Preventing and remedying environmental damage’ led to a white paper on environmental liability (1) which was adopted in February 2000. The Commission will consider proposing a framework directive before the end of 2001.

The Rothley report (A4-0201/95) on the settlement of claims arising from traffic accidents which occur outside the country of origin of the claimant has resulted in a legislative proposal (2) which has now become Directive 2000/26/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Direc- tive) (3).

With regard to the Leopardi report (A4-0091/96) on a European health card, many of the ideas have been taken up in the eEurope initiative.

The Thomas report (A4-0414/96) on forestry in the Community led to a communication (4) which in turn led to a Council resolution of 15 December 1998 on a forestry strategy for the European Union (5) and formed an important part of Council Regulation (EC) no 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development for the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations (6).

The Commission adopted a proposal for a directive (7) on 10 May 2000 following the Linkhor report (A4-0199/98) on ‘Network access for renewable energies’. Parliament is expected to give this proposal its first reading in the November I plenary session. The rapporteur is Mrs Rothe.

(1) COM(2000) 66 final. (2) OJ C 343, 13.11.1997. (3) OJ L 181, 20.7.2000. (4) COM(98) 649 final. (5) OJ C 56, 26.2.1999. (6) OJ C 160, 26.6.1999. (7) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/61

(2001/C 151 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3096/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Unchecked dumping of waste by oil tankers

It is common practice along our coasts for tankers to degas and clean the tanks in which they transport gas oil and oil. Such practices, conducted away from port facilities, lead to pollution such as that provoked by the Campurdán oil tanker in the Ares ria in Galicia, Spain, on 23 July last.

Although all the EU Member States are signatories to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol 73/78), the dumping of waste and residues, including oil, into our seas continues. This unacceptable practice is due in part to the lack of suitable port facilities for waste disposal.

Perhaps for this reason, in the specific case of the Campurdán, which had a crack in its hull in need of repair, the La Coruña port authority made the tanker leave the port so as to avoid polluting it. The port authority thus ensured that the tanker moved away to a distance of two or three miles before conducting cleaning and degassing operations unchecked, hoping no doubt that the dumped material would be swept out to sea, and any subsequent protests with it.

At its most recent plenary session the European Parliament approved the Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues.

Is the Commission aware of the aforementioned incident? Has it received any other complaints on this matter?

How does the Commission intend to force ports to provide suitable facilities able to cope with incidents of this nature, instead of diverting ships and the waste they dump to clean areas such as the Ares ria or the out at sea?

What action will it take to prevent a repetition of this regrettable incident?

How does it intend to ensure that such practices, which tend to go unpunished, are abandoned?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2000)

Operational oil pollution by ships represents a greater share of the total marine oil pollution than that caused by accidents. The Commission is regularly informed about this type of incident, and is seriously concerned about the problem of voluntary discharges at sea.

A great deal of the operational pollution from all types of ships in Community waters results from the inability of some ports to provide adequate waste reception facilities and, of course, from reluctance of ships to use them for various reasons. The recently adopted Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59/ EC (1) on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues addresses these problems and introduces a number of requirements on both ports and ships to ensure that adequate facilities are available in all Community ports and that they are used by ships.

On expiring of the time allowed for Member States to implement the Directive, 24 months after its publication in the Official journal, the Commission will monitor that it is properly implemented in all Member States. This includes ensuring that all ports provide adequate reception facilities, and undertake regular waste management planning which is approved by national authorities. The Directive also imposes an obligation for ships to notify the port of on-board quantities of wastes and residues and to deliver their C 151 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

waste in certain circumstances. In addition all ships calling at Community ports have to contribute to the financing of the facilities, irrespective of whether they deliver waste or not. This, coupled with spot checks by the authorities, should greatly reduce the problem of oil pollution by ships, in cases such as that described by Honourable Member.

Moreover, a new decision of the Parliament and of the Council setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution should be soon finalised. This decision, once adopted, will in particular allow the development of joint initiatives such as workshops or training courses aiming to strengthen the measures taken by Member States against illicit operational spills from vessels.

(1) Not yet published.

(2001/C 151 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3097/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Rising price of oil

The year 2000 has provided further evidence of the instability in oil prices, the grave repercussions of which highlight the high dependency of the EU on hydrocarbons for its energy. Europe consumes 19,6 % of the oil on the world market. Moreover, according to the Europe 2020 study published by the Commission, average dependency on external energy in Europe is rising from 50 % to 70 %. We are now witnessing the third increase in crude oil production so far this year, with output having been increased by 800 000 barrels a day in the hope of bringing the price of oil into line with worldwide growth. Contrary to the predictions made about it, oil has once again highlighted the volatility capable of affecting this market.

In such circumstances, what measures is the Commission adopting to manage the demand for energy and energy savings and to develop domestic resources, thereby finally giving a boost to renewable energies?

What criteria does the Commission advocate for Member States as regards the management of strategic resources?

In the economic forecasts it presented last April, the Commission predicted that inflation would remain at 1,8 % this year and stand at 1,7 % in 2001, the assumption being that the price of a barrel of oil would remain more or less stable at around USD 24,50. That assumption no longer reflects the real situation. Will the Commission, therefore, revise its calculations when it presents its economic forecasts this coming autumn? Has it entertained the possibility that oil companies might be reaching certain price-fixing agreements as a means of distorting competition, contrary to the provisions set out in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2000)

The present high price of oil is largely beyond the control of policy makers in the consumer countries in terms of supply and underlines the need to continue developing a new demand strategy aimed at the gradual replacement of oil by other energy sources, the increased use of renewable and alternative energy sources, demand management, the improvement of energy efficiency, and the promotion of energy savings, in particular in buildings. As announced in its recent communication on oil supply in the European Union (1), the Commission will present a plan on energy savings and diversification covering both the boosting of energy efficiency, in particular in buildings, and support for the development of a new generation of vehicles at the European Council in Gothenburg. In addition, the future and the 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/63

respective places of the different energy sources (oil, coal, gas, nuclear, renewables) is the subject of a Green Paper on security of supply which will be adopted by the Commission by the end of 2000.

With regard to the use of strategic reserves, the Commission will be examining how strategic oil stocks could be strengthened by pooling their use at Community level. In order to combat speculative move- ments, ways need to be found, similar to those used in the money markets, to limit price volatility.

As regards the impact on economic forecasts, if oil prices remain around USD 30 per barrel for the rest of this year, the negative impact on growth of the price rise should be 0,3 % for 2000 and 0,5 % for 2001. The price rise would add 1 % to inflation.

As far as competition is concerned, the Commission does indeed believe that, even if some cost factors may vary from one Member State to another, oligopolistic behaviour and a lack of competition in distribution are the only explanation for the significant price differences, excluding duties and taxes, between Member States. This diagnosis obviously raises the question of whether or not there are infringements of competition law, in particular whether cartels exist (price fixing). The national authorities of a number of Member States have started investigations on this subject. In Italy and Sweden, sanctions have been imposed on petrol companies by the competition authorities. In general terms, it is essential to promote a more open and competitive structure in the fuel distribution sector. A critical factor is the development of a genuine internal market for refined products (in the wholesale market) to make for ready and competitive supplies to all distributors, including those who are not national refiners.

(1) COM(2000) 631 final.

(2001/C 151 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3105/00 by Florence Kuntz (UEN) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: VAT rates applicable to the catering industry in the European Union

Certain Member States, including Spain and Portugal, were granted derogations to the Treaty at the time of their accession to the European Union, thus making official the practice prevalent in those countries of applying reduced or low VAT rates in the catering sector. These supposedly transitional arrangements but with no exact date for the end of the transitional period were introduced in 1992 and the legislation governing this matter is the 6th VAT directive.

As a result, other Member States which apply a higher rate in the catering industry are seriously harmed by this distortion of competition, in terms both of employment, given that this area of activity employs large numbers of people, and of the industry’s turnover.

Could the Commission therefore say:

what reasons justify the failure to set a precise date for the end of the transitional period from which some Community Member States are benefiting with regard to VAT, and what conditions must be met before a precise date for the end of this period can be proposed to the Ecofin Council?

what measures can be envisaged with a view to putting as early a stop as possible to the serious violations of the European Union’s competition policy taking place in this area of activity?

why certain provisions of the 6th directive prevent the countries with no derogations to its provisions from lowering the VAT rates applicable to the catering industry? C 151 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Under the terms of the Community provisions currently in force in this area (Article 12(3) 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 standard minimum 15 % rate applies to the catering industry. Increased rates were dropped following the adoption of Directive 92/77/EEC (2) on the approximation of VAT rates.

However, Article 28(2)of the Directive allows Member States to apply a reduced rate for catering on a temporary basis on certain conditions.

Specifically, Member States who were obliged to increase their standard rate by more than 2 % on 1 January 1991 and those where a reduced rate was already being applied to the catering industry can apply, or continue to apply, a reduced rate.

The application period for the exemptions is linked to the transitional period which came into force on 1 January 1993. It was intended to last until 31 December 1996, though it could be extended automatically until the definitive VAT arrangement came into force. The changeover was particularly difficult to implement and it now seems likely that the transitional arrangement will continue to be applied for several years.

The catering industry could have benefited from the possibility of a reduced rate for other Member States, if the Council had not amended the Commission’s proposal when negotiating Council Directive 1999/85/ EC of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experimental basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services. (3) The Council restricted the scope of the proposal to a list of services which did not include the catering industry.

The Commission’s new VAT strategy (4) on the rationalisation of VAT rates will include a review of the temporary exemptions on rates and their period of validity. It will be carried out following an assessment of the experience of labour-intensive services.

(1) OJ L 145, 13/6/1977. Directive last amended by Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 (OJ L 277, 28.10.1999). (2) Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates) (OJ L 316, 31.10.1992). (3) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999. (4) COM(2000) 348 final.

(2001/C 151 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3109/00 by Freddy Thielemans (PSE) to the Commission

(27 September 2000)

Subject: Implementation of project ALA/92/47 and ALA/92/35 to protect the town of Montero against flooding

EC funding (project No ALA/92/47 and ALA 92/35) and an agreement between Bolivia and the EC mean that the town of Montero could enjoy better protection against flooding. The requisite work has however fallen behind schedule, and will not be completed by 30 September 2000, when the technical assistance contract expires, although the funding agreement with Bolivia has not yet run out. I am informed that the Commission’s services refuse to extend the deadline for completing the work (for which funding is guaranteed), a refusal which might make all the effort invested hitherto entirely pointless.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that a possible refusal to extend the deadline will mean that all the work already carried out will come to nothing? Why are the Commission services refusing to extend the project until the work is completed? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/65

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2000)

The essential aim of the project was to involve the national authorities in developing a working method and management policy to guarantee the maintenance and durability of the works, on the obvious assumption that improvement and repair works would still be needed and would continue well beyond the lifetime of the project. Since it was necessary, among other things, to protect large areas of the banks of a river the morphology of which was constantly changing, the general objectives of the project included a dynamic approach, based on observation and study of the development of the watercourse following the various operations carried out, in order to draw the necessary conclusions for improving future operations.

This is the basis on which the national administration was prepared for taking over the project and carrying out with its own means and capacities the successive adjustments which would be needed.

The financing agreement has to have a longer period of validity than the project and attendant contracts in order to allow the administrative conclusion of the project before the agreement expires. The Community funding provided for protecting the town of Montero has formed the subject of two financing agreements, signed in April 1993 (emergency works) and July 1993 (protection of the town of Montero). The project was due for completion in six years. The technical assistance contract was extended by a rider for a further six months up to 30 September of this year.

(2001/C 151 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3111/00 by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 September 2000)

Subject: Commission proposal for an egg classification system

At the beginning of September, the Commission submitted a proposal for compulsory indication of the farming method on eggs as of 1 January 2001. This proposal radically alters the existing classification system for eggs. The preparation time seems rather brief if the new system is to enter into force on 1 January 2001. The first question, therefore, is: when does the Commission intend to consult the European Parliament about the proposal?

It is very important that such a radical change in the classification system should have the support of operators in the industry. The second question is: has the Commission consulted the industry while drafting the proposal, and if so, how and with what outcome?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

The proposal (1) for amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs (2) would introduce compulsory labelling for all methods of egg production, not only for battery-laid eggs.

The common organisation of the market in eggs stipulates that marketing standards are to be adopted by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission (Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75) (3), but does not refer to Parliament being consulted. Parliament was nevertheless informed of the proposal.

The Commission informed the public of its intention to introduce compulsory production-method labelling in its March 1998 communication to the Council on the protection of laying hens (4). While the majority of producers and consumers are prepared to accept the principle of compulsory labelling, at an C 151 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

initial meeting of experts in March 1999 producers’ representatives nevertheless expressed reservations about the technical details. The October and November 2000 meetings of the Advisory Committee’s standing and ad hoc groups are due to continue discussing the technical details, which would have to be stipulated in a Commission Regulation in accordance with the management committee procedure.

(1) COM(2000) 522 final. (2) OJ L 173, 6.7.1990. (3) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975. (4) COM(98) 135 final.

(2001/C 151 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3112/00 by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission (27 September 2000)

Subject: Disbursement of grants authorised under the Socrates Comenius programme

Schools in Baden-Württemberg taking part in the Socrates Comenius programme have been waiting in vain for disbursement of authorised grants by the Commission.

How does the Commission account for the delay in payment of grants under the Socrates Comenius programme?

Are these isolated cases, or is there a general problem with implementation of the Socrates Comenius programme?

When does the Commission intend to pay the outstanding sums?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (30 October 2000)

The delays in the payment of advances for decentralised actions under the Socrates programme are exceptional and are due essentially to the fact that 2000 is the first year in the implementation of the new programme (the decision establishing the second phase of Socrates has only been adopted during the first semester of 2000).

As a result, several measures had to be taken by the Commission and the Member States. There were delays in the setting up of the national agencies by some Member States, as well as in the completion of the national work programmes and their operational budgets.

With the new programme, the Commission wanted to reinforce the management of decentralised funds, with a view to improving their management. In this context, a new standardised form of operating agreement with the national agencies had to be devised. All measures are being taken in order to ensure the payments for decentralised actions are made as soon as possible.

As for the situation of schools in Germany, the work programme put forward by the Pädagogischer Austauschdienst (PAD) (the national agency nominated in Germany to handle Comenius grants to schools under the Socrates programme) has been agreed by the Commission. A contract to enable payments for the decentralised actions has been sent for signature to the PAD.

However, the Commission has now been informed by the German authorities that the distribution of work as between the PAD and the other agency involved in grants to schools (the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft) cannot go ahead as was originally foreseen. This implies that the contract with the PAD as originally drawn up is no longer appropriate, and it will have to be returned to the Commission for the cancellation and re-commitment to the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft of some of the credits involved.

This process will add a few weeks to the date before the contract can be signed with the PAD and the first payment reaches them. Even so, credits should be available to them before mid-November 2000. It will then be up to the PAD to process the funds as quickly as possible. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/67

(2001/C 151 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3113/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(27 September 2000)

Subject: Proposed reaction to reform of the new Foreign Sales Corporations bill

Reform by Congress of the US legislation on Foreign Sales Corporations is imminent. Under this reform, taxation of income from sales generated abroad would be abolished. According to US Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat, the WTO Appellate Body found that it was entirely a matter for member countries to decide whether or not the income was taxed. The Commissioner takes the view that the new arrangements also violate WTO rules.

Against this background:

1. In the event of the new US export rules actually entering into force, does the Commission intend to initiate retaliatory trade measures in accordance with Article 133 of the EC Treaty within the 30-day period laid down under the WTO procedure?

2. If so, by what means does the Commission propose to defend the EU’s interests?

3. What goods, or firms, would be affected by these measures?

4. What alternatives to measures to protect trade within the meaning of Article 133 of the EC Treaty would the Commission consider implementing?

5. Does the Commission take the view that individual EU Member States are empowered to regulate taxation of the income themselves?

6. If not, how, in legal terms, does the Commission justify its view?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel and appellate body reports adopted by the dispute settlement body of the WTO have found that the current ‘foreign sales corporations’ (FSC) legislation provides to American exporters an export subsidy prohibited by the WTO agreements.

In July 2000, the US Administration submitted to Congress draft legislation to replace the FSC provisions, but this draft legislation maintains the main elements of the WTO-incompatible legislation, in particular the export contingency. Indeed, the only way that American companies could benefit from the subsidy (the tax exemption) as provided under this new draft legislation would be to export. However, Congress could not adopt the relevant legislation within the deadline of 1 October 2000 set by the WTO to withdraw this prohibited subsidy. A one-month extension of this deadline has therefore been requested.

In this context of non-respect by the United States of their international obligations, the Community has to take a number of formal steps to protect its rights and interests. However, in order not to increase the tension, the Community and the United States concluded on 29 September 2000 an agreement on the next steps of the dispute settlement procedure.

1. and 2. The WTO agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures and the WTO understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes (the ‘DSU’) states that when a WTO member fails to bring the measure found to be inconsistent with a WTO agreement into compliance therewith or C 151 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

otherwise comply with the recommendations and rulings within the timeframe set by the WTO, then the party which suffers from the non-compliance (here the Community) is authorised to ask an authorisation from the WTO to apply countermeasures. However, such authorisation is indisputable only if granted within 30 days after the deadline for compliance.

Therefore, in order to protect its rights under the WTO agreements, the Community is obliged from a procedural point of view to request the authorisation to apply countermeasures early in the procedure. Authorisation will be given unless the United States request arbitration on the amount of the countermeasures. In that case the authorisation of countermeasures is delayed until the ruling of the arbitrators.

3. The purpose of the countermeasures is to induce the losing party to remove the prohibited export subsidy. The list of American exports which could be subject to increased customs duties has not yet been finalised.

4. Not at this stage.

5. and 6. In the Community, direct taxation is mainly the remit of Member States, which have however to act in conformity with their obligations under the Treaty (for example, the principle of non- discrimination) and existing secondary legislation (for example, the directive on intra-company payment of dividends). However, the issue raised by the Honourable Member is different, as it concerns the respect by a WTO Member of its obligation not to provide an export subsidy. Indeed, the measure at stake in the FSC dispute is a subsidy to promote US exports, which is prohibited by the WTO agreements. The fact that the subsidy takes the form of an income tax exemption or, for example, a grant to companies is irrelevant from a WTO perspective.

The appellate body has confirmed that ‘a Member of the WTO may choose any kind of tax system it wishes, so long as, in so choosing, that Member applies that system in a way that is consistent with its WTO obligations. Whatever kind of tax system a Member chooses, that Member will not be in compliance with its WTO obligations if it provides, through its tax system, subsidies contingent upon export performance that are not permitted under the covered agreements.’

(2001/C 151 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3118/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Use of animal cadavers in meat-and-bone meal

The decision to ban the recycling of ‘fallen’ farm animals for use in meat-and-bone meal and feed has led to great uncertainty on the part of the affected farmers, slaughterhouse operators and associations in Germany. It is feared that the new rules on disposal will incur additional unilateral costs.

Would the Commission state:

1. What are the reasons for this decision? Do they have any scientific basis?

2. What additional costs will be incurred? Who will have to meet them?

3. Does the Commission plan to introduce provisions to enable such costs to be defrayed?

4. Does the Commission recognise the danger that other methods of disposal could be resorted to and the decision could be circumvented? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/69

5. What is the Commission’s opinion of the German procedure for producing meat-and-bone meal (pressure sterilisation at 133 C for at least 20 minutes at 3 bar)?

6. What is the Commission’s view of the possibility of introducing that procedure throughout Europe? Could that be a means of achieving optimum consumer protection throughout Europe?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

1. The Honourable Member refers to the proposal for a regulation of the Parliament and the Council concerning health rules on animal by-products not for human consumption (1) adopted by the Commission on 19 October 2000. The key part of this proposal is the prohibition of recycling certain animal by- products into the feed chain, namely dead animals and condemned animal material. The only raw material allowed to be used for the production of animal feed would then be material derived from animals declared fit for human consumption.

This proposal is based on nine scientific opinions adopted by the scientific steering committee, all of them recommending the exclusion from the animal feed chain of materials derived from animals not fit for human consumption. The explanatory memorandum of the proposal provides background information highlighting the reasons for this new policy on animal by-products not intended for human consumption and gives the complete list of the scientific opinions.

A modified form of this proposal, concerning only dead animals, is also to be put to the Member States at the invitation of the Agriculture Council on 20/21 November as a safeguard measure.

2. The Commission is aware that there might be a number of potential problems as a consequence of the prohibition of recycling certain animal material in feed. In particular the cost implications of the proposal are potentially important, because the new rules will make the disposal of certain animal material and carcasses a cost whereas they previously presented a positive economic value. In order to overcome this problem, the proposal also includes a number of alternatives to the production of feed material for the use or disposal of these animal by-products such as co-incineration, composting, biogas products, fertilisers, and the oleochemical industry. These alternative methods of use or disposal allow a recovery of costs. An analysis of impacts is provided in the explanatory memorandum of the proposal.

3. The Commission is aware that in the Member States there is a wide variety of approaches to the financial support for the processing and disposal of animal by-products. In order to avoid this situation affecting the conditions of competition between agricultural products, the proposed regulation establishes that harmonised rules on this issue may be laid down at Community level.

4. The regulation contains the necessary provisions in order to guarantee a separation of the different types of animal materials streams during collection, transport, storage and processing and imposes a reliable identification and registration system for the final products.

5. and 6. 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 (2) establishes that, from 1 April 1997, all mammalian animal waste destined for the production of meat-and-bone meal for animal consumption must be processed in accordance with the minimum parameters of 133 °C for 20 minutes at 3 bars of pressure. Furthermore, from 1 July 2000, rendered fats, derived from high risk ruminant animals, destined for animal consumption must also be processed in accordance with the above minimum parameters. These requirements are based on current scientific opinion and will be reconsidered in the light of relevant scientific developments.

(1) COM(2000) 574 final. (2) OJ L 204, 4.8.1999. C 151 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3119/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Allocation of UTMS licences in Spain

The Spanish government chose to issue UTMS licences by means of a procedure that generated very little revenue. According to press reports, this procedure was deliberately chosen to provide Spanish businesses with higher profits and consumers with lower charges.

Would the Commission state:

1. To what extent is the Commission aware of the procedure chosen, and can it influence that choice?

2. Is the procedure that was followed in Spain compatible with the European competition rules?

3. Does the Commission regard the procedure adopted in Spain as providing covert or overt subsidies, thus placing other European enterprises at a disadvantage?

4. Will the Commission take action to prevent Member States from providing specific sectors with subsidies of this kind? If so, by what means?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2000)

With respect to the procedures followed by Spain and generally by other Member States for the granting of third-generation mobile licences, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that neither Decision No 128/1999 (1) nor any of the Community directives related to mobile services (2) and licensing (3) requires Member States to adopt a specific licensing procedure (i.e. a comparative selection ‘beauty contest’ or competitive bidding ‘auction’). However, Member States, when awarding third-generation mobile licences, are required to comply with the EC Treaty and a number of general principles of Community law which are clearly stated in these directives. In particular, any spectrum pricing method should take account of the need to favour the development of innovative services and competition while reflecting the need to ensure the optimal use of scarce resources. Furthermore, the number of third-generation mobile licences may be limited only for reasons of demonstrated lack of frequency spectrum and licences should be granted on the basis of objective, non-discriminatory, detailed and proportionate criteria. Provided that the EC Treaty and these principles are complied with, there are no grounds for the Commission to intervene or seek to influence the process by which Member States decide to grant third-generation mobile licences.

The Commission has been following closely the third-generation licensing process in the different Member States. However, the Commission has not received any complaint as to the alleged violation of the above-mentioned principles or of the competition rules by the Spanish authorities.

As regards the question of whether the procedure effectively provided subsidies to firms awarded third- generation mobile licences, it should be noted that Member States can choose which procedure to apply and that the Commission has no objections to this provided that Article 87 (formerly Article 92) of the EC Treaty is respected.

In principle, the two procedures for the sale of licences, ‘beauty contest’ and ‘auction’, are permitted under the rules on state aid as long as they are transparent, objective and non-discriminatory. Furthermore, the practical arrangements and conditions of the procedure selected must be such that no form of aid is directly or indirectly granted to the buyers or the activity in question. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/71

The Commission has received a number of complaints alleging that state aid was granted in the framework of procedures for granting third-generation mobile licences, which it is now looking into.

(1) Decision No 128/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 1998 on the coordinated introduction of a third-generation mobile and wireless communications system (UMTS) in the Community (OJ L 17, 22.1.1999). (2) Commission Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996, amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal communications (OJ L 20, 26.1.1996). (3) Parliament and Council Directive 97/13/EC of 10 April 1997, on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunication services (OJ L 117, 7.5.1997).

(2001/C 151 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3124/00 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: URBAN II

The Guidelines for URBAN II were published last May and the Irish Government must submit proposals for approval to the Commission by 19 November 2000. However, it has emerged that the government has decided to alter the tendering and selection process of projects eligible for funding, in particular without consulting with the local authorities and partners. GBP 3,9 million has been allocated to Ireland under URBAN II, down from GBP 16,6 million that Ireland received under URBAN I and the Commission’s URBAN II guidelines provide for one project in Ireland.

Under URBAN I, the Irish Government requested the involvement of local authorities, the County Enterprise Boards and the Area Partnership Companies and invited submissions for funding. However, the Irish authorities have now indicated that they will not accept any bids from the eligible local authorities and existing development structures but through their own consultation and selection procedure, they will submit their own bid for an Irish Programme to the European Commission.

Does the Commission believe that this altered procedure is in breach of the URBAN II guidelines? Is the Commission of the view that the absence of a proper tendering process will threaten the proper implementation of URBAN II in Ireland? What does the Commission intend to do to solve these problems?

Does the Commission not believe that this procedure would breach the principles of partnership as stated by the new general regulations on the Structural Funds (Council Regulation 1260/1999 (1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Ireland is eligible for a total of € 5 million (1999 prices) to be allocated to one operational programme under the URBAN II Community initiative during the period 2000-2006. In principle an area is eligible if it respects at least three of the nine criteria mentioned in the URBAN II guidelines (1) whereby development strategies shall be selected on the basis of their quality, innovation and demonstrable ability.

According to Article 8 paragraph 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general provisions on the structural funds (2), Community actions shall be drawn up in close consultation between the Commission and the Member State, together with the authorities and bodies designated by the Member State within the framework of its national rules and current practices. C 151 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

The selection procedure of eligible areas is a responsibility decentralised to the Member State. The principles of partnership mentioned in the general regulations do not so much refer to this national selection process as to the preparatory phase of an URBAN II programme, once the city has been designated. Any modification of the national tendering and selection procedure by the Irish government would therefore not constitute a breach of the general regulations on the structural funds. The Commis- sion will, however, insist that local partnerships are involved in the preparation and implementation of the operational programmes.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3130/00 by Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE) and Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: ‘Get up and go’ project

Everything went well six months ago in Brussels when the Commission unveiled the ‘Get up and go’ project, to be carried out by a team headed by Dr Rabischong. The project aims to enable paraplegics to abandon their wheelchairs and walk without the aid of orthopaedic appliances. The Commission’s commitment to the project now appears to be slackening. Given that three hundred paraplegics are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to benefit from the project, does not the Commission believe that it has been too quick to withdraw its financial support from a project which has aroused great expectations?

(2001/C 151 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3131/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Commission decision to cancel the funding for the ‘Get up and go’ programme

The Commission has cancelled the funding for the ‘Get up and go’ programme, which is designed to make paraplegics mobile. It takes the view that the project has moved into a commercial phase and can consequently no longer be classed as basic research, this being a condition of eligibility for European financial support. It considers that the time has come for State health services in the Member States and the private sector to take over the responsibility. However, the cost of each operation is beyond the means of most patients.

The results achieved by the programme have been very encouraging and aroused great expectations among those who are immobile or confined to a wheelchair. At present, over 300 patients are still on the project waiting-list after they were selected to undergo the operation and were confidently expecting to regain their ability to walk.

Numerous organisations representing the patients, for example the Spanish State Association of the Disabled, have asked the Commission not to cancel the funding for the programme.

Could the Commission change its decision and continue to finance the project for a further four years?

What help can it offer to the more than 300 patients on the waiting-list? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/73

What steps has it taken or will it take to encourage State health services and the private sector in the Member States to continue the project?

Will it promote a new avenue of research focusing on bone marrow transplantation and regeneration? What form might such a new programme take?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3130/00 and E-3131/00 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2000)

The contract covering the joint funding of the Stand Up And Walk (1) project was concluded for a three- year period which began on 1 July 1996. Its intention was to put the final touches to a programme for the partial restoration of the locomotive apparatus in certain paraplegic patients and planned, more particularly, to implant six neuro-stimulators in six patients in six Member States. That unique project, which pioneered European demonstration projects in medical research, and related to such a delicate, important subject, was carried out with remarkable success by Professor Rabischong and his partners. At no point in time has financial support, set at € 1,5 million, been denied to the promoters of the project. The contract was neither terminated nor put on hold by the Commission. Since the project had been delayed to a certain extent the consortium asked for, and obtained from the Commission, two successive three-month extensions of the project, the deadline for which was reached normally on 30 June 2000.

In order to obtain new Community funding the consortium, just like any other partnership of research workers, must respond to a call for proposals published by the Commission in the Official Journal in connection with the Fifth Framework Programme for research and technical development (FPRTD) (2). The project proposals are selected by the Commission after these have been scrutinised by committees of independent experts in accordance with precise criteria and procedures that have been published in advance.

The contract linking the consortium and the Commission has never provided for the implants in 300 patients mentioned by the Honourable Members. The project involves six patients and the decision not to proceed with more than two implants was made by the promoters of the project and not by the Commission.

As in any other demonstration project the Commission’s role is to enable its promoters to validate the technology before the widest audience possible, which seems to have been accomplished, in order to ease its transfer to clinical practice or to the market by themselves interacting with the various public and private bodies that are responsible for adopting them (regulatory authorities, ministries, industries). Apart from the funding granted the Commission has, moreover, contributed heavily towards drawing attention to the projects achievements (publications, posters at several events, press conference on 20 March 2000 by the member responsible for research). However, its purpose is not to upstage the project’s promoters in the transfer, dissemination and application of their technology. This is even more the case in that the implant that has now been validated is able to marketed. Therefore support more downstream of the promoters would emerge from the precompetitive framework required by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreements.

As regards the scope currently offered by the Fifth FPRTD, the Quality of life and management of living resources programme is open to proposals concerning the handicaps and therapeutic strategies tackling these as part of the key activities: the cell factory (more particularly Section 3.1 in the work programme), ageing of the population and disabilities (and in particular Section 6.4), and generic activities relating to the research into persons suffering from disabilities, and the neurosciences. Moreover, the User-Friendly Information Society Programme devotes one of its sections of the key activity: Systems and services for the public, to persons having specific needs. This includes the disabled and the old. In view of the stage reached by the discussions on the Sixth FPRTD, it would be highly premature at this juncture to announce what will be the future conditions enabling the Community to support the research and technological development into the area referred to. As a result of the part that it plays in the codecision procedure Parliament will clearly be a stakeholder in the work that determines this.

(1) Reference BMH4-CT961501. (2) It second publication is planned for 15 November 2000. C 151 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3132/00 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) and Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: ESF funding for women-only training courses in female-dominated sectors

The Fundació Educació Treball i Societat, the Centre Europeu de Formació, and CEAC (privately run Catalan training centres) are placing advertisements in the Catalan Press for various vocational training courses for the unemployed, which are being jointly subsidised by the European Social Fund and the Generalitat (autonomous government) of Catalonia (specifically by the Directorate-General for Employ- ment, a division of the Department of Labour). The subsidies are explicitly mentioned in the advertisements, which also carry the logos of the Generalitat and the ESF. Among the courses which they are offering, each of the centres includes a women-only course, precisely in sectors in which women are traditionally over-represented (‘dressmaking’, ‘telesales and telemarketing’, and ‘childcare specialists’ respectively).

As stipulated in Articles 2(e) and 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund (1), the Fund must be used to support and complement specific measures by the Member States aimed at improving the opportunities for women to enter and take part in the labour market and to reduce the prevailing vertical and horizontal segregation on the basis of sex. The activities eligible for assistance include education, vocational training, rehabilita- tion in employment, guidance, counselling, and continuing training.

Furthermore, entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Article 141(4) of the EC Treaty, and the aim of guaranteeing full equality between men and women in working life all imply that a Member State should not be prevented from continuing to enforce or adopting measures providing for specific advantages to enable members of an underrepresented sex to carry on an occupation or to avert or offset disadvantages as regards professional careers.

Does the Commission not believe that ESF funding for the above courses is doing the opposite of ending the traditional horizontal segregation of work and is thus contrary to the EC Treaty, Directive 76/207/ EEC (2), and the regulations governing the Structural Funds?

Bearing in mind the general provisions on the Funds (Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 (3)), what forms of monitoring, supervision, assessment, and penalties will it bring to bear to prevent funding being granted for courses that infringe the rules and aims set out in the legislation referred to above?

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999, p. 5. (2) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40. (3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2000)

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund (ESF) (1), measures part-financed by the ESF must promote equal opportunities for women and men, as stated by the Honourable Members. This implies a wide range of measures designed, on the one hand, to achieve a general improvement in women’s employability and, on the other hand, to reduce vertical and horizontal segregation on the labour market. There are two aspects to the Commission’s approach to promoting equal opportunities. The first is to incorporate the principle of equal opportunities into all Community policies and measures (mainstreaming). The second is to promote specific measures, which must be consistent with the strategy set out in the programme, taking account of the specific needs of the labour market in the geographical area concerned. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/75

ESF measures are therefore not limited to the sectors in which women are under-represented, but also serve the general improvement of women’s employability in order to consolidate their presence on the labour market.

Under the new ESF programme for 2000-2006, the Commission has reinforced the dimension of equal opportunities for women and men, in terms of the planning, monitoring and evaluation of measures. The Community Support Framework (CSF) for Objective 3 for Spain, and in particular the operational programme (OP) for Catalonia, make provision for the horizontal integration of equal opportunities, as well as specific measures for women.

For the first time, the Objective 3 CSF and OP monitoring committees include representatives from organisations responsible for equal opportunities, which should serve the effective application of the principle of equal opportunities in the ESF. There is a commitment in the OPs to observe the principle of equal opportunities, and this principle will also be the subject of thematic evaluations.

In any event, it is the responsibility of the Member State to implement the programme, which must meet the statutory requirements and comply with the principle of equal treatment set out in Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (2). Measures which do not meet these requirements or comply with the principle of equal treatment cannot be regarded as eligible.

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999. (2) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976.

(2001/C 151 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3134/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Rules for single-hull oil tankers

Within the framework of the legislative package on maritime safety, the Commission has submitted a proposal for the rapid introduction of rules for oil tankers which need to be converted from being single- hulled to a double hull or equivalent design.

In the section on the impact of the proposal on companies, particular SMEs, the Commission says that it expects this to benefit employment, by increasing demand in shipyards. However, it notes the aggressive competition represented by Far Eastern shipyards, which might well receive the bulk of orders placed as a result of the proposal.

Could the Commission give specific figures as to how many contracts are envisaged, and how many jobs this represents? Can it provide a breakdown showing how many of these jobs would be in European shipyards?

With regard to the capacity of the Asian shipyards, can the Commission state whether they meet the minimum requisite standards for social and labour conditions, non-pollutant processes and technological capacity?

If the major advantage of the Asian shipyards with regard to contracts of this kind is based on social, environmental and technological dumping, what measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure fair competition and equal opportunities for European shipyards? C 151 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

The aim of the proposal for a regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on the accelerated phasing- in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers (1) is to ensure that the transport of oil and oil products by sea is carried out in safe and acceptable conditions, with a minimum risk of oil pollution in case of accidents. Harmonised action is necessary to avoid re-occurrence of oil pollution of European coasts, fauna and flora and harm to the marine environment.

The means to achieve this improvement is by accelerating the phasing-in of double hull tankers i.e. replacing single hull tankers with double hull tankers. It is not possible to give concrete numbers on the impact of this measure upon employment of seafarers as it is not possible to establish how operators will use their vessels in the coming 15 years, nor to establish under what flag operators will be sailing.

The Commission proposal, if adopted by the Parliament and the Council, will increase the demand for new building, which is expected to have a positive effect for the shipbuilding industry. However, it can be expected that due to the excess shipbuilding capacity available in the Far East and the fierce and aggressive pricing policy of that industry, European shipyards will have to compete with Asian shipyards as regards the major part of new shipbuilding orders arising from the accelerated phasing-in scheme, in particular in the segment of the large tankers. The positive impact on employment for the European shipbuilding industry may therefore be mitigated, although it can be expected that European shipyards will secure a share in this replacement scheme, particularly for smaller oil tankers. In addition, European yards’ main benefit from the increased demand for tankers will be indirect, since this could reduce the pressure from Far East competition in other market segments.

The Commission has no evidence that the competitive advantage of the Asian shipbuilding industry is based upon cutting corners on social and labour conditions or on technological or environmental dumping. Detailed price monitoring commissioned by the Commission has revealed that market distortions have to a large extent originated from systematic price undercuttings by South Korean yards. Their prices often do not cover all financial costs and therefore do not represent the ship’s normal value as defined in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) anti dumping agreement. In view of these findings, the Commission is of the opinion that measures aimed at ensuring a level playing field for the European shipbuilding industry should not be based on alleged social, technological or environmental dumping, but rather should focus on the termination of Korea’s non-market oriented pricing practices. The Commission is currently engaged in bilateral consultations with Korea, and has not ruled out the possibility to raise the issue in a WTO context.

(1) OJ C 212 E, 25.7.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3136/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: The fuel revolt

Brent crude has hit a new record in the last few days, even after the OPEC countries agreed to increase production to 800 000 barrels a day, which amounts to 3 % of current production. The fuel revolt has seen the mobilisation of sectors such as agriculture and transport in various Member States. The lack of stability in the price of crude in tandem with the low exchange rate for the euro on the international markets, could lead to a fresh rise in inflation in the euro zone, which the latest Eurostat data, published on 18 September, indicate was already running at 2,3 % in August. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/77

The lack of a joint assessment of the current crisis on the part of the Member States is deplorable. What we have had instead is the individual adoption of national solutions seeking to put an end to the blockade by certain influential sectors, by lowering taxes.

Does the Commission not think that we are actually witnessing a possible infringement of the principles laid down in Articles 81 and 82 which guarantee competition within the internal market? What has been the reaction of the various European institutions to the fuel revolt and the measures adopted individually by the Member States? How does the Commission think this crisis might affect other sources of energy? Is a common but consistent approach feasible in order to eliminate the differences in national taxation, by seeking a global strategy in fixing petrol prices, without any need for a common foreign policy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

In its communication of 4 October 2000 on the European Union’s oil supplies (1), the Commission clearly came out against the idea of cushioning the rises in oil-product prices by lowering taxes. Giving way in this area would be tantamount to transferring tax revenues to the members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and to give them an incentive to maintain artificially high rates, since the effects of increases in crude prices on consumer prices would be offset by lower taxes. Moreover, any such reduction in taxation would be out of step with our environmental aims.

Lowering taxes on an ad hoc basis is not fully compatible with European law even though this is still a long way away from truly harmonising excise duties and VAT rates.

Several Member States recently announced support measures for individual sectors that include, in particular, a lowering of excise duties on diesel fuel for use in road transport. Such forms of action must be assessed against the background of Community law on State aid within the meaning of Article 87 (formerly Article 92) of the EC Treaty (since they are likely to distort competition and thus raise barriers to the creation of the internal market), and in the light of the Community legislation on excise duties on mineral oils. To that end the Commission has already asked several Member States to provide it with full information on all of the action taken or contemplated at national level. If certain of these were to emerge as being in breach of Community law, more especially in respect of State aid, the procedures provided for in the EC Treaty would then be activated.

Moreover, such measures are not consistent with the aims pursued by the Community with regard to not only environmental but also energy and transport policy.

An upward alignment of taxation rates among the Member States would thus seem to be inevitable. Moreover, this is what the Commission puts forward in its draft Directive on the taxation of energy products (2) which has been awaiting the Council’s attention since 1997.

Attempts to soften the blow of price rises by lowering taxes should therefore be discouraged. Precisely the opposite tack should, in fact, be pursued: the excise duty on fuels should be genuinely harmonised upwards. The only means of adjustment that can be contemplated is VAT: a decision to stabilise revenues could be taken if there were a major fluctuation in oil prices.

(1) COM(2000) 631 final. (2) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997. C 151 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3137/00 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Committee on ALA developing countries standstill and shrinking cooperation with Latin America

Parliament is worried about a certain degree of scaling down in cooperation with Latin America, in view of the fact that many meetings of the Committee on ALA developing countries have been cancelled, and that it has met only twice this year, whereas last year it met every month, while measures already adopted by the committee have not been implemented, e.g. the funding of the Regional Reconstruction Programme for Central America.

Nor has the Commission submitted a report on the special aid to Venezuela requested in November 1999.

Can the Commission explain in detail the reasons why the Committee on ALA developing countries is not functioning properly?

Is the Commission aware of the undertaking given at the Berlin European Council that the geographical balance of Community external action would be maintained?

What are the reasons for not implementing the Regional Reconstruction Programme for Central America?

What are the Commission’s prospects with regard to aid to Venezuela?

Can the Commission tell me in advance of publication what guidelines it sets out in its communication on the future of EU/Latin American relations from the year 2000?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The Commission approved on an ambitious programme to reform external EU aid on 16 May. In accordance with Parliament’s recommendations, an important part of the response to this issue will be to review the work of the committees involved in order to focus their activities on strategic programming rather than the micro-management of individual projects. While awaiting new committee procedures, the Commission is already endeavouring to ensure that projects are better prepared before being submitted to committees. Although this careful preparation is more time-consuming, it makes the subsequent management easier and reduces the risk of delays in implementation.

Nevertheless, comparing the project submission rate for Latin America for 2000 with that of 1999, an improvement can be seen in that in 1999 the first project was not submitted until September, while two were approved in June 2000, and another in September 2000. The other projects under the ALA programme for 2000 will be submitted for the Committee’s opinion at the November and December meetings.

The Commission is naturally aware of the Berlin European Council’s conclusions on the geographical balance of Community external operations and is using them as a basis for programming its operations. The Commission has also asked the General Affairs Council to debate the priorities for EU external operations. The debate, with which Parliament will be fully associated, will take place at the beginning of the year and will make budget preparation easier in future.

The first team of technical experts helping the Commission to implement the Regional Programme for the Reconstruction of Central America (PRRAC) has been working since mid-October 1999. In addition, the Commission identified all of the statutory personnel for the decentralised management structure of the PRRAC during the first half of 2000, despite the shortage of human resources imposed by the budgetary decision not to increase the recruitment of new manpower. The statutory personnel, local staff recruitment and the necessary logistics for their work will be in place by mid-October in the new building fitted out for the delegation in Managua. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/79

Despite the constraints, however, a number of operations had either been carried out or were underway by then: the study and local preparation phases, publication in the Official Journal of the pre-information notice of contracts for some of the projects, and calls for proposals for local initiatives in the four countries coming under the programme.

Emergency aid worth € 7,15 million overall was granted to carry out initial operations following the floods which struck vast areas of Venezuela in December 1999.

Immediately afterwards, the Commission asked the national government to submit a list of priority operations to rebuild the disaster areas. Due to the lack of an overall rebuilding plan, the Commission sent a team of experts to Venezuela in April to identify a package of clear priorities for action. The Commission adopted a Working Paper on Venezuela on 28 September: ‘Programme to support regions affected by the floods of December 1999’ on the basis of the agreement between the Commission delegation, embassies of the Member States and the national authorities, and the experts’ findings. It states that the Commission plans to allocate € 30 million to the rebuilding work in Venezuela are an indication of its commitment during the 2001 and 2002 financial years.

The programme is made up of two parts: a package of reconstruction aid in the state of Vargas, estimated at € 10 million, (mainly operations to strengthen social policies for the benefit of the disaster victims) and a prevention package, estimated at € 20 million, for the design and implementation of natural disaster management programmes over a large area of the states of Falcón, Miranda and Yaracuy (a detailed risk map, the setting-up of rapid warning systems, the production of land use plans, the construction of flood- control structures, etc.).

The guidelines laid down in the March 1999 communication from the Commission to the Council and Parliament ‘towards a new European Union-Latin American partnership on the eve of the 21st century’ (1), were to a large extent confirmed by the Rio Summit and remain valid. In the coming weeks the Commission intends to adopt a new communication on the follow-up to the Rio Summit. It aims to define the general principles of the operations to be carried out by the Commission as its contribution to implementation of the priorities established by the Summit. It does not call existing cooperation or the continuation of a strategy recognising the specific characteristics of the sub-regions into question.

(1) COM(1999) 105 final.

(2001/C 151 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3143/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: A discotheque at Auschwitz

Press reports that authorisation has been given for a discotheque to open near Auschwitz have under- standably prompted adverse reactions. It is inconceivable that a place of entertainment should be located in an area which has become a memorial to the Holocaust. The local authorities should bear in mind that it is recognised as such in the collective consciousness and avoid offending the memory of the victims and of the suffering of millions of people, most of them Jews.

Is the Commission willing to express to the Polish Government:

1. the Union’s support for these legitimate concerns and

2. its request for respect to be shown for a place whose name is engraved on the memory of the world because of the tragedy of the Holocaust? C 151 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The Commission demonstrated to all concerned, including the Polish government, its clear stance with respect to the Holocaust and the events which took place, when the Commission President marked the beginning of his term of office by visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau.

In addition the Commission monitors the progress made by Poland as it moves towards accession to the Union, and is particularly attentive to both the establishment of adequate legislative frameworks and their effective application.

In respect of the case raised by the Honourable Member, it has been noted by the Commission that in May 1999 in Poland legislation was adopted regarding the protection of former Nazi concentration camp sites. This forbids public meetings, commercial activities and adjacent construction. It is understood that this legislation clarifies the issue of the areas around the camps, by defining authoritatively the grounds of the Auschwitz-Birkenau site and the surrounding buffer zone, which henceforth shall be preserved in perpetuity as a memorial.

From the case raised, it appears that there were many other buildings associated with the functioning of the camp networks and many of them are some distance away and even several kilometres from the main sites.

To address such issues, and taking into consideration that such foundation legislation is in place, the most appropriate approach would therefore be to first seek a remedy at the national level by the appropriate means.

(2001/C 151 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3150/00 by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: EU funding to combat child sex tourism

The Commission has repeatedly stated that action to combat child sex tourism is an important issue. The Swedish section of ECPAT, the international organisation that works to combat the commercial sexual exploitation of children, received funding from the Commission for the period November 1999 to October 2000 to enable it to draw up, along with the travel industry, a code of conduct to help combat child sex tourism. The funding officially ends in October, but Commissioner Erkki Liikanen wrote in April 2000 that there were high expectations for the project, so that ECPAT assumed it would continue to receive financial support for its project. In his letter, Commissioner Liikanen also stated that the Commission would continue to give priority to measures designed to combat child sex tourism. Throughout the summer, ECPAT tried to contact the Commission, albeit without success, to get confirmation that funding would continue. On 5 September, however, ECPAT was told that its funding was to be discontinued.

Will the Commission therefore state:

1. How, and on the basis of what long-term plans, it prioritises the projects to be supported?

2. What contact it has had with the organisations during the current project?

3. How NGOs, which are often dependent on grants, are to be able to plan and carry out their activities if it takes decisions on whether or not to continue funding at short notice (in this case, it took a decision in September concerning a funding period due to start in November)? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/81

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

1. In spring and summer 2000 the Commission carried out a global review of its activities and human resources. On 26 July 2000 the Commission concluded that it was more than 1200 posts short of being able to manage all its tasks.

In the past there has been a tendency for executive tasks of the Commission to increase, and political and legislative tasks to decrease. In July, the Commission decided to reverse this trend, and reduce its executive tasks in order to have sufficient human resources for political, legislative and conceptual tasks. For a wide range of sectors this means reduction and phasing out activities. In particular, activities financed by small budget lines will be reduced because they are very intensive in terms of human resources.

The information and awareness raising campaigns against sex tourism have had their important role to play. However, in the context of lack of resources and in line with the general trend of cutting small budget lines, these activities will be phased out. The Commission will not make new financing commitments next year. Nevertheless, the Commission will do its best to use appropriations for these activities in this year’s budget.

2. In this case, besides the few contacts the Commission had with ECPAT according to the rules in the framework of the call for proposals published in May 1999, such as for example the examination of the interim report, ECPAT requested on 7 October 2000 an extension of the project duration until 31 December 2000. The Commission accepted this extension. Furthermore, an ECPAT representative attended a meeting on 10 October 2000, during which the Commission explained to interested organisations the possibilities of further Community assistance for activities to combat child sex tourism.

Beneficiaries of Community grants implement the corresponding projects without further assistance by the Commission. During the implementation, contacts between the beneficiaries and the Commission may be established according to specific needs. The beneficiaries are usually bound to produce regular reports about the progress achieved and the results.

3. The annual nature of the Community budget only allows financial commitments on a yearly basis, with relatively short notice. Good management of the Community’s scarce resources requires careful selection of activities to be supported. This does not allow any financing to be guaranteed before the relevant procedures have been concluded.

(2001/C 151 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3153/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Blacklisting

Council Regulation 1469/95/EEC (1) and Commission Regulation 745/96/EEC (2) call for the blacklisting of undertakings and individuals on the grounds of suspicion alone.

Will the Commission explain the reasons for this and how it intends to guarantee confidentiality to the undertakings concerned?

How does the Commission intend to compensate companies and individuals unjustifiably placed on such blacklists?

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 1. (2) OJ L 102, 25.4.1996, p. 15. C 151 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2000)

The Commission would first point out that the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95 of 22 June 1995 on measures to be taken with regard to certain beneficiaries of operations financed by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/96 of 24 April 1996 laying down detailed rules for its application (2) are now directly applicable.

In line with these regulations, the communications provided for are not made on the basis of presumption or suspicion, but in relation to operators presenting a risk of non-reliability, as defined in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95 (preliminary administrative or judicial report, final decision of an administrative or judicial authority).

Communications between Member States and the Commission are confidential. The data protection provisions of Directive 95/46/EC of the European 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 (3), and of Council Regulation (EC) 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters (4), apply.

The Commission would point out that the communications are sent exclusively to the relevant unit of the European Anti-Fraud Office which has undertaken to put in place the necessary organisational and technical measures to ensure confidentiality.

To date, the Commission has received no complaints regarding communications made on the basis of the regulations cited by the Honourable Member. Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 745/96 provides that Member States and the Commission would be responsible for any injury suffered as a result of them.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. (2) OJ L 102, 25.4.1996. (3) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995. (4) OJ L 82, 22.3.1997.

(2001/C 151 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3158/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Out-of-court settlement offices

In the context of the EEJ-NET (European Extra-Judicial Network) project, the Commission is currently working, with all the alternative dispute settlement offices notified by the Member States, and with representatives of the Member States, to discuss the practical problems of cross-border disputes settlement.

In the light of the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, together with the amendments adopted by the European Parliament particularly as regards the creation of out-of-court settlement mechanisms, I should like to ask the Commission the following:

1. What stage has the work in the EEJ-NET reached?

2. Have the organisations involved come to any agreement on the creation of clearing houses?

3. In what form is the Commission cooperating with non-European bodies similarly concerned with the creation of out-of-court settlement mechanisms in the context of e-commerce, and which bodies are these? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/83

4. Does the Commission intend within the foreseeable future to replace in respect of e-commerce its Recommendation 98/257/EC (1), on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of- court settlement of consumer disputes, with a directive?

5. What does the Commission feel about the idea of creating a single, EU-wide out-of-court settlement office for e-commerce?

6. Does the Commission have any views on the idea of creating a single EU-wide court for the settlement of disputes in the e-commerce field, which would continue to operate according to the national law applicable to each case?

(1) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Council adopted on 13 April 2000 a resolution on a Community wide network of national bodies for the extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes (1) in which Member States gave their commitment to the establishment of the European extra-judicial network (EEJ)-Net. Member States now have the responsibility for establishing a single contact point (or ‘clearing house’) in their territory. This will enable the consumer to contact, in the event of a dispute with an enterprise, the clearing house for information and support on making a claim to an out-of-court dispute resolution system in the place where the business is located. In order to respect the principle of subsidiarity and ensure that consumers had easy access to these services it was left to Member States to establish a national contact point. It was not felt to be either appropriate or necessary to establish a central ‘out-of-court settlement office’.

Most Member States have informed the Commission that they are currently considering what structures would best be suited to perform the role of the clearing house. The Commission held a meeting of government experts on 7 November 2000. All Member States fully endorse the establishment of this network. The majority of Member States have now either designated the structures they will use as national clearing houses or are considering specific options. The aim of this meeting was to discuss the establishment of minimum functions for the clearing houses when they first come into operation, and develop a memorandum of understanding setting out some common rules for mutual communication. A further meeting is scheduled for February or March 2001 to finalise these common rules and obtain a full status report of developments with a view to considering a provisional operation date for the network.

The Commission has no plans to replace Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of court settlement of consumer disputes which contains technologically neutral principles covering both on and off-line out-of-court dispute resolution schemes. The EEJ-Net will initially consist of all the schemes that have been notified to the Commission by Member States as complying with the principles contained in the Recommendation. However, the Council has invited the Commission to consider further criteria for schemes that fall outside the scope of the Recommendation with a view to widening the network. These include schemes that have procedures that merely involve bringing the parties together to find a solution by common consent, for example, mediation. The Commission is now considering additional guidelines providing minimal guarantees of consistent and reliable standards in order to promote confidence in such procedures.

The Commission sees the EEJ-Net initiative as a starting point. It draws upon the experience it has of addressing cross border issues. E-commerce and greater trade liberalisation means that consumers are increasingly moving beyond the confines of a single country or region. The Commission therefore places a high value on international co-operation, particularly with the United States, in order to encourage the most rapid development of practical on-line alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that meets the needs and concerns of all interested parties. C 151 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

As regards judicial settlement of disputes in the e-commerce field, national courts remain competent. The questions raised by the cross-border nature of the disputes are subject to rules of private international law related to jurisdiction and applicable law, which apply whether or not the dispute has arisen in the context of e-commerce. National courts can always, and in some cases must, refer to the Court of justice by way of preliminary ruling when the case raises a question of interpretation of Community law.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.6.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3160/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Delays in second Community support framework projects

The completion of the construction the hospitals in Katerini, Pyrgos and Corfu and their provision with medical equipment were deleted from the second Community support framework because of various delays in completion. Can the Commission say what the main reasons were for the delays to these projects? Have the obstacles been removed yet? Is provision made in the new Community support framework for further funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

According to the information supplied by the national authorities, the three hospitals mentioned by the Honourable Member will not be completed under the Community support framework (CSF) for 1994- 1999 because of various performance delays, ranging from technical difficulties to accumulated hold-ups on the part of those carrying out the work.

To ensure that no funding is lost as a result of these delays, the funding not used up by these projects has been reallocated to others within the Operational Programmes (OPs) concerned.

The Commission is disappointed that projects of such importance for Greece’s socio-economic development should be so far behind schedule. It will ask the Greek authorities to supply detailed information on the reasons for the delay and the prospects for completing the projects and it will not shirk from taking corrective financial measures, if necessary.

As the various OPs are currently being negotiated it is not yet possible to state whether these projects will be part-funded under the CSF for the current programming period (2000-2006).

(2001/C 151 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3167/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Cyprus and the Loizidou case

1. Will compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey be a condition laid down in the EU’s accession partnership agreement with Turkey?

2. Will any reference be made to Cyprus in the EU’s accession partnership agreement with Turkey? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/85

3. In the opinion of the Commission, has Turkey, since the Helsinki Summit, made any progress (a) towards fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria, and (b) towards complying with the preconditions laid down in the communique issued by the European Council in Helsinki?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (30 October 2000)

The Commission is very much aware of the Loizidou case. It has mentioned this issue in the regular report for Turkey in 1999 (1) and it intends to raise the matter again in the framework of the report for 2000, which will be published on 8 November 2000.

The Commission also intends to publish the accession partnership for Turkey on 8 November 2000. Its content will be presented to the Parliament on the same day. The drafting of this document is currently part of the Commission’s usual internal deliberations.

(1) COM(1999) 513 final.

(2001/C 151 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3171/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission (10 October 2000)

Subject: Crisis in the olive oil market in Puglia (Italy)

What steps will the Commission take to prevent and crack down on the ‘triangular’ arrangements under which certain Mediterranean countries (Tunisia, Morocco, etc.) are illegally importing into Italy poor quality groundnut, almond and olive oils to be used to adulterate Italian olive oil, particularly in the south of the country? These practices, which have been condemned by olive growers in the province of Brindisi, are responsible for the collapse in the price of Italian olive oil and the poor sales of this product.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 November 2000)

The Member States are responsible for the policing needed to combat both the entry of adulterated products from non-Union countries and the marketing of such products within the Community. The Commission uses the resources available to it to promote research aimed at providing Member States with increasingly effective methods of detecting adulteration (see the reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-1763/00 (1)).

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 111.

(2001/C 151 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3172/00 by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) to the Commission (4 October 2000)

Subject: Obstacles to the contracting of non-EU workers by sports clubs

Recent press reports have highlighted the problems encountered by sports clubs in contracting non-EU players, notably nationals of the candidate countries. C 151 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Can the Commission provide a list of the third countries with which the Community has association agreements in force which include provision for nationals of those countries being treated on an equal basis with Community citizens from the viewpoint of conditions of work, including non-discrimination on grounds of nationality?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Europe agreements between the Communities and their Member States and the countries of association (1) provide that workers from these countries shall be free from any discrimination based on nationality as regards working conditions once they are legally employed in a Member State.

This means that workers from candidate countries who are legally employed in a Member State are to be treated in the same way as nationals of that Member State as regards working conditions, remuneration and dismissal.

(1) List of candidate countries with association agreements: Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia. Co-operation between Turkey and the European Communities is based on an association agreement, an additional protocol and Decision No 1/80 of the Council of Association on the development of the Association.

(2001/C 151 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3176/00 by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Agenda 2000

Following the adoption of the appropriations to allocated to the Structural Funds a year and half ago, at the Berlin European Council, and the determination of the sums to be allocated to rural development policy approximately one year ago, it is now necessary to implement, in practice and without delay, the development measures deriving from these key policy choices of the Union.

The author of this question has been informed of cases of unacceptable delay in some cases, because the Commission received Member States’ proposals late, in other cases because of delays attributable to its own services.

Can the Commission provide information on its decisions adopting the operational programmes for agriculture and rural development in each of the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

Of the 69 rural development plans in all which Member States submitted in accordance with Article 40(3) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1), 53 had been approved by the Commission as at 11 October 2000.

As regards rural development measures financed by the EAGGF Guidance Section which, in accordance with Article 40(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, form part of the programming for Objective 1 of the Structural Funds (including regions receiving transitional support), the Commission has approved 6 Com- munity support frameworks (out of a total of 7 submitted), 11 single programming documents (out of a total of 18 submitted), and 15 operational programmes (out of a total of 51 submitted) containing such measures. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/87

Lastly, in accordance with Article 40(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, rural development measures financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section have been incorporated into 20 single programming documents for areas covered by Objective 2 of the Structural Funds (including areas receiving transitional support) which the Commission is currently examining.

A more detailed breakdown by Member State has been sent to the Honourable Member direct and to Parliament’s Secretariat. In addition, the documents which the Commission has approved have been forwarded to Parliament in accordance with the Code of Conduct on the implementation of structural policies by the Commission (2).

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ C 279, 1.10.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3186/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Negotiations on Turkey’s accession to the European Union and acknowledgement of genocide against Armenians

In its resolution of June 1987 on a political solution to the Armenian question (1), the European Parliament most notably expressed the belief that ‘the Armenian question and the question of minorities in Turkey must be resituated within the framework of relations between Turkey and the Community’ and called on the Turkish authorities to acknowledge formally that the tragic events of 1915-1917 involving Armenians living on the territory of the Ottoman Empire constituted genocide within the meaning of the convention adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

With Turkey’s status as an applicant country having been confirmed by the Helsinki European Council in December 1999, and with institutional activities and political dialogue within the Association Council having resumed last April, will the Commission say exactly to what extent the issue of acknowledgement by the Turkish authorities of the genocide against Armenians features in the negotiations on Turkey’s accession to the European Union?

(1) OJ C 190, 20.7.1987, p. 119.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The Commission considers that this issue is not covered by the Copenhagen criteria.

(2001/C 151 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3187/00 by Carlos Costa Neves (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Milk production in the Azores

1. As the Commission knows, milk production in Portugal exceeded the available milk quota by some 63 000 tonnes in the year 1999-2000, with the surplus occurring in the Azores autonomous region. C 151 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

2. The Government of the autonomous region has systematically informed producers that there is no need to pay the supplementary charge provided for in EU legislation, and they are being led to believe that their ‘reference quantities’ correspond to the quantities of milk they produced in 1999-2000.

3. In August, the Portuguese Agriculture Ministry instructed milk buyers to abstain ‘from charging any commission or demanding any reduction from the producers, until further notice’.

4. The Portuguese Agriculture Ministry stated on 6 September that ‘the government is negotiating with Europe for 70 000 tonnes of milk to be exempted from penalties in the Azores’, and that if the Commission did not yield on this point, the Government would initiate litigation proceedings, ‘and instruct farmers not to pay the fines’, which might then be paid, by the Portuguese state.

5. On the following day, a Commission spokesman explained that ‘this is against Community law’ and that ‘there is no possibility’ of increasing the quotas assigned to Portugal.

6. Given the contradictory claims set out above, the situation of paralysis and confusion in the Portuguese milk sector, and the need to find a positive solution, will the Commission clarify the matter as a matter of urgency?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2000)

1. to 4. The information available to the Commission essentially tallies with that referred to by the Honourable Member. The Portuguese authorities are still checking the extent of the overrun, however.

5. and 6. The Commission confirms the statement quoted. Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (1), an additional levy is automatically payable by all producers in excess when deliveries for a given year exceed the national reference quantities (quotas) which the Council has set for each Member State. Unused reference quantities may, however, be reallocated to other producers and deducted from their individual excesses.

Implementing the provisions referred to above is a national responsibility, and strict compliance with the rules in all Member States is essential to the balance of the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products. A Member State is in breach if it fails to ensure that the levy is passed on to producers who have exceeded their quotas, taking into account any reallocations. The Commission is not empowered to alter either the quotas or the general rules governing the levy. On the contrary, it must ensure that they are enforced and has already initiated infringement proceedings against Member States which have either not complied with the rules or not applied them with sufficient rigour. The Portuguese authorities must therefore take urgent action in compliance with the rules.

Lastly, the Portuguese authorities have drawn the Commission’s attention to the possibility of taking measures under Article 299(2) (formerly Article 227) of the EC Treaty in order to tackle the problems facing the production of milk and milk products in the Azores. The Commission is currently examining this option.

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/89

(2001/C 151 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3189/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Developments with regard to the Accounting Directives

With a view to the completion of the internal market in securities, the Commission has made provision for coming into line with the internationalisation of accounting legislation and for modernising the Account- ing Directives (COM(2000) 359 final, 13.6.2000.

Distortions of competition now exist, with businesses from the EU Member States being required to produce annual disclosures, while comparable companies in the US do not have to do so since over there the disclosure requirement only covers undertakings which raise funds on the capital market and not when a company’s assets alone are available to cover creditors’ claims (see USA Haller/Raffournier/Walton (ed.), Corporate Disclosure in International Competition, Stuttgart 2000, 177 et seq.).

Does the Commission intend that in future the requirements for annual disclosure and audit of annual accounts should only cover businesses which are also subject in the US to disclosure and annual audit requirements or which raise funds for corporate financing on the capital market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

Accounting, auditing and disclosure rules within the Community are embedded in company law, unlike in the United States. In order to inform shareholders and employees but also to protect creditors and third parties dealing with limited liability companies, these companies are required to prepare financial statements, to have these financial statements audited by a qualified professional and to have the financial statements published by filing them with a register. The accounting directives (1) which contain those rules do however provide for exemptions from full disclosure for small and medium-sized companies. Medium- sized companies may also be exempted from the audit requirement.

Although the accounting, auditing and disclosure rules in the United States aim primarily at those companies which obtain capital from capital markets, most important companies would in practice still be required to prepare financial statements, to have those financial statements audited by a qualified professional and to make those financial statements available to all interested parties through private information providers.

The Commission’s communication ‘The EU’s Financial Reporting Strategy: The Way Forward’ (2) aims at ensuring that all listed Community companies follow a uniform financial reporting system that guarantees a high level of transparency and comparability by requiring them to prepare their consolidated accounts in conformity with international accounting standards (IAS) at the latest by 2005. Member States may extend this requirement also to unlisted companies and to annual accounts.

The communication also provides for a modernisation of the accounting directives. In this context, the Commission will examine to what extent existing requirements still satisfy present needs.

(1) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ L 222, 14.8.1978) and Seventh Council Directive (83/349/EEC) of 13 June 1983 on consolidated accounts (OJ L 193, 18.7.1983). (2) COM(2000) 359 final. C 151 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3191/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Pollution of Lake Vegoritis in Greece

On 13 September 2000, the Commission sent a second reasoned opinion to the Greek Government concerning hazardous substances in Lake Vegoritis and failure to implement its depollution programmes. The reasoned opinion states that the Greek Government’s failure to act is contrary to the basic Community Directive on water quality.

1. Does the Commission intend to set the Greek Government a deadline for cleaning up the lake?

2. Are there any other similar cases pending against Greece pursuant to the same Community Directive, for which the Commission is preparing to issue a reasoned opinion?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

In its judgment of 11 June 1998, the Court of Justice found in the joined cases C-232/95 and C-233/95 (Commission v. Greece) that: ‘by failing to establish programmes including quality objectives and setting deadlines for their implementation in order to reduce the pollution of Lake Vegorrítis and the River Soulos and of the Gulf of Pagasaí by the dangerous substances within List II of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, … the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under … Directive 76/464, in particular Article 7 thereof’.

On 7 September 2000 the Commission, considering that the steps taken by the Greek authorities to comply with the above judgment were fragmentary and certainly did not constitute programmes including quality objectives, delivered a reasoned opinion on the basis of Article 228 (formerly Article 171) of the EC Treaty.

In connection with the same Directive, in case C-384/97 (Commission v. Greece) the Court found in a judgment of 25 May 2000 that by failing to establish programmes including quality objectives in order to reduce water pollution caused by the 99 dangerous substances covered by List II in the annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1), Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive. The Commission has asked the Greek authorities to communicate to it the measures necessary for them to comply with the judgment.

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(2001/C 151 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3193/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Illegal fishing in West African waters

In the light of reports of widescale illegal fishing by European vessels in West African waters, which is resulting in hundreds of deaths and threatening to destroy the livelihoods of local fishermen, what action does the Commission intend to take? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/91

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2000)

The Commission would like to point out that the Community’s fisheries agreements with West African countries were negotiated taking into account Article 62 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These agreements, which cover fishing possibilities utilised not at all or only to a limited extent by local fishermen, generally contain provisions governing fishing zones, gear, landings, crew assignment, and by-catches. All the provisions are designed to avoid any clash between Community fishing vessels and local fleets. When negotiating with a non-Community country, the Commission also includes funding for initiatives targeted at developing local and small-scale fisheries.

Such targeted initiatives are meant to enable the coastal states in question to improve their monitoring and surveillance methods in order to combat illegal fishing. Policing the waters placed under their sovereignty or jurisdiction is, of course, a matter for them. Although the Community is not legally empowered to carry out inspections in waters which are under the jurisdiction or sovereignty of third countries, the Commission cooperates as closely as possible with the coastal states in question to monitor fishing activities covered by our fisheries agreements. Community legislation also requires each Member State to check that fishing vessels flying its flag comply both with the fisheries agreements (including as regards submitting catch data and monitoring in Community ports) and with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/ 93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1) (including the satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS)).

The Community is of course actively involved in the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s current work on drawing up ‘an international plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing’. The plan contains a chapter on the specific needs of developing countries.

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.

(2001/C 151 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3195/00 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Research into alternative uses of tobacco

Can the Commission state whether the European Union is undertaking research into alternative uses for tobacco? Is it aware that research in India has led to the manufacture of Solanesol, a high value alcohol from tobacco and also resulted in the production of nicotine sulphate, which may turn out to be an environmentally friendly insecticide?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Community tobacco fund, under its new application Regulation (CE) No 1648/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 with regard to the Community tobacco fund and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2427/93 (1) can finance research projects, including the dissemination of the results to national authorities and the sectors concerned, regarding the creation and development of alternative uses for raw tobacco in accordance with Article 1(1)(b) of the above-mentioned regulation (e.g. more environmentally-friendly cultivation methods). No project has been funded yet on this subject which has been introduced with the new implementation regulation. C 151 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

As for research and technological development in the context of the Fifth framework programme (1998-2002) (2), the research key action ‘Sustainable agriculture forestry fisheries and agro-industry’ within the specific programme ‘Quality of Life’, provides for the funding of research projects on alternative uses of industrial crops, including tobacco crops. The calls for research proposals published by the Commission did not however so far result in the submission of research projects of the required high standard of scientific excellence.

The Commission is aware of the non-food product developments in India.

(1) OJ L 189, 27.7.2000. (2) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3200/00 by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: International body’s discrimination of a sports company which has actively fought doping

For 15 years the company A & V Sport Ltd and the sports group Amore & Vita Giubileo Beretta have successfully participated in international sport and championed the health-related aspects of sport.

The Amore & Vita professional cycling team, part of the Fanini group, has the longest history in the international arena; it has had great worldwide success, winning, amongst others, 11 world championships, 28 Italian championships and 11 stages of the ‘Giro d’Italia’; it has introduced 3 700 athletes to cycling and has discovered and launched numerous champions, such as Cipollini, Bartoli, Tafi, Sorensen and others.

The team’s manager, Ivano Fanini has, in recent years and in less suspicious times, actively fought against doping with the aim of cleaning up cycling, which is now the focus of huge controversy with cyclists from all over the world involved in cases of doping.

Despite the fact that A & V Sport Ltd met all the requirements of the International Cycling Union (ICU) for its 2000 membership, the latter organisation, and namely its president, Hein Verbruggen, first of all unreasonably delayed and then rejected the team’s application for the year 2000.

The International Cycling Union has for no reason refused Amore & Vita the right to register as a professional world-class team. A legal dispute with the ICU on the matter has been pending for months. The team has therefore been unable to participate in international events such as the Giro d’Italia, in which it had previously taken part for 15 consecutive years, and it has now been prevented from taking part in the Giro di Lucca, a multi-stage cycling race held on the sports group’s home ground and where the team therefore has the greatest number of sponsors and fans.

Can the Commission say what immediate measures it intends to take vis-à-vis the International Cycling Union to enable the aforementioned company and sports group to register in the appropriate manner, thereby defending the sporting spirit and young cyclists, rather than the bureaucratic face of the ICU?

Does the Commission not consider that the International Cycling Union’s failure to register Amore & Vita and to provide due justification for such action would seem to indicate retaliation on the part of the ICU for Ivano Fanini’s condemnations of doping in cycling and his anti-doping campaigns?

Does the Commission not also consider that this situation has greatly damaged the families of the thirty racing cyclists from Italy and other EU countries, not to mention the sports company which manages the team and which, unable to participate in the main races, is losing its key sponsors and the chance to allow its sports group to continue competing in future years? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/93

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission has always emphasised its commitment to issues related to the fight against doping.

However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to see how Community law could be affected by the decision taken by the International Cycling Union (ICU).

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is therefore of the opinion that this is not a Community matter and, as a result, it must refrain from intervening. Indeed, the matter would seem to be more the concern of the sports organisations.

(2001/C 151 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3202/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: American obstacles to European humanitarian initiatives on Iraq and the ‘flight to Iraq’

1. Is the Commission aware of the initiative of 126 prominent Europeans, including members of the parliaments of France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, to visit Iraq on 29 September as part of the ‘flight to Iraq’ fact-finding mission regarding the plight of the people of that country as a result of the long- term boycott of the Saddam Hussein regime?

2. Is the Commission aware that the flight to Iraq had to be postponed because at the last moment the Belgian carrier, Bruxelles International, refused to perform the flight from Roissy-Charles de Gaulle (Paris) which had been agreed with, and reported to, the United Nations sanctions commission in good time?

3. Those taking part in the mission believe that the flight did not go ahead because the US Administration informed the Belgian government that the Belgian carrier would be punished by having its American landing rights withdrawn. Does the Commission have any information to confirm or deny this and, if not, is the Commission prepared to launch an inquiry into what happened?

4. Was the Commission informed or consulted about this issue in any way in advance? If so, what was the Commission’s attitude?

5. Does the Commission agree that the fact that the US Administration applies a more stringent boycott of Iraq than agreed by the United Nations should not result in it demanding that other countries including the Member States of the European Union accept the American view?

6. Does the Commission also agree that any pressure on European companies including transport companies to fall in line with the views of the USA, as referred to in question 5, is unacceptable?

7. In the light of Parliament’s resolutions on Iraq (B5-0342, 0349, 0365 and 374/00) of April 2000 which, in the light of the drastic effect on the civilian population and the lack of any impact on the Iraqi regime called for an immediate end to the embargo, how does the Commission intend to ensure that from now on no obstacles are placed in the way of humanitarian contacts with the population of Iraq which are not based on decisions taken by the national authorities, the European Union or the United Nations?

8. Given the opinion of the European Parliament referred to in question 7, is the Commission prepared in future to lend active support to initiatives for human contacts with the people of Iraq and to ensure that the alternative flight to Iraq planned for the near future can actually go ahead? C 151 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Referring to the intitiative of 126 Europeans to visit Iraq by a chartered airplane on 29 September 2000 and the cancellation of this flight from Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport at the last moment, the Commission is aware of this incident from various reports. The reports are not clear on the reasons for the cancellation of the flight. This is a matter between the airline company and the aviation authorities of Belgium and France (the countries of departures of the flight).

The sanction regime, which governs Iraq’s relations with the rest of the world, has been subject to intensive debate and different interpretation, especially the conditions for clearance of flights to Iraq. As far as flights between the Community and Iraq are concerned, Council Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (1) provides that flights are only allowed if the Iraq Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council has given an authorisation. Requests for such authorisations are usually routed to the Iraq Sanctions Committee through the authorities of the Member States. Therefore, the Commission is normally not involved in decisions on individual flights.

Since 1991, the Community has been the major donor of humanitarian aid to Iraq with a total of € 242 million. The Community has continued this assistance with an allocation of € 8,5 million in 2000. The assistance is implemented by European non-governmental organisations and the United Nations (UN) agencies in the framework of the sanction regime adopted by the UN. The Community supports any humanitarian assistance initiatives benefiting the Iraq population within this framework, including allowing humanitarian flights to Iraq.

(1) OJ L 337, 27.12.1996.

(2001/C 151 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3203/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Maritime safety

Parliament has previously expressed doubts not only about the democratic legitimacy of voluntary agreements but also concern about the ability of such agreements to deliver results, especially in respect of implementation.

In the light of this, what reassurances can the Commission give that the proposed voluntary agreement on maritime safety will genuinely add to legislative effort aiming for a safer marine environment, that parties involved comprehensively cover the affected activities, that monitoring and compliance can be ensured, and that provisions are compatible with as yet undecided EU legislation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

In its communication on the safety of the seaborne oil trade of 21 March 2000 (1) the Commission indicated its intention to facilitate a voluntary agreement between those involved in the transport of oil at sea. In part 5.C of the communication the possible terms of such an agreement were outlined. The communication was addressed to the Parliament and the Council.

Since the adoption of the communication, discussions have taken place with representatives of tanker owners, classification societies, oil companies and oil trading firms in order to explore their willingness to commit themselves to certain voluntary undertakings and thus encourage them to take immediate action to improve maritime safety. There is no guarantee so far that such agreement will be adopted. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/95

The added value of such agreement would be that it can become applicable prior to the entry into force of the proposed new legislation and that it would cover issues falling outside the scope of this legislation, such as commercial practices.

The discussion partners cover a great share of the relevant industry sectors, including all major classification societies belonging to the International Association of Classification Societies. Some 90 % of the world’s ocean going tonnage is classed by one of them, Intertanko represents a majority (some 70 %) of the independent oil tanker owners. All major oil companies are represented by the Oil Companies Interna- tional Maritime Forum, while the independent oil trading firms are represented by the Union Pétrolière Européenne Indépendante.

The question of monitoring compliance with the agreement would form part of the agreement itself, but the detailed content on this point is still to be discussed. It may be noted, however, that the discussions aim at a voluntary agreement between the industry representatives. Neither the Commission nor any other Community institution would be a party to such an agreement.

This work does not undermine the legislative process underway nor does it affect the co-legislative powers of the Parliament. As indicated above, the content of such a voluntary measure primarily relates to areas which are outside the regulatory framework, such as chartering practices, effectiveness of private inspection schemes, exchange of information and other co-operation between the parties. In addition, a voluntary commitment of the character outlined above is by its nature a non-legal instrument. Conse- quently, it will be superseded by any legal requirement, should there be an overlap between its provisions and those of Community secondary legislation.

Finally, as has been stated before, it is the intention of the Commission to keep the Parliament informed of any developments relating to this initiative.

(1) COM(2000) 142final.

(2001/C 151 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3205/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Regulation for statistical monitoring of tuna

The establishment of a regulation for the statistical monitoring of tuna is a fundamental requisite for compliance with the International Dolphin Conservation Programme Act (IDCPA).

The failure to comply with this fundamental criterion lies at the source of the new US embargo, imposed on 3 August 2000, on imports of yellowfin tuna and derived products from Spain.

The fact that no regulation exists and no draft regulation has been communicated to the US authorities could provide a legal justification for this embargo on EU tuna.

Has the Commission evaluated the potential consequences of the failure to adopt such a regulation? In the specific case of yellowfin tuna and derived products originating in Spain, has it evaluated the damage potentially caused by this failure to the enterprises concerned and considered possible means of compensation for such damage? C 151 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3325/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: United States ban on Community exports of yellowfin tuna and by-products

The Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme, to which the Community is a signatory, requires the parties to the agreement to draw up a regulation on the statistical tracking of tuna. The failure by the Commission to adopt such a regulation has prompted the action taken by the United States Department of Trade, which has introduced a ban on Community exports of yellowfin tuna and by- products. This is seriously damaging a number of Community undertakings.

What progress has been made by the Commission in drawing up and adopting this regulation? What are the reasons for the delay? Is the Commission aware of the damage being done to certain Community undertakings, which are unable to export their products to the United States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3205/00 and P-3325/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The Commission, aware that the lack of legislation to implement the tuna tracking and verification system (TTVS) could result in an embargo, addressed this question with the United States, on the occasion of the Community/United States high-level consultations on fisheries (held in Washington in July 2000) with a view to avoid this type of situation. The American administration, on that occasion, showed the necessary flexibility to provide more time for the Community to implement this legal instrument. However, following a court settlement after the lawsuit presented by an American tuna importing company, the American government was forced to apply the embargo to all those countries not having yet obtained the so-called ‘affirmative finding’.

Subsequently, the Commission and the government of Spain have agreed that, in order to resolve this situation, the Commission will prepare a proposal that could be adopted in six months time for a regulation to implement the TTVS. In the meantime, and in order that Spain can obtain the ‘affirmative finding’ necessary to lift the embargo, the Spanish administration will provisionally apply the TTVS through Spanish legislation.

These initiatives have been already communicated to the American authorities. The Commission believes that these initiatives will allow the resolution of this problem.

(2001/C 151 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3206/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: EU-Cape Verde fisheries agreement

The EU-Cape Verde fisheries agreement expired on 6 September 2000; meanwhile, negotiations for a new protocol have still not resumed. The result is the paralysis of fishing by the Community fleet in the fishing- grounds covered by the agreement, giving rise to problems for the sector in the face of the uncertainty generated.

In view of the importance of this agreement for the Community fleet and the situation created, can the Commission indicate its reasons for not providing for the resumption of the negotiations for a new protocol?

Can the Commission state on what date these negotiations will begin? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/97

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in the renewal of the protocol to the EU-Cape Verde fisheries agreement and is pleased to inform him of the following:

The Commission is aware of the importance of renewing the protocol before it expires and following a series of preliminary contacts, took part in three successive rounds of talks in Brussels on 19/20 July 2000, Praia 23-25 August 2000 and Brussels 6/7 November 2000.

Although significant progress was made during the talks, in particular concerning fishing opportunities and financial compensation, the two parties were unable to reach an agreement, particularly with regard to quayside transhipment conditions.

(2001/C 151 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3210/00 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Use of agricultural products for non-food purposes

In paragraph 45 of its resolution A4-0219/98 of 18 June 1998 (1) the European Parliament stated:

The use of agricultural products for non-food purposes, e.g. for biomass, makes it possible to create new sources of income and jobs in rural regions. Ecological energy generation from biomass contributes to reducing CO2 emissions. This sector should be supported in the context of Community legislation, in particular by means of tax privileges or exemptions, and, in addition, the use of certain non-food products with a positive life cycle analysis must be made compulsory, in particular in environmentally sensitive areas.

1. What action has the Commission taken so far to comply with Parliament’s wish, apart from the appropriations available in the Altener programme?

2. In the light of current developments in the energy market, does the Commission advocate the drafting of proposals requiring a certain percentage of biodiesel to be mixed with ordinary diesel, which might have positive effects on the environment, make the EU less dependent on imports and promote the development of new markets for oilseeds?

3. Does the Commission also see any prospects for the application of pure vegetable oil as a motor fuel?

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 180.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

Promoting biofuels has been one of the Community’s aims since the early 1990s. In its recent communication on the European Union’s oil supplies (1), the Commission’s strategy provides for, in particular, the presentation of an energy saving and diversification plan at the Göteborg European Council. Among other things that plan will aim at taking appropriate action in order to provide incentives for the use of substitute fuels, including biofuels.

More specifically as regards the questions put by the Honourable Member: the granting of assistance in order to promote non-food crops is not provided for under the Altener programme. The Commission C 151 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

would nevertheless again point out that, as part of the common agricultural policy, provision has been made (2) for the possibility of using set-aside land for non-food crops, but without specific further aid for energy crops. Nevertheless the Commission has noted the proposals made in this area by certain Member States when Agenda 2000 was implemented.

The Commission is certainly in favour of mixing biodiesel and diesel oil. It would point out that this is currently taking place, more specifically in France, where 5 % of the fossil diesel used consists of biodiesel. The Commission has been notified of the French regulations governing this area. The Commission and Member States have not raised any objection. The same type of notification has been received from Austria, concerning 2 % mixtures.

In addition the proposal that the law be used to require a low percentage of biodiesel to be mixed with diesel fuel within the Community had been put forward by certain circles concerned. The Commission feels that, at least for the moment, no such action would be appropriate. For certain Member States, at least as things now stand, any such mandatory inclusion would cause problems owing to a lack of production and distribution infrastructure or problems of raw material availability. The Commission feels that, for the moment, it would be appropriate to leave the option open to the Member States that are willing to expand this sector.

The Commission leaves to the Member States the choice as to which option seems to them best suited to their conditions. Thus, contrary to what takes place in France, unadulterated biodiesel is used in, above all, Germany, and also in certain niches of environmental relevance. It should be noted that the Commission has conferred a biodiesel standardisation remit on the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) which takes account of the various potential uses (in particular whether blended or unadulterated). Moreover, as part of its policy on fuel quality, the Commission may, among other things, put forward proposals laying down the specification levels applying to biofuels (3).

Finally, Community policy favours biofuels while also taking account of their various potential uses. However, a more effective policy is now hampered first of all by fiscal matters. At the moment it is impossible for biofuels to make major inroads into the market without any tax exemption. The Community legislation in force only authorises that detaxing in the case of ‘pilot projects’. Since the early 1990s the Commission has been drafting proposals for directives which would create an adequate legal basis (4) for enabling the Member States to make such tax exemptions, but although its initial proposal was accepted by Parliament (5), this did not receive unanimity within the Council owing to opposition by one Member State. The Commission had provided a wider interpretation of the term ‘pilot project’ authorising limited detaxing in France, (for a quantity of biofuels representing roughly 1 % of fuel consumption in France), but in its decision of 27/9/2000 (6), the Community’s Court of First Instance felt that the situation went beyond that of ‘pilot’. This stresses the importance of suitable tax legislation.

(1) COM(2000) 631 final. (2) Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (OJ L 160, 26.6.1999 and OJ L 194, 27.7.1999). (3) Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (OJ L 350, 28.12.1998 and OJ L 40, 13.2.1999). (4) Proposal for a Directive on excise duties on motor fuels from agricultural sources (OJ C 73, 24.3.1992). Proposal for a Council Directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products, Article 14 1(b), (OJ C 139, 6.5.1997). (5) Amended proposal for a Council Directive on excise duties on motor fuels from agricultural sources (OJ C 209, 29.7.1994). (6) BP Chemicals/Commission Judgment of 27.9.2000. Case T-187/97.

(2001/C 151 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3211/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: EU legislation to combat legionella infection

Last year 28 people died in the Netherlands after they had been infected with the legionella bacterium at a flower show in Bovenkarspel. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/99

There has also been a great deal of publicity about deaths from legionella in Britain and Denmark.

On 23 September 2000 the Netherlands daily NRC Handelsblad reported that the network of scientists in the European Working group for Legionella Infections (EWGLI) had been enabled to become professional thanks to funding from the EU. The network states that, during the past five years, 12 000 European tourists contracted legionnaires’ disease in a hotel, flat or camp site. An estimated 1 200 people died of the disease. The mortality figures are probably much higher in reality, since by no means all countries register victims of legionella or forward their figures to the EWGLI network. EWGLI is not prepared to publish the list of the hotels where the legionella bacterium caused deaths. A list of these hotels may be consulted on the following website: http://www.nrc.nl/W2/nieuws/2000/09/28/Vp/02.html

The legionella bacterium has now accounted for considerably more human deaths than mad cow disease.

1. Does the Commission agree that providing EU funds to the EWGLI network is a mistake if EWGLI refuses to publish this kind of important information?

2. Does the Commission agree that EU legislation should be adopted with the utmost urgency to stem the danger of the legionella bacterium?

In the Netherlands, drinking water legislation is being amended so as to introduce a standard for legionella.

3. Should not the EU’s drinking water legislation also be adjusted?

There is now a BAT Reference Document in the context of the IPPC Directive governing cooling water used in industrial process and air-conditioning equipment for office buildings.

4. Should this standard not be made into a binding provision, and should not binding European legislation also be adopted on the supply of hot water in hospitals, health centres, swimming baths, saunas, camping sites, exhibition buildings and other public establishments in order to reduce the risk of infection with legionella?

(2001/C 151 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3233/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) and Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Failure to publish information about cases of legionnaires’ disease in European hotels

According to information received from the European Working Group for Legionella Infections (EWGLI), 12 000 tourists using holiday accommodation in Europe have apparently been affected by legionnaires’ disease in the last five years. It is estimated that 1200 of that number have subsequently died from the disease.

1. Is the Commission aware that the national health inspectorates, which are members of EWGLI, frequently do not notify this information to the tour operators who organise tours using the hotels where outbreaks have occurred? Is it further aware that, in their turn, the tour operators do not always inform their clients about outbreaks of the disease and usually let the booking proceed?

2. Does the Commission deem it acceptable that information from EWGLI, a body funded by European money, does not reach the tourists for whom such information is literally a matter of life or death? If not, what does the Commission intend to do about it?

3. Does the Commission agree that information from EWGLI must be made public and accessible to all rather than being kept secret? C 151 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3239/00 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Legionnaires’ disease

A Dutch newspaper recently reported that, for several years now, European health authorities had been aware of the identity of about 100 hotels and apartments which had been connected on a number of occasions with legionnaires’ disease but that they would not divulge those names. On 7 September 2000, the Commission published its ‘Progress report on the network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community’ (COM(2000) 471 final) in which it reported a large number of new cases of legionnaires’ disease in, amongst other countries, Belgium, France, Spain and the United Kingdom.

1. Does the Commission take the view that the measures taken by the Member States’ authorities to control legionnaires’ disease are adequate?

2. Will the new outbreaks of the disease prompt the Commission to propose Community measures? If, so, what measures is the Commission considering?

3. Does the Commission take the view that the failure of the national authorities to publish the names and addresses of hotels and apartments which have, on several occasions, been connected with legionnaires’ disease is in line with the European policy of seeking to increase consumer confidence by means of complete and conclusive information (see the mission statement of the Commission’s DG for Consumer Health Protection).

4. Does it take the view that the names and addresses of hotels and other holiday accommodation which have been connected with legionnaires’ disease must be published? If so, should this involve publication of the presence of legionella in a specific location or publication of possible cases of disease?

5. Is the Commission prepared to play a part in this matter and, for example, to use electronic means of communication?

6. What other measures is the Commission taking, and what measures will the Commission be recommending to the Member States in order to provide consumers with information about the threat posed by legionella to human health in the EU?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3211/00, E-3233/00 and P-3239/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The data attributed to the European working group for Legionella infections (EWGLI) surveillance scheme and mentioned in the Dutch paper were an incorrect extrapolation from information on the EWGLI website. The actual number of travel related cases of legionnaires’ disease that the EWGLI surveillance scheme has ascertained is one tenth of that quoted. The correct information is available at http:// www.ewgli.org/.

The clusters of travel associated legionnaires’ disease reported in the progress report (1) on the Community network through Commission Decision 2000/57/EC of 22 December 1999 on the early warning and response system for the prevention and control of communicable diseases under Decision no 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council (2) in its first year of operation were not a reflection of increasing outbreaks of legionnaires’ disease. The EWGLI surveillance scheme has been reporting clusters through its network since 1987 when it became operational. This surveillance shows that the number of cases involving European residents associated with clusters of travel associated legionnaires’ disease has in fact been declining in recent years. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/101

The main aim of the EWGLI Legionella surveillance scheme, which is funded by the Commission, is the surveillance of cases associated with travel. This enables the detection of clusters of disease that would not necessarily be detected by national surveillance alone, in order to allow investigation and preventive measures. The association of cases with a site identified through the surveillance scheme is a starting point for investigation by local authorities and not an identification of the site as the actual source of infection.

In order to ensure the availability of relevant information as rapidly as possible, the surveillance scheme provides that information is to be treated as confidential and used by the participants for the purpose of making risk assessments and prevention. Making the information available to the public could be misleading given the unavoidably ambiguous, non-validated nature of much of the data. Without the rules of confidentiality, less information is likely to be made available, limiting the surveillance networks’ effectiveness in preventing disease. However, the Commission is sympathetic to improving the information available to the public.

In the future proposed Community public health programme, one of the main three strands aims to improve information and knowledge for the development of public health. That includes information to the general public on health risks. In this context, the Commission will consider how best to reconcile the two requirements of confidentiality and transparency.

The EWGLI surveillance scheme places summary information on the problem of legionnaires’ disease and travel on its public website as well as information on prevention to both the public and hoteliers (http:// www.ewgli.org).

Following the two outbreaks in 1999 at a Netherlands flower show and at a trade fair in Belgium, the Commission has been working with experts in Member States and the Community network established by Decision 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 (3) to identify the need for future preventive action for legionellosis at a European level. legionnaires’ disease is already a priority under Commission Decision 2000/96/EC of 22 December 1999 on the communicable diseases to be progressively covered by the Community network under Decision no 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council (4) within the Community network for epidemiological surveillance. The Commission has supported improvements in European surveillance of legionnaires’ disease by extending this to non-travel related Community outbreaks and has supported European initiatives to develop technical guidance on prevention and control of legionellosis. The Commission will discuss this further with the Community network committee in December 2000 and will propose any further action.

Concerning the Community’s drinking water legislation, Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (5) applies. This stipulates that ‘water intended for human consumption should not contain pathogenic organisms’. The new drinking water Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (6) has to be transposed into national laws by 25 December 2000 and has to be implemented by 25 December 2003. Article 4.1(a) of this Directive puts an obligation on Member States to ensure that water intended for human consumption is free from any micro-organisms and parasites and from any substances which, in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health. The Commission considers that the Community legislation on drinking water quality is sufficiently protective. It is recalled that the source of the Legionella outbreak in the Netherlands was not bad drinking water quality, but a contaminated fire hose used to transport the water for use by the exhibition displays.

As far as the draft best available techniques (BAT) reference document (7) is concerned, in the context of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (8), it identifies five measures that operators of industrial wet cooling systems should take in order to reduce biological growth in these systems. These measures are strongly recommended for the licensing authorities that issue permits for all installations falling within the scope of the IPPC Directive. However, no universally applicable treatment has as yet been identified that at the same time takes into account the environmental and health requirements, and more research is needed. Nor is it currently possible to propose a specific level of colony forming units (the unit C 151 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

in which the quantity of bacteria is measured) associated with a certain risk level. In the light of this, the Commission considers that it should remain the responsibility of the competent authority to discuss this problem with the plant operator, and to specify in more detail how the above-mentioned measures should be implemented, taking into account local factors such as site location and climate conditions.

(1) Progress Report on the Network for the Epidemiological Surveillance and Control of Communicable Diseases in the Community. COM(2000) 471 final. http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph/others/network/net03_en.pdf. (2) OJ L 21, 26.1.2000. (3) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998. (4) OJ L 28, 3.2.2000. (5) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980. (6) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998. (7) http://eippcb.jrc.es/. (8) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2001/C 151 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3212/00 by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Take-off campaign on renewable energy

The Commission has issued a ‘Take-off Campaign’ to accompany its White Paper entitled ‘Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy’.

What measures have been taken to implement this take-off campaign?

What progress has been made in putting the take-off campaign into practice?

Is there any ongoing supervision of its implementation?

Has a system been devised and applied for monitoring implementation of the campaign?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

The Commission’s white paper on Energy for the future: renewable sources of energy (1) included an outline for a campaign for take-off, aiming to promote and accelerate the implementation of large projects in the different renewable energy sources (RES) sectors, as well as to send clear signals for the greater use of RES.

The campaign will run from 2000 to 2003 and is focussed on quantitative objectives in different key sectors of RES. It also seeks to identify ‘100 communities’ aiming at 100 % of RES supply. The key sector objectives of the campaign to be reached by 2003 were set at between 15 % and 25 % of the overall white paper objectives for 2010. The intermediate objectives for 2003 will provide a good short or medium term picture of the progress made.

As for the objectives of the campaign, the Commision can confirm that the wind objective has already been achieved; that solar applications (both photovoltaic and thermal) are peaking in some areas with appropriate regulatory and promotional measures, mainly at regional and local level; while the biomass objectives, which need a specific survey in order to complete statistical data, have to be closely monitored. Biogas is clearly increasing. In space heating, biomass has to compete with natural gas, while in transport, biofuels have to compete with conventional fossil fuels. In the context of agricultural policy, the production of raw materials to produce energy is very well possible, also by allowing such production on land set-aside. The success of biofuels will depend on specific legislation as regards their use and fiscal treatment. Finally the specific objective of 100 communities aimed at 100 % of RES supply will definitely 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/103

be reached in 2003. Renewable energy partnerships, signed with such communities, are progressing rapidly and more than 100 potential candidates have been identified.

For monitoring progress in the development of renewable energy the Commission has established a system based on Eurostat official statistics, data from the industry, manufacturers and their associations, the TERES model (The European renewable energy study) used for calculating the objectives of the white paper and the campaign, and a regular survey on Member States programmes and policy.

Actions under the campaign for take-off, including the renewable energy partnership applications submitted according to Community programmes, are evaluated under general rules for financial Commu- nity support. The Commission is preparing a report on the implementation of the white paper and the campaign for take-off that will be communicated to the Parliament by the end of the year.

(1) COM(97) 599 final.

(2001/C 151 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3215/00 by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: EU-UN co-operation on crisis management and conflict prevention

On 15 September a meeting of the UN and the EU took place to discuss co-operation in the area of crisis management and conflict prevention.

What was the agenda of this meeting and what were the conclusions?

Were these issues discussed again when Mr Kofi Annan visited Europe?

What is the EU position on co-operation with the UN in this area, and what role should the UN be given in the elaboration of the Helsinki agreements concerning CFSP?

What could be the EU’s concrete contribution towards strengthening the capacities of the UN in crisis management and conflict prevention?

Will these issues be discussed during the upcoming European Council meeting?

What will be the future format of dialogue between the UN and the EU on crisis management and conflict prevention?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Conflict prevention and crisis management were among the key themes in the very fruitful high-level discussions between the Union and the United Nations at recent meetings in New York (13 September 2000) and Europe (3-5 October 2000), where the United Nations Secretary General met the President of the Commission, the Members responsible for External relations, Enlargement and Commerce and the High representative Mr Solana as well as the Union Presidency.

Other items on the agenda were the developments in the Middle East and in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Sierra Leone, Cyprus, support to the less developed countries (LDCs) and debt relief as well as how to enhance global coordination between the Community and the United Nations. There was agreement that more effective and mutually beneficial co-operation between the Community and the United Nations must be steered in particular by more frequent meetings both at political and working level. Work continues on a more precise co-ordination framework. C 151 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

The strengthening of relevant capabilities of international organisations forms an integral part of the follow-up to the Helsinki decisions in the field of conflict prevention and crisis management. Given the vital role of the United Nations for maintaining peace and security, the United Nations is the most important partner of the Union in this context.

The United Nations has taken initiatives aimed at strengthening its conflict prevention and crisis management capabilities. The most recent is the important Brahimi report on improving the effectiveness of United Nations peace keeping missions. The Union is fully supporting these efforts and is committed to developing synergies with the United Nations. The Commission is organising its work in this regard with a view to enhancing its capabilities. The Council will organise a seminar on civilian aspects of crisis management this month with the United Nations.

Given the need for co-ordination with the United Nations, the Commission believes that the issue will be taken up by the next European Council within the context of both the Presidency’s report on strengthening Union crisis management capabilities as well as the joint report of the High representative/Secretary General of the Council and the Commission on conflict prevention.

(2001/C 151 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3219/00 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Maintenance payments relating to children of divorced parents

Is there any EU legislation in place or pending which ensures that divorced parents who have custody of their children receive maintenance payments from their ex-husband/wife when the latter is from or residing in a different EU country?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2000)

The Commission draws the Honourable Member’s attention to the Convention of 27 September 1968 on the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels Conven- tion) (1). This establishes the principle of the maintenance creditor’s domicile as the ground for jurisdiction, and provides for the recognition as of right of decisions by the courts and authorities of the Member States, which have the power to take decisions on maintenance, and lays down the procedure whereby decisions can be enforced in another Member State.

In other words, according to the Brussels Convention, the divorced parent who has custody of children can seise the court of the state of his or her domicile to obtain a judgment awarding maintenance payments. The decision taken by this court can, thanks to the system set up by the Convention, be enforced in the state of the ex-spouse’s domicile.

The Brussels Convention, which has been ratified by all the Member States, is in the process of being transformed into a Community regulation, which is possible as a consequence of the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. This transformation will also incorporate certain substantive changes including the simplifying and speeding up of the mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of decisions by the introduction of a certificate accompanying the original decision and giving the authority of the Member State addressed the necessary information for granting the declaration of enforceability.

The Member States, acting in the context of political cooperation, adopted in Rome on 6 November 1990 a Convention on the simplification of procedures concerning the recovery of maintenance payments. The main feature of this Convention is to complement with administrative arrangements the provisions of the Brussels Convention, establishing in each Member State a central authority responsible for tracing the 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/105

debtor, having the judgement declared enforceable and taking the necessary enforcement measures. The Convention has not, however, been ratified by all the Member States and has not entered into force.

The European Council meeting held in Tampere on 15/16 October 1999 advocated ‘further reduction of the intermediate measures which are still required to enable the recognition and enforcement of a decision or judgement in the requested State’. ‘As a first step these intermediate procedures should be abolished (…) for certain judgements in the field of family litigation (e.g. on maintenance claims (…)). Such decisions would be automatically recognised throughout the Union without any intermediate proceedings or grounds for refusal of enforcement. This could be accompanied by the setting of minimum standards on specific aspects of civil procedural law’. Following the Tampere European Council, the Council and the Commission are drawing up a programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters, which includes the abolition of intermediate measures (exequatur) for judgments on maintenance obligations.

(1) OJ L 299, 31.12.1972 (consolidated version).

(2001/C 151 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3222/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Tobacco Directive derogation

The common position on the EU Directive on Tobacco will ban the manufacture in and export from the EU of cigarettes of above 10 mg of tar from 1 January 2004 in 14 out of the 15 Member States. It will, however, include a derogation for Greece that will allow manufacture, distribution and export of cigarettes above this level until 2007. Is this not a clear breach of single market and competition legislation which will discriminate against other EU manufacturers, particularly in the UK, who would be affected by a similar social economic impact?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Council Directive 90/239/EEC of 17 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the maximum tar yield of cigarettes (1) contained a transitional period for the respect of tar limits in cigarettes in Greece. This exemption was connected with the socio-economic difficulties particular to this Member State resulting from the fact that the tobacco cultivated in Greece had a high tar content. This Member State is therefore more concerned by the provisions of the directive than other manufacturing Member States. Moreover, changing these varieties of tobacco takes a considerable period of time while the change affects a large number of people as tobacco production in Greece is labour intensive, involving a significant number of families. The continuation of this transitional period is justified for the same reasons in the framework of the continued reduction of tar levels envisaged in the amended proposal for a directive of the Parliament and of the Council the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (recast version) currently under discussion (2). This derogation is limited to cigarettes manufactured and marketed within the territory of the Member State concerned, and will not be continued beyond 2007.

(1) OJ L 137, 30.5.1990. (2) COM(2000) 428 final. C 151 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3225/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: European School in Alicante

There are a large number of Community officials working in Alicante, which is the seat of the OHIM, and their educational requirements could best be met by opening a European School there. The Alicante city authorities recently put forward a proposal on this matter.

Does the Commission intend to set up a European School in Alicante? What are its views on the offer made by the Alicante city authorities?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

At its meeting of 24/25 October 2000, the board of governors of the European schools the intergovernmental body responsible for those schools decided, at the request of the delegation of the Spanish government, to create a European school in Alicante with a view to meeting the educational needs of the children of parents who are officials working in the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM).

The Commission supported this decision.

(2001/C 151 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3228/00 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Oil crisis

Mr Prodi, President of the Commission, and Mrs Loyola de Palacio, Vice-President, have recently met with the chairmen of Shell, BP-Amoco, TotalFinaElf, Repsol, ENI, Norsk Hydro and Statoil in Brussels.

Did Mrs de Palacio take this opportunity to mention the proposal, put forward by the Group of the Party of European Socialists during the debate of 20 September 2000 on measures to be taken in the wake of the oil crisis and the increase in the oil price, that the major European oil-importing companies should be urged to draw up their supply contracts in euros?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

It is true that using the euro as the transaction currency in the oil industry would offer numerous advantages for European economic operators and consumers. Generally speaking, with the euro as the benchmark currency in world trade European economic operators should be able to pay for their supplies in euros as well as invoicing in euros.

How quickly the euro is going to become a benchmark currency will be determined mainly by market forces. What will probably happen is that for example some of the main producer countries will prefer to keep the dollar as the transaction currency, while others, much of whose trade dealings are with Europe, might be interested in using the euro. The Community is, after all, the largest importer of oil. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/107

(2001/C 151 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3229/00 by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Sanctions in Austria

Paragraph 115 of the report by Mr Martti Ahtisaari, Mr Jochen Frontin and Mr Marcelino Oreja on the situation in Austria emphasises that the measures implemented by the 14 EU Member States have strengthened awareness of the importance of shared European values. In addition, there is no doubt that in the case of Austria the measures taken by the 14 Member States have encouraged the Austrian Government to step up its efforts. Moreover, they have also prompted civil society to defend these values.

On 16 September, the press reported a statement made by the President of the Commission in which he seemed to regret the measures implemented between January and December 2000, and considered that in future cases of a similar nature such decisions should be avoided. Through these remarks, is Mr Prodi seeking to question the assessment of the EU’s actions drawn up by the Three Wise Men?

Is Mr Prodi implying that the measures taken against the Austrian Government following the inclusion of an extreme right-wing party in the ruling coalition should not only have been rescinded once their main objectives had been reached, but should never have been taken in the first place?

If so, what grounds does the Commission President have for disputing the Wise Men’s assessment?

If not, how does he justify his swingeing condemnation of the commitments to democracy made by the 14 Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Commission, which took good note of the conclusions of Three Wise Men’s report, welcomes the outcome of this procedure, re-establishing, as it has, the traditional ties of friendship between the Member States. The Commission would stress the importance of action by the Member States in helping to promote shared values, including in the context of the specific problems and developments in Austria. It would also reiterate its commitment to respect for fundamental rights and democratic principles, particularly within the Member States of the Union.

The Honourable Member’s attention is, nonetheless, drawn to the context in which the situation arose, namely outside the scope of the Treaties, which lay down the conditions and procedures for the Union to take action regarding compliance with fundamental rights and democratic principles. These conditions and procedures were not called on in the situation under discussion.

(2001/C 151 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3232/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) and Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Female circumcision in the European Union

Given that female circumcision:

is performed on children between the ages of 4 and 12 in around 20 African countries, ten south-east Asian countries and also in Europe; C 151 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

consists of the removal of the clitoris, the labia minora and part of the labia majora, and in the suturing of the vulva, with the attendant risk of mental trauma, tetanus, septicaemia, haemorrhaging, sterility and even death (one case in every six);

has been performed on 140 million women worldwide, including 40 000 in Italy, where a further 20 000 are at risk;

is performed under cover in unhygienic conditions and in breach of laws on the subject (Sweden, Norway, Germany and Belgium).

Will the Commission say:

1. how widespread this phenomenon is in the European Union and what national laws there are on this matter?

2. whether it believes a proposal for Community legislation should be drawn up to combat this form of torture, including even the withdrawal of economic aid for countries which authorise this practice (a provision already adopted in the United States in 1996) and with provision for deinfibulation to be performed on request under proper medical conditions and for appropriate public information, awareness and education campaigns to be undertaken in non-Community countries?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

1. The Commission and the international community have recognised female genital mutilation (FGM) as a profound violation of the human rights of women. Every year an estimated 2 million young girls undergo this procedure. Most live in Africa and Asia, but an increasing number can be found amongst immigrant and refugee families in Western Europe and North America. The secretive nature of the practice means that figures on the incidence of female circumcision in the Community are impossible to come by. The British Medical Association estimated the number to be 3 000 every year in the United Kingdom.

The Daphne project on FGM in Europe carried out a study in 1998. It shows that the number of migrants coming from FGM risk countries is highest in the United Kingdom (303 454 year not given), France (180 997 in 1997), Italy (133 847 in 1996), Germany (77 795 in 1997) and the Netherlands (56 534 in 1996). Almost half of health care providers have been confronted with FGM complications, and most (92 %) would never perform a FGM procedure (International Centre for Reproductive Health).

Specific laws prohibiting all or some forms of FGM exist in only a few States (Sweden, the United Kingdom and Norway). In the rest of the Community general laws prohibit serious bodily injuries. Many countries in Africa have also outlawed the practice. Sweden was one of the first countries to specifically condemn FGM when it banned health professionals from performing the operation in 1982. The United Kingdom condemned the practice in 1985 by the Prohibition of female circumcision Act. The act is supplemented by the Children act 1989 which provides for the investigation of suspected violations and empowers the courts to prohibit parents from moving their children from the country to have the operation done elsewhere. In Norway the law on prohibiting genital mutilation entered into force in 1998.

2. The Commission is convinced that simply denouncing female genital mutilation and condemning those who perpetrate it would not bring about change. FGM will only disappear if people, including women, are convinced that they could give up the practice without giving up meaningful aspects of their culture. Multifaceted strategies are needed: legislation; education of health and social workers and the dissemination of information emphasising the dangerous health consequences.

In 1999 the Commission approved support (€ 470 000) for a pilot activity in Southern Ethiopia by a local organisation, with the specific purpose of decreasing FGM by 25 % in 2002. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/109

Within the new framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) (1), the Commission will do its utmost to ensure that the issue of genital mutilation in the Member States retains its rightful place on the agenda and that it receives the serious attention that it deserves from the Community. In this context, the Commission will strengthen its information on human rights of women, both within the Community and in development co-operation and will support networking in order to collect data on gender related violations of human rights.

(1) COM(2000) 335 final.

(2001/C 151 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3241/00 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Health risks from adulterated butter

On 6 July 2000 the Commission issued a press release from its Anti-Fraud Office OLAF concerning a case of fraud involving adulterated butter.

The above press release reports that, over a period of several years, members of a Camorra clan operating in the Naples area had been producing adulterated butter on a large scale and marketing it with the help of Italian, French and Belgian firms.

The adulterated butter was composed of almost one third chemical additives, vegetable fat, beef tallow and other substances normally intended for use in cosmetics. In all, around 16 000 tonnes of adulterated butter were produced between 1997 and 1999.

Some of the adulterated butter was exported to third countries, with export refunds being paid from the Community budget. Some was used in baking, again receiving aid from the Community budget.

The above press release does not contain any information on possible health risks.

1. Can the Commission confirm that information from the Italian revenue police conducting the investigations indicated that there was a health risk?

2. When was the competent Directorate-General at the Commission notified, and what information does it have on the extent of the danger posed by the substances used and the nature of the risk to health?

3. When and how were the competent health authorities in the Member States informed?

4. Does the Commission now have a list of firms which processed the adulterated butter in the form of biscuits, cake, ice-cream or other foodstuffs? If not, why not? If so, can it supply a copy of this list?

5. Where were the products concerned sold, and what action did the Commission take to ensure that remaining stocks were taken off the shelves?

6. What conclusions does the Commission draw from the fact that fraud on such a large scale, involving leading firms, was clearly detected mainly by chance in the course of anti-mafia investigations rather than through checks carried out by the authorities responsible for health protection? C 151 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The aim of the butter fraud to which the Honourable Member refers was to obtain Community subsidies unlawfully. The investigations into this fraud are being conducted by the Member States’ judicial authorities together with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

When the fraud was exposed on 5 July 2000, the press release by the public prosecutor in Naples raised the question of a health risk.

The Commission immediately endeavoured to collect information concerning a potential risk of this kind. The early warning system was used to inform all Member States of the situation and to ask the Member States concerned for the results of tests carried out. This question of health risks was also discussed at a coordination meeting between the Belgian and Italian authorities on 14 July 2000, in the presence of Commission representatives. Following this meeting, the Italian and Belgian authorities asked for an assessment by toxicologists. The results submitted to date indicate that there were no chemical compounds which could present a health risk, such as polychlorobiphenyls (PCB), organo-chlorine compounds or heavy metals.

It was established in the investigation conducted by the Italian authorities that some of the allegedly adulterated butter was used to make butter for pastry-making and some was intended for export, with Community aid payments being made in both cases. OLAF has stated that it knows the names of the companies which bought the products from Italy and that it has not been finally established that any of them were involved in the fraud. The names of the firms are kept secret due to the confidentiality of investigations, in accordance with national criminal law and the confidentiality and data-protection rules which apply to OLAF and the Commission.

OLAF has indicated that the final destination of the products is still being investigated by the national authorities in collaboration with OLAF itself. The Commission notes that the question of withdrawing the products from the market is the responsibility of the Member States, which have been fully informed of the provisional results of the investigation.

This incident illustrates that traceability throughout the chain of production and distribution of food products is essential and that the role and responsibilities of economic operators need to be defined more clearly. The Commission highlighted this point in the White Paper on Food Safety, adopted on 12 January 2000 (1). Proposals to this effect have been submitted to Parliament and the Council as part of the revision of food safety legislation. The role of Member States’ monitoring authorities is fundamental in this respect.

OLAF (ex-UCLAF) had informed the Italian authorities of its suspicions at the beginning of 1999 and had been asked to cooperate with the police and judicial authorities. It is thanks to the investigative powers available to the judicial authorities that the fraud was exposed.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2001/C 151 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3243/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Short sea crossings

My previous question (Oral Question QH-0699/00) (1) concerning ferries to peninsulas in Scotland was directed at two routes in particular. Will the Commission confirm that its answer to my question is also in principle applicable to routes linking Gourock with Kilcreggan and with Helensburgh?

(1) Written reply of 6 September 2000. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/111

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission has been having discussions with the Scottish Executive on bringing the routes currently operated by CalMac into conformity with Community law and in particular, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) and the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (2). Since two of these routes, Gourock/Dunoon and Tarbert/Portavadie, are mainland to mainland, the Commission requested detailed information about the services provided on these routes and the very particular nature of the locations served. As the Commission’s reply to the Honourable Member’s Oral Question H-0699/00 given at Parliament’s September 2000 Parliament session (3) noted, the evidence provided suggested that these two services could be regarded, for the purposes of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92, as being in a similar situation as regular services with (or between) islands due to the overland alternative either not being a realistic option or being prohibitively long.

Since the service from Gourock to Helensburgh via Kilcreggan is provided by the local authority rather than CalMac, it has not yet been the subject of close examination by the Commission. However, information has been requested from the Scottish Executive on those maritime services not provided by CalMac, such as Gourock/Kilcreggan/Helensburgh, which may currently operate under public service obligations. When this information is available, the Commission will be in a position to take a view on this particular route.

(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992. (2) OJ C 205, 5.7.1997. (3) Debates of the European Parliament (September 2000).

(2001/C 151 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3245/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Orphan funds held by life assurance companies

Has the Commission studied the problem of ‘orphan funds’ held by life assurance companies? Does the Commission consider that the possible abuse of such funds would be inconsistent with the rights of the consumers of financial services products throughout the Union?

If so, what action does the Commission propose to take to ensure there is no misappropriation of orphan funds for the benefit of company shareholders and at the expense of policyholders?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The so-called ‘orphan funds’ refer to the amount of assets in a life fund in excess of what an insurance undertaking must set up in order to ensure its contractual commitments. This amount is calculated on prudent assumptions in order to meet the reasonable expectations of policyholders. National insurance supervisory authorities monitor the financial soundness of insurance undertakings, in particular whether the contractual commitments of the insurer are covered by adequate and sufficient technical provisions. Such technical provisions are represented by investments of the insurer in specific categories of assets.

Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directive 79/267/EEC and 90/ C 151 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (1) lays down co-ordinated rules for the calculation of the minimum amount of technical provisions, including mathematical provisions that an insurance undertaking must set up to meet its contractual obligations. Directive 92/96/EEC also sets out the list of eligible assets from among which Member States allow insurance undertakings to invest in order to cover their technical provisions. From a legal viewpoint, the assets representing technical provisions are owned by the insurance undertaking.

The Honourable Member refers to the distribution by a life assurance undertaking of the assets covering the technical provisions which are in excess of the amount which must be set up according to the rules used to calculate such provisions. It falls to the insurance undertaking, under the supervision of its national supervisory authority, to determine the amount of such excess as well as the criteria for distribution.

According to information held by the Commission, the British insurance supervisor (Financial Services Authority) has always considered that any distribution of such assets should be made in such a way that policyholders would be entitled to obtain 90 % of the assets to be distributed and the remaining 10 % would be left for shareholders. Some insurance undertakings recently made special offers to policyholders regarding the distribution of a portion of such ‘orphan assets’. National courts are being called upon to analyse such offers and an important test case is to be heard by the High Court in December 2000. This will clarify the situation.

The Commission has no evidence of misuse of ‘orphan funds’ held by insurance undertakings. The Commission considers that it falls to national authorities to verify whether the distribution of assets held by insurance undertakings in excess of investments covering the minimum required level of technical provisions complies with the terms of insurance contracts concluded by the insurance undertakings and other legislative measures or prudential standards set up in the Member States. Should evidence of specific commercial practices emerge that conflicted with national requirements, the national authorities would be required to take appropriate measures.

(1) OJ L 360, 9.12.1992.

(2001/C 151 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3247/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Negotiations with Cape Verde for a new fisheries agreement

The Community fisheries sector is concerned at the fact that the existing EU-Cape Verde agreement expired on 6 September 2000, while no negotiating timetable has yet been set for its renewal.

What contacts has the Commission entered into with the Cape Verde authorities for the renewal of this agreement? Have the Commission and the Cape Verde government agreed on a negotiating timetable?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Members for their interest in the renewal of the protocol to the EU-Cape Verde Fisheries Agreement and is pleased to inform them of the following.

The Commission is aware of the importance of renewing the protocol before its expires and, following a series of preliminary contacts, took part in three successive rounds of talks in Brussels on 19/20 July 2000, in Praia on 23-25 August 2000 and in Brussels on 6/7 November 2000. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/113

Although significant progress was made in the talks, in particular concerning fishing opportunities and financial compensation, the agreement was not concluded. This was because the Commission, in full agreement with the Member States concerned (particularly Spain), was not in a position to agree to the Cape Verde demand that a provision be inserted obliging surface longliners to land their catches at the port of Mindelo.

The Commission is making every effort to ensure that this agreement is concluded as soon as possible. However, Cape Verde has not yet been in a position to set a new date for talks.

(2001/C 151 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3249/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (20 October 2000)

Subject: EU aids for olive oil marketing

At a recent seminar on ‘The production and marketing of olive oil present situation and prospects’ held at a summer school in Baeza (Jaén province), the town which is the centre of Spain’s olive oil industry, the view was expressed by both the technical adviser for relations with the EU of the National Olive Oil Agency and an expert on EU policy from the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture that the EU aids to the olive oil sector will not be reduced: rather, their nature will change.

These experts considered that the nature of the aids will change in the sense that funding will go not only to production but also to other activities such as marketing.

Since marketing is the Achilles heel of the olive oil sector, can the Commission confirm that the reform of aid to the sector will in fact cover other activities such as marketing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 December 2000)

The common organisation of the market for the olive oil sector in its present form, as provided for in Regulation No 136/66/EEC of the Council of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (1), expires on 31 October 2001.

To allow new arrangements to be introduced from 1 November 2001, the Commission intends to submit a proposal to the Council and Parliament in good time. The Commission is currently examining the information collected on the basis of studies carried out and from other available sources.

Pending this proposal, the Commission cannot comment on the assumptions made by the two Spanish experts.

(1) OJ B 172, 30.9.1966.

(2001/C 151 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3250/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (20 October 2000)

Subject: The EU’s cork policy

Following the end of the cork harvesting season which, every year, involves numerous workers in the sector, such as woodcutters, gatherers, cleavers, transporters and weighers in the municipalities of Ronda and Cortes de la Frontera (Malaga province, Spain), all those involved are concerned about their future in the face of the possible emergence of a new material to replace cork. C 151 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

The laborious process which begins with the formation of cork in the cork-oak groves and ends with it reaching the hands of the consumer takes in the axe of the cork-cutter and the factory in which the season’s harvest is processed. All the workers involved in the production process believe that the Community’s policy for the sector must be reformed, to ensure their survival and a secure future.

Can the Commission state whether the Community’s cork policy will be reformed in such a way as to ensure a secure future and whether, each year as has been the case up till now, the Community’s cork- producing areas such as that in Malaga province will be able to go on harvesting cork in their time- honoured fashion?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

The Commission has taken note of the cork sector’s current circumstances and future problems, and the concern which those working in it feel. Cork policy is covered by the forestry strategy (1), which provides for promoting the development of all the forestry sector’s components (including the cork oak) and improving sustainable management.

Specific measures to assist the cork sector are included in the rural development plans drawn up 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). Various specific measures may be taken in accordance with Article 30: investment to improve and rationalise harvesting, processing and marketing; and particularly measures which address the concern expressed about the sector’s future by promoting new outlets.

Projects may be submitted in relation to these various aspects. Support is also provided to professional organisations so that they can expand or maintain their activities in the sector, particularly regarding the processes to which the Honourable Member refers (such as bark-stripping).

The Advisory Committee on Forestry and Cork brings together trade and associated interests to exchange information and views.

The Commission recently defined the measures provided for, which cover the forestry sector including cork. They can be adjusted and given practical shape according to the sector’s needs. It is therefore not necessary to consider revising Community policy, since improvements can be made on the basis of proposals which the trade puts forward within the existing framework.

(1) COM(98) 649 final. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3251/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Community penalties for dumping of oil at sea

The disastrous aftermath of the dumping of oil into the sea from a tanker has proved a full-scale ecological and economic catastrophe for the Spanish Costa del Sol and its tourist industry.

The irresponsible attitude of tanker owners who practise dumping off the coasts of the Union’s tourist regions without considering the damage caused should be punished with particular severity by the EU authorities, in order to protect both our beaches’ ecosystems and the economic interests of those tourist regions, especially during the summer high season. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/115

Can the Commission state whether it believes that the existing Community legislation on this matter is sufficient to deter tanker owners from practising dumping off the coasts of the Union’s tourist regions?

Should this not be the case, can the Commission state what new provisions of Community law it intends to propose and whether there is any Community-level coordination of police controls in this area?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Commission is greatly concerned about operational pollution, including tank-cleaning operations in Community waters, which represents a large part of the total marine oil pollution.

Various international measures regarding construction and operation of oil tankers (mainly through the Marpol 73/78 Convention) have significantly reduced the need for and benefits of discharge of cargo residues at sea during the last decades. The application of these international rules is controlled in Community ports through port state control under Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living working conditions (port state control) (1).

However, the Commission considered that additional measures were needed in order to stop the discharges of oil and other substances at sea. For this reason, it proposed in 1998 a Council Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (2).

Much of the operational pollution from all types of ships in Community waters results from the inability in some ports to deliver cargo residues and ship generated wastes to shore facilities and from reluctance of ships to use them. The directive addresses this particular problem and introduces a number of requirements on both ports and ships to ensure that adequate facilities are available in all Community ports and that they are utilised by ships. The Directive is now adopted by the Parliament and the Council and will become applicable 24 months after its publication in the Official journal.

The rules on reception facilities, waste management planning, financial and other incentives to deliver waste ashore will greatly reduce the need for discharges at sea. The Directive also imposes an obligation for ships to notify the port of on-board quantities of wastes and residues. This, coupled with port-based checks, will greatly improve the ability to control compliance with the international rules. The Commission is confident that the Directive will have a considerable effect on reducing operational pollution, and in particular oil pollution from all types of ships.

The control of illegal discharges at sea is the responsibility of Member States. However, co-operation in the response to such incidents is subject to Community rules. A new decision of the Parliament and of the Council setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution (3) should soon be finalised. This decision, once adopted, will in particular allow the development of joint initiatives such as workshops or training courses aiming to strengthen the measures taken by Member States against illicit operational spills from vessels.

Finally, the Commission announced in its communication on the safety of the seaborne oil trade (4) that it plans to examine other Community initiatives that could be taken to reduce the occurrence of operational pollution by all types of ships.

(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995. (2) OJ C 271, 31.8.1998. (3) OJ C 25, 30.1.1999. (4) COM(2000) 142 final. C 151 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3254/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: EU aid for the European Diabetics’ League

The European Diabetics’ League is an NGO which campaigns for the introduction of prevention policies to limit the damage caused by an illness which accounts for 125 000 deaths every year in Europe.

It was founded in Rome in November 1999, in response to President Prodi’s expressed desire for social partners to engage in dialogue with in all areas.

Given that the number of diabetes sufferers in Europe has doubled in the last decade, can the Commission state how the EU can assist the European Diabetics’ League, which campaigns essentially for prevention?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The Commission recognises the valuable work of organisations such as the European Diabetics League. As far as Community activities in the area of public health are concerned, emphasis over recent years has in general been moving from a disease-specific approach to an approach based on lifestyle and health determinants. As an example with clear implications for the prevention of diabetes, the Community’s health promotion programme supports the European network for health-enhancing physical activity.

Within the framework of the recent proposal for a decision of the Parliament and the Council adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (1), health monitoring activities will include the monitoring of diabetes across Europe. Furthermore, it is the Commission’s intention to exploit the scope given within this proposal in order to promote activities linked to certain aspects of diabetes like self management, the prevention of the adult type diabetes, and the fact that many people learn too late that they are affected by this disease, with the risks which this implies e.g. for the eyesight and amputations.

As for participation in these activities by the European Diabetics League and other organisations, the Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the establishment of the ‘European Health Forum’, which is foreseen in the communication) preceding the above proposal. This European Health Forum should be set up as a consultative mechanism to ensure the aims of the Community’s health strategy are made clear to the public and to respond to their concerns. Representative organisations of patients, health professionals and others will have an opportunity to make inputs into health policy and the setting of priorities for action. The Forum will thus provide an opportunity to organise consultations and present views on a wide range of topics. The Commission intends to launch a consultation later this year on the detailed functioning, organisation and composition of the Forum.

Finally research on diabetes is financed under the fifth research and technological development (RTD) framework programme. In fact, under the heading of Theme 1 (Quality of life and management of living resources), the RTD activities of a generic nature foresee research into ‘Chronic and degenerative diseases (in particular cancer and diabetes), cardiovascular diseases and rare diseases’.

(1) COM(2000) 285 final. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/117

(2001/C 151 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3267/00 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Impact of aquaculture upon toxic blooms

Has the Commission investigated whether there may be evidence to suggest a casual link between nutrient pollution from aquaculture and toxic algal blooms, such as amnesic shellfish poisoning? In the light of the debate over eutrophication, what action is the Commission taking against nutrient pollution within its stated policy of promoting sustainable aquaculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Microalgae in marine and brackish waters in Europe regularly cause ‘harmful effects’, in that they threaten public health and cause economic damage to fisheries, including aquaculture, and tourism. These episodes encompass a broad range of phenomena collectively referred to as ‘harmful algal blooms’ (HAB).

Although it is known that some harmful algal species have bloomed for centuries, and others for thousands of years, the size and the frequency of these blooms have increased.

The Commission sponsored in November 1998 an international workshop on harmful algal blooms in European marine and brackish water, held in Kalmar, Sweden. According to the results of this workshop, one of the key questions still to be answered is how to distinguish natural causes from anthropogenic impact in the occurrence of harmful algal blooms.

Several anthropogenic forces might be involved in the formation of HAB, including eutrophication, disruption of the marine food chains by overfishing, increase in the mobilisation of essential or inhibiting trace metals to microalgal growth, atmospheric deposits (specifically rainwater containing nitrogen compounds), and intensive aquaculture in certain sensitive marine areas.

Concerning the potential role of aquaculture in the development of HAB, the contribution from aquaculture discharges to nitrogen and phosphorous loads in marine and brackish waters is low in comparison to other human activities (agriculture, urban population, industry) and usually concentrated in the close vicinity of the source of emission. However, few studies have been made to determine the fate and understand the risk associated with HAB cysts accumulated in sediments under and around fish farm cages. There is still a chance that such habitats may act as reservoirs for dormant cysts. Further studies may be needed to understand the fate of HAB cysts and other viable units accumulated under farm cages, including the effects of fallowing periods and the potential of cysts for bloom inoculation under given environmental circumstances.

With reference to the second question, since the 1970s an extensive body of environmental legislation has been adopted under the EC Treaty. Environmental protection has also assumed a central role in the objects of the Community.

The Community legislation provides for a range of control measures over aquaculture impacts on the environment, including the use of environmental impact assessment procedures for intensive aquaculture siting, design and operation; limited access rights for water; effluent control techniques involving feed control ratios, limited use of drugs, antibiotics and other chemicals; development of user groups agreements, to avoid use conflicts and to allow for effective area management; and limits upon introduc- tions of exotic species.

Additionally, the development of best management practices through codes of conduct and practice, as well as the use of trade-related techniques such as product certification schemes are encouraged. C 151 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

The Community has recently (December 1999) adopted Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1) to modernise aid to aquaculture within the framework of the reform of the structural funds.

The influence of aquaculture on the environment will in the future be of paramount importance. All grant aided aquaculture projects involving intensive methods must conform to the provisions of Directive 85/ 337/EEC 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). In this context the costs relating to environmental impact studies will be eligible for aid.

In order to encourage clean operations, project investments using technology that substantially reduce negative effects on the environment may benefit from an additional financial aid provided by the Member State of up to 10 %.

Finally, other measures of collective interest can be supported including the improvement of aquaculture sites, the collective treatment of aquaculture effluent, the eradication of the pathological risks of fish farming and the collection of data for environmental management as part of an integrated coastal zone management plan.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 151 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3268/00 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: The impact of long-line fishing upon seabirds

Recent reports have highlighted the threat of long-line fishing to certain species of seabirds such as albatrosses. In the light of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds and the July 1999 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, entitled: ‘Fisheries Management and Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment’, can the Commission outline what action it is taking, or plans to take, to counter the impact of long-line fishing upon seabird populations?

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

(2001/C 151 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3378/00 by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Sea birds and longline fishing

Given the negative effects of longline fishing which kills between 50 000 and 100 000 Northern Fulmars a year in the Northeast Atlantic and given that the survival of a number of albatross species is threatened, what concrete measures is the Commission prepared to take to ensure that EU fishing vessels take the necessary measures to ensure that these unnecessary deaths are avoided? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/119

(2001/C 151 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3379/00 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Longline fishing for tuna by EU fishermen

Is the Commission aware that International Bird Life, supported by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the UK, is campaigning against longline fishing for tuna since as many as 100 000 albatrosses and kestrels are being killed every year because of this type of fishing?

What action is the Commission proposing to take to ensure that EU fishermen adjust their lines so that the hooks are a few feet below the surface, thus not affecting the amount of tuna caught, but saving the lives of sea birds?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3268/00, E-3378/00 and E-3379/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

Until now most of the concerns expressed to the Commission have referred to the incidental catches of seabirds in the Southern Hemisphere oceans. The Commission is gathering information on the extent to which this issue constitutes a real problem within Community waters.

As part of this approach, Commission has requested the International council for the exploration of the sea to provide information and advice on the pressures that fishing activity exerts on marine environment and, more particularly, on non-commercial species. Finally the Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-3126/00 (1) by Mr Davies.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 190.

(2001/C 151 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3269/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: The violence erupting against Christian communities in the Moluccas

There is widespread concern among the Christian community at the conflict in the Moluccas, caused by provocateurs acting on behalf of political and extremist elements in Indonesia. It is estimated that 7 000 jihad warriors have converged on these islands and attacked Christian homes, causing an estimated 4 000 deaths and the displacement of 350 000 people.

Would the Commission consider, as a matter of urgency, sending a delegation from the EU to undertake an impartial investigation of the situation, urging the Indonesian Government to allow unrestricted access for humanitarian agencies and a safe location for those in hiding and encouraging the Indonesian Government to investigate, identify and prosecute those responsible for this conflict?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2000)

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the conflict in the Moluccas, which has caused several thousand deaths in the Christian and the Muslim communities on the islands, as well as some 300 000 displaced persons. C 151 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

The primary responsibility for resolving the situation lies with the government of Indonesia, but the Community has consistently offered humanitarian assistance. The European Community’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has already, since 1999, made available € 4 million in aid, and is preparing to make available a further € 2 million in the near future.

Over the last few months, and most recently on 10 October 2000, the Community has made a series of démarches in Jakarta. On all those occasions it has urged the government of Indonesia to take action to halt the violence, and to identify and prosecute those responsible, as well as to ensure unrestricted access for humanitarian aid and security for those displaced.

A mission of Union ambassadors in Jakarta visited the Moluccas on 12/13 October 2000 in order to assess the situation on the spot. This visit was an opportunity to highlight Union concerns in discussions with all parties involved.

(2001/C 151 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3271/00 by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Single price for books in Europe

During the last weekend of September 2000, a symposium on a single price for books in Europe was held in Strasbourg.

The symposium highlighted the numerous benefits of using such a system for the Member States and their positive impact on European cultural policy. Unfortunately, this principle has not yet been sanctioned by the Commission.

In view of the growing number of countries adopting this principle in various forms, should the Commission not give practical support to such a symbolic cultural initiative?

This practice is actually being called into question in fact since, although the Commission claims to respect national law, it is furthering its circumvention through safeguarding online bookshops and the freedom of commercial outlets opened up by the Internet.

What practical measures does the Commission plan to take to reconcile this variation on the principle of ‘cultural exception’ and the principle of not obstructing the free movement of goods and services, and over what period of time?

How does the Commission explain the presence at the symposium of Mr Monti, the Commissioner responsible for competition, instead of Mrs Reding, the Commissioner responsible for cultural affairs?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

There is no single view among Member States regarding the issue of book pricing, but there is a wide range of solutions. Even those Member States that form a homogeneous language area with another Member State are not all in favour of fixed prices for books. Within Member States, and even in publishing and the distributive sector, opinions as to the merits of the systems of fixed book prices remain divided.

Under these circumstances, it would seem justified to leave it to each Member State to accept or to lay down, in accordance with Community law, special book pricing arrangements.

National systems of fixed book prices may be based on national legislation or on agreements between firms or between publishers and booksellers. Different provisions of the EC Treaty will apply. Statutory systems need to be examined in the light of Article 28 (former Article 30), while agreements between firms need to be compatible with Article 81 (former Article 85). In both cases, the case law of the Court of Justice must, of course, be complied with. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/121

As regards statutory systems, any Member State may adopt the relevant legislation provided that it is compatible with the principle of free movement of goods enshrined in the EC Treaty. This decision is a matter for the national authorities. In its judgment of 10 January 1985 in Leclerc (Case 229/83 [1985] ECR 1) concerning French legislation as it stood at the time, the Court of Justice ruled that, in the context of national legislation introducing a system of fixed book prices, the following constitute measures equivalent in effect to import restrictions prohibited by Article 30 (now Article 28) of the EC Treaty: ‘provisions whereby the importer responsible for complying with the statutory requirement to deposit one copy of each imported book with the authorities, that is to say the principal distributor, is responsible for fixing the retail price’ and ‘provisions requiring the retail price fixed by the publisher to be applied to books published in the Member State concerned and re-imported following exportation to another Member State, unless it is established that those books were exported for the sole purpose of re- importation in order to circumvent the legislation in question’.

In its judgment of 3 October 2000 in Case C-9/99, the Court of Justice confirmed that Article 3(c) and (g) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 3(c) and (g) EC), Articles 3a and 5 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 4 and 10 EC), the second paragraph of Article 7a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the second paragraph of Article 14 EC) and Articles 102a and 103 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 98 and 99 EC) do not preclude the application of national legislation requiring publishers to impose on booksellers fixed prices for the resale of books.

The Commission takes the view that national systems of fixed book prices based on agreements between firms are compatible with the Community competition rules provided that they do not significantly affect trade between Member States. Article 81 does not apply in such situations.

Pursuant to Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty, the Community takes cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of the Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures.

While not envisaging any practical measures, the Commission will ensure that, in all cases involving the application of the principles of free movement of goods and services and the rules of competition, any cultural aspects that arise will be taken into account.

As regards its presence at the symposium on a single price for books in Europe, organised by the French Presidency on 29 and 30 September in Strasbourg, the Commission was represented by senior officials from the Directorates-General for Competition and for Education and Culture.

(2001/C 151 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3288/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Strategic oil reserves

Under Community law, Member States are required to maintain minimum reserves of crude oil and/or oil products. In order to comply with this Community obligation, the governments of the Member States require oil companies to maintain at all times a strategic reserve equivalent to ninety days’ supply. The oil industry receives compensation from governments for the cost of maintaining the strategic reserve. In Belgium for example, such compensation is worth approximately BEF 3 billion per annum.

According to press reports, in recent months when oil prices were high the oil industry has sold large quantities of cheap oil from these strategic reserves at huge profit.

Does the Commission have exact figures on failure to comply with the requirement to keep strategic reserves and is it considering legislative proposals to (i) introduce effective penalties for such non- compliance and (ii) ensure that fuel bought and stored when prices are low cannot be speculatively released and sold at many times the real, original price, but instead is used to stem the price rise? C 151 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (1) as amended by Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14 December 1998 (2), requires Member States to maintain stocks equivalent to 90 days’ consumption for each of the three main categories of petroleum products (3) for energy uses, so that those stocks can be used in the event of supply disruptions to replace all or part of the shortfall. Member States have a great deal of flexibility as to how they implement these Directives. In practice, stockholding systems and the way in which they are funded vary greatly between Member States. For example, some Member States have set up bodies responsible for holding all or part of the stocks, while others have not. The question by the Honourable Member refers to the situation in Belgium. As Belgium has no stockholding agency, compliance with the Community stockholding obligation therefore depends entirely on the stocks held by the Belgian industry in accordance with the obligations imposed on it by the Belgian State. The cost of such stocks is borne by the industry and not by the Belgian State (4).

Belgium currently meets the Community stockholding requirement (i.e. holds stocks exceeding 90 days’ consumption) for two of the three categories of products concerned. However, the Community 90 day requirement is not met for category II, namely middle distillates (5). This is mainly due to the fact that in the past, the Belgian system did not consider international aviation bunkers as giving rise to a stockholding obligation (6). Even taking account of the fact that the current situation on the oil market is not conducive to solving this problem, the Commission should examine it in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

Finally, the Honourable Member refers to the problem of stocks purchased when prices are low and sold later at a higher price. Where the stocks form part of the mandatory stocks, they cannot be sold if no instructions are given by the government (7).

(1) OJ L 308, 23.12.1968. (2) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998. (3) The stockholding of crude oil in place of products is authorised under certain conditions. (4) Moreover, as Belgium is one of the few Member States to still apply a maximum price regime to certain petroleum products, these maximum prices as determined by the ‘programme contract’ take account of these stockholding costs. (5) On 31.7.2000, Belgian stocks of category I represented 101 days’ consumption, category II 83 days and category III 223 days. (6) On 31.7.2000, stocks of jet fuel of the kerosene type were only 27 days (for other category II products: 91 days). (7) Where the system of security stocks is based on stockholding obligations placed on industry, Member States are required under the Community Directives to introduce mechanisms for the regular verification of compliance and a regime of sanctions. In accordance with these mechanisms, a Belgian oil company was convicted by a Court of First Instance in December 1998 and the sentence upheld in the Court of Appeal in October 1999.

(2001/C 151 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3291/00

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Publicising the work of the EU

The European Union has a wide-ranging impact on social and economic life in Europe; its initiatives are supported by a large majority of the population in most Member States, at least according to the public opinion surveys regularly carried out by Eurostat in the 15 Member States. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/123

What Community legislation exists to publicise the work of the EU institutions through the Member States’ media? Is publicising the work of the EU institutions the sole preserve of the Member States or do the Commission’s departments take additional measures and, if so, what are they?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Community institutions together with the Member States provide the citizens with information on Community policies and initiatives, decision-taking and the progress of European integration in order to help bring them closer to the Community.

The Community budget has a title (B-3) specifically for communication and information activities; in 2000 it was allocated € 93,5 million.

An interinstitutional working party consisting of representatives of Parliament and the Commission lays down the themes of common interest and coordinates information activities.

Information measures are implemented by the Commission and Parliament often in partnership with the Member States. There are three types of measure: those carried out by the Representations in the Member States (direct communication and dissemination of information), those carried out from Commission headquarters (analyses of public opinion, publications on Community policies for the general public) and those carried out in partnership with the Member States under agreements for information campaigns on European citizenship (euro, Intergovernmental Conference).

(2001/C 151 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3292/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Destruction of the wetland habitat of the Messolonghi lagoon

The Commission has been notified on numerous occasions of the damage and destruction caused to the wetland habitat of the Messolonghi lagoon, which, inter alia, is protected under the Ramsar Convention. Recent surveys and photographs of the lagoon show that there has been illegal development in the area consisting of unauthorised construction of holiday homes which have also been supplied with electricity, water and telephone-lines to consolidate the situation; work has even begun on the construction of a sewerage system. Earth is also being dumped in the area on a daily basis, even within zone A of the wetland, threatening the flora and fauna of the ecosystem. In view of the fact that this situation constitutes a breach of the international Ramsar Convention and of Community Directives 74/409/EEC, 92/43/EEC and 85/337/EEC, and that Greece has designated the Ambracian Gulf and the Messolonghi lagoon protected areas pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 74/409/EEC, will the Commission say whether Greece has notified it of the particular measures it has taken to protect those areas and what measures it has taken to preserve the wetland habitat of the Messolonghi lagoon, an area of paramount environmental importance? Will the Commission intervene to put an end to these constant violations?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Messolunghi lagoon is part of a special protection area classified by Greece under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). The same area is also proposed as a site of Community importance under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). C 151 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

In view of the natural value of this wetland and its Community and international importance (Ramsar Convention), appropriate measures must be taken by the Greek authorities for its protection and conservation.

It is the responsibility of the national authorities to monitor the unlawful activities reported by the Honourable Member. However, these activities suggest that there has been a deterioration of the area and on that basis the Commission will be contacting the Greek authorities in order to obtain information about the action being taken to protect the Messolunghi lagoon and the specific measures being taken to safeguard its ecological interests.

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

(2001/C 151 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3295/00 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Cross-subsidisation and setting-off of losses in the railway sector

In its notice on the application of the competition rules to the postal sector and on the assessment of certain State measures relating to postal services (1), the Commission states that: ‘Avoiding cross-subsidisation leading to unfair competition is crucial for the development of the postal sector … . By contrast, subsidising activities open to competition by allocating their costs to reserved services is likely to distort competition in breach of Article 86. It could amount to an abuse by an undertaking holding a dominant position within the Community. (p. 10). The Commission also considered that, in the context of the application of Articles 90 and 92,’ the Member State concerned [was invited] to make sure that the postal operator adopted an analytical cost-accounting system’ (p. 14). The Commission is currently examining the accusation that the German Post Office operated setting-off of losses and cross-subsidisation of the parcels service by means of monopoly revenue from the letter service.

In Belgium, the logistics and transport firm of ABX Logistics (goods transport by road) has emerged alongside the national railway operator SNCB. ABX Logistics owns a large sector of the market in the Benelux area in this transport sector and is in direct competition with private haulage firms, since it has also purchased transport firms in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Korea.

1. To what extent are the rules which the Commission has enacted in the field of postal services pursuant to Articles 82 and 87 of the EC Treaty also applicable to the railway sector and to the case of SNCB v. ABX Logistics?

2. Can the Commission guarantee that there is no instance in this case of unfair competition by means of cross-subsidisation and setting-off of losses on the part of SNCB? If not, what measures does the Commission propose to take?

3. Is ABX Logistics not under an obligation, in view of its economic activity, to introduce a separate ‘analytical cost-accounting system’?

(1) OJ C 39, 6.2.1998.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

1. The notice mentioned by the Honourable Member sets out the Commission’s interpretation of relevant Treaty provisions and the guiding principles according to which the Commission intends to apply the competition rules in the postal sector in individual cases. Consequently, the notice does not a priori apply directly to the transport sector. However, since Articles 82 and 87 (ex Articles 86 and 92) of 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/125

the EC Treaty also apply to the transport sector in general and to the railway sector in particular, it can be assumed that the general principles in the notice and which can be derived from these articles may, where appropriate, apply also in the transport sector in individual cases.

2. In so far as the Honourable Member refers to the situation of SNCB and ABX-Logistics, it should be noted that the Commission is currently investigating the issue under relevant state aid provisions. Obviously, the Commission cannot prejudge the outcome of this investigation and, as the Honourable Member will understand, can neither give any guarantees, nor propose any measures before the investigation has been concluded.

3. The ‘Transparency Directive’ Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (1), obliges undertakings, which, on the one hand, provide services of general economic interest and receive compensation for this in whatsoever form and, on the other hand, are also active outside these services, to operate a system of separate accounts. However, this obligation does not apply to sectors already covered by specific rules on transparency. As far as inland transport is concerned, such rules exist for undertakings operating services subject to public service obligations (2) and also for railway undertakings in general (3).

Consequently, insofar as ABX-Logistics operates in a sector not covered by specific rules on transparency and, in addition to its normal commercial activities, provides services of general economic interest for which it receive compensation, it has to apply an accounting system in accordance with the ‘Transparency Directive’.

(1) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000. (2) Council Regulation 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, (OJ L 156, 28.6.1969) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 (OJ L 169, 29.6.1991). (3) Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, (OJ L 237, 24.8.1991).

(2001/C 151 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3297/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Tobacco advertising/sponsorship

Which Member States now prohibit the advertising of cigarettes:

(a) on television,

(b) at cinemas,

(d) on roadside billboards?

What other Member States have announced that they will introduce such prohibitions and by what dates?

Which Member States have prohibited the sponsorship of sporting and cultural activities by tobacco manufacturers, or have specified that such bans will be introduced?

Which Member States have introduced prohibitions, or have announced that they will introduce prohibitions, on the giving of donations to political parties by:

(a) tobacco manufacturers,

(b) any commercial organisation in secret? C 151 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Article 6(2) of former Directive 98/43/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998, on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (1) required Member States to communicate to the Commission the main provisions of domestic law they adopt in the field covered by the Directive.

However, no Member State has made such communication. This did not entail an infringement of Community legislation, as the deadline for compliance with the Directive was 30 July 2001. In these circumstances, the Commission is not in a position to provide the information requested by the Honourable Member.

Following the annulment of Directive 98/43/EC by the Court of justice on 5 October 2000, Member States are no longer obliged to communicate to the Commission their legislation in the field of advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products.

Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 (2) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (3) lays down the legal framework for television broadcasting within the Community. It prohibits all forms of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products. In addition, television programmes may not be sponsored by undertakings whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. All Member States have implemented these provisions.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998. (2) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. (3) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.

(2001/C 151 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3299/00

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Generic Medicines

Generic medicines are playing an important role within EU public healthcare but in contrast to most of the generic industries outside the EU, EU-legislation does not allow for experimental use and testing for registration purposes. The European Parliament has asked for similar legislation which would mean saving 13 000 jobs in the EU and permitting it to be competitive.

The Commission in its Communication on the Single Market in Pharmaceuticals (COM(98) 588) committed itself to ensuring that consumers have access to lower-prices generic medicines as soon as possible after the patent protection of the originator product expires.

What action is the Commission taking to introduce legislation to ensure that European generic manufacturers remain internationally competitive and that patients have access to affordable medicines? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/127

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Commission is currently undertaking a review of the regulatory process, and a final report is expected shortly. As regards the effects of patent protection, it should be noted that it is possible to register a generic product using data generated elsewhere, which means that generic products are often able to come to market within the Community immediately upon patent expiry. The Commission currently has no plans to propose changes to the patent position, although it naturally remains open to the views of producers and consumers of pharmaceutical products on this question.

(2001/C 151 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3300/00 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Soy products

There are different opinions on the benefits of the consumption of soy products: on the one hand the United States Food and Drug Administration has allowed most soy products to have ‘health claims’ labelling but independent scientists claim that increased consumption of soy products can provoke serious health hazards, with defects or chronic diseases, such as vaginal adenocarcinoma or penile deformities in new-born babies.

Is the Commission doing any research on the effects of soy consumption on human beings?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that a research project is about to be funded on the effects of soy consumption on human beings within the scope of key action 1 (Food, nutrition and health) of the specific programme ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’ of the Fifth framework programme for Research and technological development (RTD) (1). This project has been negotiated successfully and is in the procedure of selection by the Commission. It is entitled ‘The prevention of osteoporosis by nutritional phytoestrogens’. The coordinator is Dr Francesco Branca of the Istituto nazionale di ricerca per gli alimenti e la nutrizione in Italy. A large-scale, multicentre, randomised intervention trial will be conducted in three Member States using specially designed foods that are enriched with isoflavones isolated from soy. Acceptability of these foods among the target population (women 45 years old and more) and expectations created by different nutritional claims will be addressed by a survey in five Member States.

Another project was funded in the fourth framework programme within the programme FAIR. This project, entitled ‘Phenolic phytoprotectants (PPP) Role in preventing initiation, promotion and progres- sion of cancer’, was coordinated by Dr Herman Adlercreutz of the University of Helsinki and ended in December 1998. The objectives were to identify and quantify PPPs in plants and foods including soy products, assess their bioavailability and the role of intestinal microflora in their metabolism as well as to evaluate anticancer effects. A soy-PPP-containing diet had no anticarcinogenic effect in a mouse model in short-term experiments. However, when rats were fed with soy before and after transplantation of rat prostate cancer into the back of the animals, there was a significant delay in the development of the cancer. C 151 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

To the Commission’s knowledge, there is no scientific evidence proving that normal consumption of soy is harmful. Abnormalities in the reproductive systems do not occur in the Oriental countries, where the consumption of soy products is a part of the traditional diet. There are questions however, as to whether a very high consumption of isoflavones over an extended period, may have harmful effects. The Commission therefore agrees that more research is needed in order to clarify whether high dosage exposure to isoflavones over an extended period may have adverse effects. Proposals in this area of research may be submitted in the frame of key action 1 (Food, nutrition and health) of the specific programme ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’ of the fifth framework programme.

(1) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3302/00 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Turkey and human rights

Last March the Turkish trade unionist, Suleyman Yeter, died in police custody after suffering torture. In the opinion of Commissioner Verheugen what consequences does this apparent blatant breach of human rights have on Turkey’s application for membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

According to the Commission’s information, Mr Suleyman Yeter, member and education expert of Limter- Is Union died in detention on 7 March 1999. Three police officers are currently on trial for causing his death. A court hearing took place on 23 October 2000 in the Istanbul No 6 Heavy Penal Court and the court is still in the process of hearing witnesses. Prison sentences of up to 13 years are demanded against the police officers.

The Commission is monitoring closely developments in the human rights situation in Turkey, and made a general assessment of this situation in its annual regular report on the progress of Turkey towards accession, adopted on 8 November 2000.

(2001/C 151 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3305/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Lido Pizzo

Does the Commission intend to take immediate action to ascertain the compatibility of the building projects (for holiday homes) in the area known as Lido Pizzo near Gallipoli (Apulia, Italy) which the Italian government has authorised and even (according to press reports) granted funding to under the ‘Sviluppo Italia’ national development scheme?

The problem is that this area has been listed as an SCI (site of Community importance) and should therefore be the subject of environmental protection. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/129

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the case mentioned. The site mentioned does not appear under the list of sites of Community importance proposed by Italy.

Based on the information available, the Commission is not in a position to conclude there is a potential infringement of Community legislation.

Should the Honourable Member be in a position to forward detailed information on the location and the type of infringement, the Commission will assess it.

(2001/C 151 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3307/00 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: European Union sugar regime

I have been informed by angry farmers in the East of England that the European Union has proposed a Regulation that will allow 48 of the least developed countries access to the EU sugar market to the tune of 2,2 million tons per year.

The Region that I represent produces about 70 % of UK sugar, with four major factories in Norfolk and Suffolk being supplied.

The farmers advise me that the proposed European Union Regulation will have a devastating effect on sugar beet production in my Region.

Will the European Commission please inform me what their assessment is of the effect of the proposed Regulation on the sugar beet industry in the East of England?

In particular, please inform me whether you agree with the assessment of Mr Kevin Field, Managing Director of British Sugar, plc. and Mr Adrian Gill, CBE, President of the National Farmers Union, that the Regulation will have these effects:

1. Immediate quota cuts?

2. Significant job losses?

3. The reduction of UK sugar processing?

4. The loss of one of the few reliable break crops for arable producers?

5. Decreasing the value of current trade concessions to existing ACP procedures?

6. An increase in EU expenditure through the sales to intervention of both beet sugar and ACP sugar?

7. A discriminatory impact on the UK, since much of the European Union’s raw sugar refining capacity is located in this country?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to the recent Commission trade proposal for a Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 - 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least-developed countries (1). C 151 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

When drawing up its proposal the Commission recognised that a risk did indeed exist that imports of sensitive agricultural products such as sugar might increase above traditional levels with a resulting disturbance of the market organisations concerned. For this reason, free access is envisaged to be phased in over a transitional period of three years during which the impact can better be assessed.

In addition, safeguard measures are foreseen which provide for tariff concessions to be temporarily suspended in cases of fraud, failure to adhere to the rules of origin or huge increases in imports into the Community. Also the rules of origin and in particular the minimum added-value conditions will provide further safeguards.

The Commission is furthermore being consistent with its agricultural sector proposal on the common market organisation to apply in the sugar sector from 1 July 2001 onwards (2) which essentially provides for a breathing space of two years during which time deeper reforms will be examined on the basis of studies of the functioning of the common market organisation for sugar in particular and of the Community’s agri-food processing industry as a whole.

The potential undesired side effects underlined by the Honourable Member do indeed present a challenge to the Community’s policy in the sugar sector until now and demonstrate the difficulties in reconciling conflicting policy objectives. In the final analysis, however, the Commission has taken the view that the potential benefits from its proposal clearly outweigh the potential costs for the Community when an overall view is taken. This being said, the Commission will monitor very carefully future developments in the sugar sector with a view to taking appropriate measures as and when necessary.

(1) COM(2000) 561 final. (2) COM(2000) 604 final.

(2001/C 151 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3309/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Remuneration of the experts assessing the situation in Austria

A group of three experts was set up by one of the EU institutions to assess the possibility of lifting the sanctions against Austria. The group reported that it would indeed be possible to lift the sanctions. Which institution remunerated the experts, and how much did they receive?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

The Commission did not pay the experts’ fee, and the Honourable Member is kindly requested to contact the Council in this connection.

(2001/C 151 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3310/00 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Illegal building works

The municipality of Villa Castelli (Brindisi, Italy) includes a ‘gravina’ (natural canal that is a characteristic feature of the Apulian countryside), which is of outstanding natural beauty. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/131

The whole area, including the ‘gravina’, is subject to environmental restrictions under the decree issued on 18 September 1996 by the Ministry for Environmental and Cultural Assets (within the meaning of the ‘Galasso Law’).

Law No 56/1980 enacted by the Apulia Region prohibits any building within 200 metres of a ‘gravina’.

In document 3347 of 14 May 1996, the Apulia Region (Environmental Directorate Ecology section Office for nature reserves and parks) stated that siting a new building with a surface area of 490 m2 within the natural environment of the ‘gravina’ would have an immeasurable negative impact on the landscape, countryside, soil and surface water.

The municipality of Villa Castelli, using MOP Community funding (measures 7.3.9 and 7.3.10), has started building work on a 693 m2 multipurpose centre within the area of the ‘gravina’ in violation of environmental regulations laid down by national and regional law.

Is it admissible to take advantage of MOP funding to carry out building works in violation of laws enacted to safeguard the countryside and natural heritage?

What action does the Commission intend to take once the facts have been verified through an on-the-spot inspection by its officials?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the multi-purpose centre in Villa Castelli is not eligible under the Structural Funds because the final beneficiary did not submit the project by the deadline for the decision adopting the Operational Programme for the region of Apulia for 1994-1999.

(2001/C 151 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3311/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Alitalia air fares

Regulation EEC 2409/92 (1) on air fares provides for the gradual liberalisation of tariffs complemented ‘with adequate safeguards for the interests of consumers and industry’.

On its Brindisi-Milan service, Alitalia applies an exorbitant fare of ITL 800 000 which does not help people living in Objective 1 areas such as Apulia.

Although Article 6(1)(a) of the Regulation allows a Member State ‘to withdraw a basic fare which … is excessively high to the disadvantage of users’, the Italian Government has not yet proposed to intervene despite user protests calling on it to do so. Article 8 of the regulation stipulates that ‘at least once a year the Commission shall consult on air fares and related matters with representatives of air transport user organisations in the Community’.

Has the Commission already compiled the information required under Article 8 or does it intend to examine the exorbitant fares applied by Alitalia with a view to taking the matter up with the Italian Government so that it may at last contribute to achieving an internal market by fixing equitable air fares within the spirit of the Directive and the Community regulation?

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15. C 151 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

A Commission review of the routes mentioned shows no evidence that these fares are excessive when taken in relation to their corresponding costs. There does not therefore appear to be in this instance any infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) no 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services.

The Commission monitors the development of air fares regularly and the general trend shows signs of decrease in the Community area as stated in the communication ‘The European airline industry from single market to world-wide challenges’ (1).

(1) COM(1999) 182 final.

(2001/C 151 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3313/00 by Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Agenda for the Biarritz summit and the paedophile crisis

The need to bring European citizens closer to the institutions makes it essential for the authorities to tackle those problems that affect people most directly. While the public are, of course, interested in the reform of the institutions and the future enlargement of the Union, the authorities should also focus on day-to-day issues that are of concern to the public. The unfortunate issue of paedophilia, for example, has now assumed worrying proportions. The discovery of paedophile and pornographic sites on the Internet, some of which use the words ‘European Union’ in their titles, should prompt the Heads of State and Government meeting in Biarritz to take note of the spread of this problem and finally to put in place regulations governing the use of telematics equipment.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to draw the attention of the Heads of State or Government to:

1. The seriousness of the constant increase in paedophile Internet sites, the contents of which contravene the legislation of the Member States,

2. The need for regulations to prevent free access to such sites,

3. The need for regulations prohibiting such sites from using in their titles the names of persons without their knowledge or the names of institutions (Commission, European Union, etc.) as an underhand way of attracting users who do not normally visit such sites?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The Commission has long been concerned about the diffusion of paedophile images on the Internet, in particular child pornography. In order to fight against it, it proposed a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks (1). It was adopted by the Council and the Parliament on 25 January 1999 (2). The action plan provides support in four areas: a European network of hotlines, self-regulation by industry, filtering and rating and awareness. Furthermore Member States are also committed to provide an appropriate framework under 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 (3). 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/133

The primary responsibility for dealing with illegal content (including child pornography) is with the appropriate law enforcement and judicial authorities of the Member States.

The Commission attaches great importance to ensuring the Community is able to take effective action in particular against child pornography on the Internet. It shares the view of the Honourable Member that there is a clear need for Community action at legislative level to ensure that Member States have effective sanctions in place to combat this serious crime. The Commission will introduce later this year a proposal for a Council framework decision which, within a wider context, will include provisions for the approximation of laws and sanctions of the Member States in the field of the sexual exploitation of children, with particular reference to child pornography on the Internet.

Better law enforcement, exchange of information and education are needed to complement the legislative initiatives mentioned above. The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and other parties involved (Internet operators, hotlines and users), constantly follows the development of any new means to prevent the distribution of paedophile material via the Internet, which are in conformity with the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and right to privacy.

However, the Internet is a global instrument and does not recognise national frontiers. Measures taken only at the European level would not prevent access via the Internet to paedophile material outside Europe. Therefore, efficient international co-operation is needed. All the parties concerned are already actively involved in such co-operation.

The Honourable Member’s final question concerns one aspect of the so-called cybersquatting problem, which also includes cases of trademark infringement. The Commission has been actively participating in international efforts to eliminate this problem, undertaken mainly by the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). These have started with the trademark problem, but are currently being extended to include other categories of names including the names of people and places. The Commission will also propose, in the context of the. eu domain name that will become available next year, a code of conduct aiming at preventing such abuses within the Community.

(1) OJ C 48, 13.2.1998. (2) OJ L 33, 6.2.1999. (3) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(2001/C 151 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3314/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Tourism and property development along the coast of Cala Giunco-Stagno Notteri, Villasimius, Sardinia, Italy

The Cala Giunco company has recently proposed a change to a plan for the sub-division of the municipality of Villasimius (Cagliari, Italy) for tourism and property development (hotels, private homes, services, golf course) with a total volume of more than 81 000 m3. These measures concern a stretch of coastline which is still undeveloped and which is included in the sites of Community importance ‘Porto Giunco’ (code ITB000054) and ‘Stagno Notteri’ (code ITB000057). This stretch of coastline is also protected by regulations on the countryside (Legislative Decree No 490/1999) and is listed as the site of a regional nature reserve by regional law 31/1989 and was recently declared a protected marine area within the meaning of national law 493/1991. The environmental associations ‘Friends of the Earth’ and Gruppo d’Intervento Giuridico have drawn this case to the attention of the national and local public authorities and the Ministry for Cultural and Environmental Assets has taken steps (decrees of 22 June and 9 August 2000) to cancel the relevant authorisations issued by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia relating to the town planning measures and the initial executive measure on the grounds that they were unlawful. The municipality of Villasimius has also suspended the administrative procedure for approving the tourism-property project. Despite this, the property company has brought unfounded and intimidatory actions for damages against the municipality of Villasimius and the environmental associations and has already opened the building site with the intention of starting work even if it is unlawful. C 151 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

None of the tourism-property developments described above has been the subject of a specific and mandatory environmental impact assessment pursuant to Directive 85/337/EEC (1), consolidated and amended by Directive 97/11/EEC (2) (Annex II, point 12(c)), or of an environment impact assessment under Directive 92/43/EEC (3).

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Can the Commission verify whether the measures concerned comply with the regulations on environmental impact assessments and the protection of sites included in the Natura 2000 network? Does the Commission intend to take appropriate action?

Do the two sites of Community important receive Community funding for conservation under Life or other programmes? Is any Community funding planned or in place, including Structural Fund monies, which might be of direct or indirect concern to such development plans?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member appears to be covered by the class of projects listed in No 12(c) of Annex II to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, which amended Directive 85/337/ EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

The Directive provides (Article 4(2)): Subject to Article 2(3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in (a) and (b).

The sites ITB000054 Porto Giunco and ITB000057 Stagno Notteri are proposed sites 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. With reference to proposed sites of Community importance under Directive 92/43/EEC, Member States have to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States are therefore advised at least to abstain from all activities that may cause a site on the national list to deteriorate.

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

The LIFE-Nature project ‘Proposal for the introduction of a monitoring integrated programme for environmental resources in vulnerable areas (Natura 2000)’, of which the beneficiary is Regione Sardegna, targets all the Natura 2000 sites on the island, thus including the two sites mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has approached the regional authorities to learn whether the project in question has been or will be co-financed through the Structural Funds. It will not fail to pass this information on to the Honourable Member as soon as it receives it. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/135

(2001/C 151 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3316/00 by Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Malta: power station visit of Commissioner Wallström

In the light of the accession negotiations taking place with Malta, what is the position which is being taken by the Commission with regard to the serious environmental and health problems caused by an antiquated and obsolete power station at Marsa, Malta? Is the Commission aware of this problem and, during her visit to Malta later this year, will EU Commissioner Wallström meet with environmental NGOs, local councils and the Malta Green Party campaigning on this issue?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The Commission has received information about the power station in Marsa from the Maltese authorities, but is not aware of any specific environmental problems related to the plant. The Commission understands that the Marsa plant was constructed between 1964 and 1987, and therefore counts as an existing plant according to Community legislation on large combustion plants. Therefore no emission limit values are required for this plant, and its emissions are to be taken into account in the country’s national emission ceilings.

Furthermore, the Maltese authorities have informed the Commission that ensuring compliance with air quality standards in Malta is the joint responsibility of the Environmental protection department and the Department of public health. Malta has identified air quality zones and agglomerations, and has in place an ambient air quality monitoring programme, which meets the requirements of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (1).

The Commission continues to underline the importance of accelerating the adoption and implementation of the full ‘acquis’ when meeting Maltese representatives and will strive to interact with all concerned in order to reach a comprehensive understanding of the situation in relation to environment and health on the island.

(1) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

(2001/C 151 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3323/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Sugar supply requirements in the Azores in Regulation No 1481/2000

Regulation No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000 (1) refers to objective data provided by the Portuguese authorities for establishing the sugar supply balance for the Azores.

What were these objective data?

(1) OJ L 167, 7.7.2000, p. 6. C 151 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

To establish the forecast supply balance, the Commission receives regular updates from the competent authorities on the implementation of the supply programme. The drawing up of the balance for 2000/2001 was based, amongst other things, on a communication of 5 May 2000 which gave a quantity of 6 500 tonnes for 1999/2000.

On 14 June 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture sent the Commission justification from the autonomous region of the Azores for a supply requirement of 9 000 tonnes in 2000/2001. The Commission considered this request and concluded that the real consumption of the Azores did not justify such an increase in supply requirements, because from the information provided no justification for the increase in local consumption could be identified.

Taking into account the local production of sugar beet, a quantity of 6 500 tonnes for import requirements is more than sufficient for the marketing year in question.

(2001/C 151 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3324/00 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Noise emitted by high-speed trains

It has come to my knowledge that specifications relating to noise emitted by high-speed trains (TSI) are to be drawn up to supplement Directive 96/48/EC (1), but only within the framework of technical adaptation.

Is this true? If so, what leads the Commission to believe that in this instance it can decide to exclude the EP and the Council by not applying the codecision procedure?

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (1) provides for means of preparing and adopting technical specifications for interoperability (TSI). Among other factors those TSIs include the conditions to be met by the trans-European high-speed railway systems basic parameters. One of the basic parameters mentioned in Annex II to the Directive concerns the ‘boundary characteristics linked to outside noise’. It is against this legal background that the TSIs will lay down the sound emission level to be complied with by the rolling stock on a reference infrastructure and, if necessary, the specifications to be met by the infrastructure in order that the overall sound emission level generated might be acceptable. The draft TSIs will be the subject of a consultation of the Member States within the Committee set up under Directive 96/48/EC, as provided for in Article 6, paragraph 1, of said Directive. As stipulated by the interinstitutional agreement on the Committee procedure, Parliament is kept informed of the activities of that Committee.

Moreover, there is no provision that the TSIs are to lay down the acceptable level perceived by the local inhabitants since such a level greatly depends upon local conditions and is left to the Member States. However, the Commission recently put forward noise indicators and methods of assessing the perceived noise, but it does not propose that any boundary values be set for the noise indicators defined. This proposal for a Directive (2) is currently being submitted for a Parliament and Council co-decision. In the longer term, if adopted and implemented, that Directive could form the basis for laying down such boundary values.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996; OJ L 262, 16.10.1996. (2) COM(2000) 468 final. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/137

(2001/C 151 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3328/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Damages for pain and suffering after air accidents

There are substantial differences between the Member States of the European Union in respect of the level of protection for consumers in the event of air accidents. Compensation is based largely on national law.

What is the Commission’s attitude towards the demand for common European rules on entitlement to compensation, including appropriate damages for pain and suffering for injured parties or surviving dependants?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Warsaw Convention of 1929, the existing international legislation on the liability of air carriers for damages when a passenger is killed or suffers injury in an accident, set low limits to liability and gave passengers quite inadequate protection. Accordingly the Community adopted Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 (1) on air carrier liability in the event of accidents. This also served the purpose of creating an uniform regime for Community carriers in a single market for air transport. It applies to Community carriers, irrespective of whether a flight is international or domestic.

The regulation removes any limit on a carrier’s liability for damages sustained in the event of death, wounding or bodily injury and establishes strict liability for damages up to 100 000 Special drawing rights. The carrier cannot exclude or limit liability by proving that it did everything possible to avoid the damage or that it was not possible to do so. It does not limit the types of damage that can be considered. The regulation also provides for advance payments to meet the immediate economic needs of people entitled to compensation.

The Community’s initiative in adopting this regulation did much to stimulate the negotiation of a new international agreement in 1999, the Montreal Convention covering international flights. This closely follows the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 so far as liability for damages resulting from death or injury is concerned.

Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 gives the courts responsibility for fixing the actual amounts of compensation to be paid. A court can take account of the type and extent of the damages suffered by each individual, including pain and suffering, of the economic consequences of an accident for the victim and the dependents, of the particularities of each case, and of different national approaches to defining levels of compensation (in general and not just for air accidents). Fixed rates of compensation set by regulation could not reflect all these variables and so would appear unfair in light of the damages actually suffered by each individual.

As for the person entitled to compensation, Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 defines this as the passenger or as any person entitled to compensation in respect of the passenger, in accordance with applicable law, i.e. that of the court where the action is brought.

(1) OJ L 285, 17.10.1997. C 151 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3330/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Protection of animals during transportation

Article 8 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC (1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC) (2) concerning the protection of animals during transport provides that the competent authority in each Member State shall submit to the Comission an annual report stating the number of inspections carried out in the preceding calendar year in respect of (a) means of transport and animals during transport by road and at certain specified places and (b) the particulars on the accompanying documents. Article 8 stipulates that the annual Member State reports must also include details of any reported infringements and the action taken as a result by the competent authority.

Will the Commission state whether all Member States have complied with the above requirements in (a) 1998 and (b) 1999. If not, which Member States have failed in either of these years to provide an annual report including all the details required under Article 8 and what action is the Commission taking in respect of those Member States?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. (2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Commission has received the above-mentioned report in relation to the year 1998 from twelve Member States. Three Member States failed to comply with this requirement of the Directive (Belgium, Greece and Portugal).

The Commission has received six reports in relation to the year 1999 (Belgium, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg Finland and Sweden). However it should be noted that Article 8 of the Directive does not provide a particular deadline for the transmission of the report to the Commission.

Since May 2000 the Commission has regularly reminded the Member States of the requirement through the standing veterinary committee.

Unless it receives the outstanding reports for 1998, it will consider opening infringement proceedings against Member States concerned. It will also formally request the Member States that have not reported for 1999 to do so as soon as possible.

(2001/C 151 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3334/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Supplementary social security and health insurance schemes

It is becoming increasingly common for national social security schemes and health services to be in the red, adding to State budget deficits and the national debt. One means of remedying the difficulties might be supplementary schemes, which could benefit citizens as well as State social security and health institutions. Supplementary pension schemes or health insurance would afford additional protection to workers, enabling them to secure a high standard of health care reasonably quickly. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/139

1. What are the Commission’s views on this subject?

2. In which Member States is a supplementary pension and health scheme already in operation?

3. Will the Commission submit proposals calling for the introduction of supplementary schemes, especially where health insurance is concerned, so as to guarantee free access to essential health services without discrimination of any kind?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

The organisation of social security schemes and the relative roles of basic and supplementary schemes are the responsibility of the Member States. However, the Commission would like to point out that supplementary pension schemes exist in all Member States, although their scope varies considerably, especially in terms of whether or not they are compulsory and whether or not they are linked to collective agreements.

In the field of health insurance, the existence of supplementary schemes depends primarily on the quality of basis cover.

Supplementary pension and health insurance schemes may fill certain gaps left by basic schemes, especially where these provide only limited benefits, possibly as a result of budget-balancing measures targeting health systems. However, it is difficult to organise supplementary schemes so as to provide optimum cover for everyone. In the case of pensions, high administrative costs can exclude people on low incomes, and inadequate provision for the transferability of rights can penalise the more mobile workers.

The characteristic features of supplementary health insurance schemes, especially the problems of risk selection and exclusion of the most vulnerable individuals, should be examined in detail before a decision is taken on the need for a legal framework at European level. This examination could take place as part of the follow-up to the report on supplementary health insurance recently adopted by the European Parliament.

In any event, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that it is essentially the task of the Member States to ensure a high level of social protection, either through basic or supplementary schemes.

(2001/C 151 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3338/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Golf course in the commune of Settimo San Pietro, Cagliari (Italy)

On 9 September 2000 a golf course was opened in the commune of Settimo San Pietro (province of Cagliari). The course is illuminated and has a roofed area, bunkers, and putting-greens. The project, which also includes a plan to develop the site into an 18-hole course within two years, has received funding under the Greater Cagliari Spatial Planning Agreement covering 68 % of the cost (the total cost of the amenity is ITL 14,5 billion).

On 21 July 2000 Sardinia Region was officially declared a natural disaster area on account of the persistent drought.

Although the estimated water consumption of the golf practice course is approximately 2 000 m3 a day, equivalent to the daily consumption of a locality of 8 000 people, no environmental impact assessment (1) has been carried out. C 151 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

1. Is the Commission fully aware of the case described above?

2. Can it check whether the Community legislation on environmental impact assessment has been infringed?

3. Will it suspend Community funding it Community law is found to have been broken?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström of the behalf of the Commission (4 December 2000)

Golf courses as such are not covered by Community legislation on environmental impact assessment (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1) which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC).

Therefore, in the light of the information given by the Honourable Member, no breach of Community environmental law is apparent in this case.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 151 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3339/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (25 October 2000)

Subject: Tourism-oriented property development on the Teulada coast in Sardinia (Italy)

On 30 June 2000 Teulada Municipal Council (Cagliari, Italy) approved a series of site plans submitted by the SITAS company to construct tourist facilities in Malfatano covering a total volume of over 143 000 m3 (hotels, a block of flats, private homes, services, and a golf course) (1).

The coast to be developed, extending from Capo Spartivento to the port of Teulada (communes of Teulada and Domus de Maria), is one of the few unspoiled stretches of Mediterranean coast still intact. It is protected by land use restrictions for conservation reasons (Legislative Decree No 490/1999) and has been classed under Law 394/1991 as a marine conservation area.

The site plans will apparently also affect burnt woodlands on which building is prohibited because they are still subject to the land use stipulations in force before the fire (National Law 47/1975 and the additional National Law 428/1993).

Environmental organisations (Friends of the Earth and the ‘Legal Action Group’) have already drawn the case to the attention of the national and local authorities. However, none of the tourist facilities referred to above is being examined in a binding specific environmental impact assessment within the meaning of Directive 85/337/EEC (2), supplemented and amended by Directive 97/11/EC (3), Annex II, point 12(c).

1. Is the Commission fully aware of the case described above?

2. Can it check whether the above-mentioned development is in accordance with the legislation on environmental impact assessment?

3. Will it take appropriate steps in this matter?

4. Has the Union granted, or is it in the process of granting, other financial support, for instance under the Structural Funds, that might directly or indirectly benefit the site plans in question?

(1) Municipal council decisions Nos 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51 of 30 June 2000. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/141

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (4 December 2000)

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member appears to be covered by the class of projects listed in No 12(c) of Annex II of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 which has modified Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

The Directive, provides that (Article 4, paragraph 2): Subject to Article 2(3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in (a) and (b).

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

(2001/C 151 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3340/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (25 October 2000)

Subject: Tourism-oriented property development on the Monte Russu coast, commune of Aglientu, Sardinia (Italy)

On 9 June 2000 Aglientu Municipal Council (Sassari, Italy) approved a site plan submitted by the Lido dei coralli company to construct tourist facilities on the Monte Russu coast covering a total volume of over 95 000 m3 (hotels, a block of flats, private homes, and services) (1).

The stretch of coast concerned lies on the ‘Monte Russu’ site, considered to be of Community importance (code ITB000006). It is protected by land use restrictions for conservation reasons (Legislative Decree No 490/1999) and has been classed under Sardinian Regional Law No 31/1989 as a regional nature reserve. Moreover, a conservation operation financed by the Community under LIFE is being carried out on the site.

Environmental organisations (Friends of the Earth, the ‘Legal Action Group’, and the WWF) have already drawn the case to the attention of the national and local authorities. None of the facilities and projects referred to above are being examined in a binding specific environmental impact assessment within the meaning of Directive 85/337/EEC (2), supplemented and amended by Directive 97/11/EC (3), Annex II, point 12(c), or in an assessment of environmental effects for the purposes of Directive 92/43/EEC (4).

1. Is the Commission fully aware of the case described above?

2. Can it check whether the facilities referred to above are in accordance with the legislation on environmental impact assessment and protection of a site forming part of the Natura 2000 network?

3. Will it take appropriate steps in this matter?

4. How can the LIFE Community funding being granted to the commune of Aglientu be reconciled with the fact that the commune has approved a plan to construct tourist facilities on the site covered by that funding?

5. Will the Commission suspend the LIFE funding until protection of the site has been guaranteed?

6. Has the Union granted, or is it in the process of granting, other financial support, for instance under the Structural Funds, that might directly or indirectly benefit the site plan in question?

(1) Municipal council decision No 22 of 9 June 2000. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. C 151 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member appears to be covered by the class of projects listed in No 12(c) of Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

The Directive, provides that (Article 4, paragraph 2):

Subject to Article 2 (3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through:

(a) a case-by-case examination, or

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State

whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in (a) and (b).

The site ITB000006 Monte Russu is a proposed site of Community importance (pSCI), under Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. With reference to proposed sites of Community importance under Directive 92/43/EEC, Member States have to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States are therefore advised at least abstain from all activities that may cause a site on the national list to deteriorate.

In the framework of the management of the LIFE project, the Commission has been informed that an appropriate assessment of the implications of the project for the site, under Article 6, paragraph 3, of Directive 92/43/EEC, is under way. As regards Community environmental impact assessment legislation, on the basis of current information, the project has not been granted the definitive development consent.

However, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about the situation mentioned by the Honourable Member and ensure the observance of Community law.

Since the appropriate assessment under Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC has not been concluded, it is not yet possible to identify problems of consistency between the project mentioned by the Honourable Member and the LIFE project. Therefore, it is considered inappropriate to freeze the LIFE financing.

(2001/C 151 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3345/00 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Driving licences in the European Union

With some 200 million driving licences issued in over 80 different formats in the European Union it is, in the Commission’s own words, difficult for the police on the spot to keep track of them all.

1. Is the Commission aware that in Italy in particular, German driving licences are being seized and retained in defiance of the legal position and that further inquiries elicit no information?

2. When an application is made to ‘transpose’ a driving licence issued by another Member State into a German driving licence, data have to be obtained from the registry of the other country concerned. Is the Commission aware that in many cases it can take several months to provide such data, especially in cases involving the Italian registry? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/143

3. Is the Commission aware that even the authorities in the Member States in some cases no longer recognise the ‘old’ driving licences?

4. How does the Commission intend to provide more transparency and information for both the authorities and the public in the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2000)

1. The Commission has not been informed of any individual case, in which German driving licences have been withdrawn in Italy contrary to Community law and not have been returned thereafter. Moreover, the assessment of the withdrawal of driving licences depends on the national provision on the basis of which the withdrawal is carried out. However, should the Commission be informed about such violations of Community law, it will require the Member State to put an end to such a practice and in case of a systematic and repeated violation will deal with the matter under the procedure provided in Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC Treaty.

2. It may be noted that the exchange of driving licences issued in another Member State is purely voluntary since the entry into force of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1). The driving licence is exchanged only at the request of the licence holder (Article 8(1)). Such an exchange, however, is not to be regarded as an exception to the principle of mutual recognition described in Article 1(2). In principle, driving licences issued by other Member States have to be recognised, irrespective of whether they are exchanged or not.

Article 12(3) of the Directive foresees that the Member States exchange, if necessary, information about driving licences they register. This helps determine the validity of foreign driving licences as well as the exact scope of the right (categories, restrictions). However, this exchange of information must not directly or indirectly result in the practical creation of an obstacle to the free movement of licence holders or to a questioning of the principle of mutual recognition.

3. Member States are bound to recognise all driving licence models described in Commission Decision 2000/275/EC of 21 March 2000 on the equivalences between certain categories of driving licences (2) (which was adopted on the basis of Article 10(1) of the Directive). The Commission requested all Member States expressly to inform their authorities about the scope of the obligation to recognise driving licences issued in other Member States. So far, no systematic violations of the principle of mutual recognition have been detected. However, in view of the large number of driving licences and different driving licence models, administrative uncertainties may occur in individual cases. The Commission will therefore continue to closely supervise the correct application of the principle of mutual recognition.

4. In order to clarify the situation legally, the Commission adopted the above-mentioned decision. Considering the complexity of the situation with over 80 different driving licence models valid in the European Economic Area (EEA), the Commission will publish a manual with colour illustrations and exact descriptions of all EEA driving licence models valid at present. The preparations for this book are in an advanced stage. It will be addressed to administrative authorities in the Member States as well as to licence holders and will guarantee the recognition of all driving licence models valid in the different Member States as well as a uniform administrative practice.

An additional legal clarification of the situation at Community level could be achieved by a harmonisation of the validity period of driving licences. The number of different models in circulation would decrease gradually in the course of time.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. (2) OJ L 91, 12.4.2000. C 151 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3349/00 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Strengthening democratic institutions and promoting respect for ethnic minorities in Albania

During the recent local elections in Albania, there were reports of many instances of psychological duress being brought to bear in the southern part of the country where the country’s Greek minority are in the majority. In the Chimara region, a great many irregularities, including ballot-rigging, affecting the candidates of the human rights party Omonia (KEAD), which represents the Greek minority, were recorded by foreign observers and reported by members of the Greek community.

What measures will the Commission take to consolidate the democratic institutions, establish the rule of law, and promote respect for minorities in Albania, which are preconditions for that country’s participation in European institutions?

(2001/C 151 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3389/00 by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 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 Commission 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 Commission’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 authorising the Commission to negotiate a stability and association agreement with Albania?

(1) OJ L 110, 28.4.1999, p. 13. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/145

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3349/00 and P-3389/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

The Commission is aware of the irregularities and shortcomings in the October 2000 local elections in Albania namely during the second round of these elections reported by the election monitoring mission carried out jointly by the Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Office of democratic institutions and human rights (ODIHR) and the Council of Europe. In particular, the Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Members concerning the irregularities in the Himara area and a campaign marked by a nationalist tone and intimidation against a candidate of the party of the Greek minority and its potential voters. The Commission takes the view that the government of Albania must ensure that all irregularities are fully investigated in accordance with the rule of law and the new electoral code. It also must follow the relevant recommendations made by the OSCE and ODIHR to provide for effective means for redress and to ensure an appropriate functioning of the Central Election Commission.

The macro-financial assistance adopted by the Council in April 1999 is linked to the respect by Albania of human rights and democratic principles and can be suspended by the Community. This assistance is currently not being implemented pending the agreement by the Albanian authorities on certain technical implementation details.

At present, no formal Council mandate exists for the Commission to negotiate a ‘Stabilisation and Association Agreement’ with Albania. The respect of human rights and democratic principles, also in the context of the holding of elections, constitutes of course an essential element within the‘EU Stabilisation and Association Process’, including the consideration of a future possible opening of negotiations for such agreement.

A comprehensive Community assistance package to support institution building, human rights and minority rights and the rule of law is already in place in Albania in the area of police, public administration and judiciary in order to help the country to meet European standards. In addition, assistance to non-governmental organisations is provided under the European initiative for democracy and human rights. Projects include raising awareness on the role of human rights in building a civil society, production of radio and television programmes promoting tolerance, and supporting journalist networks. Within the framework of the stability pact for South-Eastern Europe, Albania equally is involved in specific activities aiming at promoting minority rights at regional level.

(2001/C 151 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/00 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Disposal of PVC

As part of its Green Paper on Environmental Issues involving PVC (COM)2000/469), will the Commission seek to dissuade farmers from the unnecessary disposal of PVC sheeting used in raising early crops? At present, such sheeting is not recycled but jettisoned after use on only one crop.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

On 26 July 2000 the Commission adopted a Green paper on Environmental Issues of PVC. One of the main aspects analysed in the Green Paper was the management of PVC waste. C 151 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Estimates taken from a study of the mechanical recycling of PVC carried out for the Commission (1) suggest that PVC waste generated in farming amounted to around 30 000 tonnes in 1999, i.e. about 1 % of all PVC waste produced. At present, very little of this waste is being recycled. The Commission has no specific information on the amount of PVC waste being re-used.

In the light of the Green Paper’s analysis, and given the present low rate of recycling, the Commission considers that more PVC needs to be recycled. This being so, the recycling of PVC sheeting used in agriculture could be increased with due regard for the technical, socio-economic and environmental aspects.

The Green Paper sets out a number of options for attaining the set objective of increased recycling of PVC. Early in 2001, after the closure of the consultation period at the end of November 2000, the Commission will present a communication setting out a Community strategy on the environmental problems of PVC, which will tackle the question of recycling PVC waste.

(1) Prognos, Mechanical recycling of PVC waste, January 2000, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pvc/index.htm.

(2001/C 151 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3353/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Aid to the film industry

In the era of binary coding, the developments in technology and in the services offered by digitalisation are such as to require not only a review of the legislation such as that regulating the audiovisual sector in Directive 89/552/EEC (1) (which will come under review again before the end of 2002), but also the drawing-up of a new directive on film making. Pending an exhaustive Commission study into the latter’s utility and potential, what means is the Commission using at the present time to boost and better coordinate existing assistance for the film industry on the European internal market?

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The Commission recognises the importance of European cinema, and the need to strengthen the competitiveness of the European audiovisual industry. This objective lead to the adoption of the MEDIA and the MEDIA II Programme, which entered into force in January 1996 and provides for a series of support measures dealing with the training of professionals; the development of production projects and companies; the distribution of cinematographic works and audiovisual programme.

In December 1999, the Commission adopted its proposal for a programme in support of the audiovisual industry called MEDIA PLUS (2001-2005) (1), to be introduced in 2001 as a follow-up to the MEDIA II programme which ends on 31 December 2000.

In parallel with this initiative, the Commission announced that it intended to adopt a communication on cinema, in which it would look at various aspects of the subject, including the definition of a European work, and other issues, which can improve the circulation of movies. The Commission will launch a public consultation once the communication has been adopted, and welcomes all written comments and suggestions. One or more hearings will also be held to allow all interested parties to make their views known.

In respect of national support systems, the Commission’s role is to verify that these schemes are in line with Community law.

(1) COM(2000) 658 final. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/147

(2001/C 151 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3358/00 by Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Marcello Dell’Utri (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) and Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Youth programme: late forwarding of contracts and payments

Despite the fact that the initial selection of projects submitted under the Youth programme took place in May, the projects selected have yet to be cofinanced. Delays in the forwarding of contracts and the failure to pay the advances provided for are causing major problems for many associations and having an adverse impact on the implementation of projects.

1. What is the nature of these delays and are they caused by problems inside the Commission?

2. What does the Commission intend to do to put an end to such delays?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Youth programme entered into force on the date on which the Decision establishing it was published in the Official Journal. This was not until 18 May 2000. The Commission has taken the necessary measures to ensure that this late entry into force which is not its responsibility causes as few problems as possible for the beneficiaries.

With regard to the decentralised actions (which represent almost three-quarters of the programme’s budget), most of the national agencies which implement them received their contracts between late August and mid-September, which is quite a short delay given the financial procedures in force. The process of releasing the corresponding appropriations is now very advanced, and the agencies are henceforth in a position to make the payments to the beneficiaries.

As for the centralised actions, the Commission introduced additional selection deadlines to allow a maximum number of organisations to submit projects and to compensate in some way for the late adoption of the programme. This has resulted in an unavoidable heavy administrative burden with limited resources.

Most of the contracts for the initial selection (May) have been sent out and payments made as soon as the contracts were returned by the beneficiaries. The contracts for the second selection will be sent out in the next few days. The third selection is currently being finalised.

The year 2000 has been a transition year made difficult by the break between the end of the previous generation of the programme (31 December 1999) and the entry into force of the new Youth programme (four and a half months later).

The outlook for 2001 is much more positive. As the Commission has drawn up operating agreements for two years with the national agencies, it will be able to release the decentralised appropriations at the beginning of the 2001 financial year, which will allow the agencies to pay the beneficiaries when required.

Moreover, the simplification of financial channels and procedures that is currently under way within the Commission should help to reduce considerably the processing time for dossiers that are managed centrally. C 151 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3359/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Mass redundancy

Vesticom, a clothing firm which forms part of the UK multinational Coats Viyella Clothing, is based in Torres Vedras, Portugal, and employs almost 300 people. It has, according to the Sindicato dos Trabalhadores Têxteis, Lanificios e Vestuário do Sul (Trade Union of Southern Textile, Wool and Clothing Workers), announced that it intends to issue redundancy notices to the entire workforce.

Vesticom set up business in Torres Vedras almost 27 years ago, and closure will harm the whole region, by cutting job opportunities, increasing dole queues and reducing its wealth creation capacity by PTE 1 billion. The closure is all the more unacceptable in view of the firm’s high quality workforce, facilities and products.

Can the Commission tell me:

1. What measures it intends to take to prevent yet another instance of hundreds of workers being laid off on mass by a multinational;

2. Whether the firms in question have received any Community funding, either in Portugal or the UK?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

1. The Honourable Member refers to the problems raised by a possible collective redundancy announced by a company in Torres Vedras, Portugal.

Community law, through the consolidating Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1), aims to establish arrangements and procedures for collective redundancies together with measures designed to alleviate the consequences of redundancy for workers.

As Portugal has transposed this Directive into national law, it is the national courts and administrative authorities which are responsible for resolving any disputes relating to the case in point.

2. According to the information supplied by the Portuguese authorities, the Vesticom company received a Community contribution of € 8 477 from the European Regional Development Fund in connection with an investment project worth € 16 960 approved on 19 March 1996 as part of the ‘Industry’ sub- programme of the operational programme ‘Modernising the economic fabric’.

A search of the Department of Education and Employment’s projects and payments databases and the United Kingdom database for Coats Viyella, using the registered name of Coats Viyella PLC and related trading names (2), did not find any European Social Fund payments.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998. (2) Coats; Madura Coats Ltd; Coats India; Madura Textiles; Jaeger; Viyella; Van Heuson; Ladybird; Coats Crafts UK; Coats Fabra; Barbour Threads. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/149

(2001/C 151 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3363/00 by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission (27 October 2000)

Subject: Family producers of natural spirits

What is the Commission’s position with regard to family producers of natural spirits (or ‘home distillers’)?

Is the Commission thinking of putting forward any legislation in the near future applying across the board to all citizens in the European Union carrying out activities of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 December 2000)

The Commission has no intention for the moment of making a proposal on the status of home producers of natural spirits.

However, the Commission will soon be proposing the introduction of a common organisation of the market in agricultural alcohol to the Council. Within this context, special provisions for certain alcohol producers could be envisaged.

The Commission would also like to draw attention to Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1), Article 22 of which stipulates that Member States can apply reduced rates of excise duty to ethyl alcohol produced by small distilleries; these would certainly include home producers of spirits.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

(2001/C 151 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3367/00 by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission (20 October 2000)

Subject: Pig welfare

Article 6 of Council Directive 91/630/EEC (1) laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs requires the Commission by 1 October 1997 to submit to the Council a report on intensive pig-rearing systems. Article 6 requires the Commission’s report to be accompanied by appropriate proposals.

On a number of occasions the Commission has stated that it will publish its report and proposals shortly. When does the Commission plan to publish the report and proposals required by Article 6 of Council Directive 91/630/EEC?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 33.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (11 December 2000)

The Commission report is nearly finalized and will be submitted before the end of this year to the Council and to the Parliament accompanied by a proposal to amend Directive 91/630/EEC with a view to improving the welfare conditions of pigs.

Information available to the Commission confirms that in recent years Member States have adopted legislation for the protection of pigs providing additional measures to those required under Council Directive 91/630/EEC. C 151 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3370/00 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Intercultural teaching

Through programmes such as Comenius, Socrates and Culture 2000 the Commission promotes projects linked to the intercultural sphere, in particular intercultural teaching.

What criteria does it use to determine the intercultural sphere?

How does it define the intercultural element in education, training, universities and the information society?

Through its various experiences has it been able to define an intercultural approach to teaching?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Commission has for many years supported initiatives aimed at promoting intercultural education.

Since 1995 Socrates, the Community action programme on education, has included the promotion of intercultural education for all pupils among its actions, with the aim of enabling pupils and young people to cope in a positive and active way with social and cultural diversity and preparing future generations for living together in a democratic and plural society. The programme provides support to transnational cooperation projects promoting innovation and the exchange of information and experiences. In this context, projects have explored numerous topics, developed pedagogical materials and promoted exchanges of good practice in all aspects of intercultural education. Good practices have also been integrated into the training modules and courses for educational staff supported by the programme. During the second phase of the Socrates programme (2000-2006), intercultural education has been identified as a horizontal priority across the programme, and special efforts will be devoted to the wider dissemination of the results of European cooperation.

Concerning the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, the criteria used to define the intercultural sphere are laid down in the Decision establishing the programme, which states that its objective includes ‘the fostering of intercultural dialogue and mutual exchange between European and non-European cultures’ (1). This objective is being achieved through the strand of Action 1 (specific innovative and/or experimental actions) which aims to ‘foster an intercultural dialogue and mutual exchange between European and other cultures, in particular by encouraging cooperation on subjects of common interest between cultural institutions and/or other operators in the Member States and those in third countries’.

Finally, the Commission’s activities in the fields of culture, education and training using multimedia in particular the Minerva Open and Distance Learning experiments provide a very wide range of experience which can be drawn up on. Projects involving multicultural education have responded positively, but this interest is new and should develop further. New technologies could constitute an interesting tool for innovative educational measures for children from other cultures (immigrants and emigrants), children with no fixed residence (those whose parents are in travelling occupations, such as boatmen or fairground workers; gypsy children), and children who leave their home for a certain time (those whose parents are working abroad; children in hospital in another country).

More detailed information on intercultural education projects co-funded by the Commission is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 February 2000 (OJ L 63, 10.3.2000). 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/151

(2001/C 151 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3372/00 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: State aid and the rescue of Olympic Airways AE

Reports in the Greek and international press state that in spite of the special treatment given in compliance with Community rules and in spite of the rescue opportunity offered by the submission in 1994 of a restructuring plan and, after that plan had failed, the submission of a second revised restructuring plan in 1998, Olympic Airways AE now finds itself in a state of insolvency.

In view of the fact that the Greek Government was responsible for the planning and execution of the two rescue plans for the company in question:

1. Which of the preconditions and commitments in Decision 1999/332/EC (1) on aid granted by Greece to OA AE did the Greek Government not adhere to?

2. Did Greece submit the report to the Commission it was required to at the end of October 2000 on fulfilment of all the conditions imposed on it in order to secure the compatibility of the aid and the implementation of the restructuring plan? What findings have been made regarding achievement of the expected results as regards the cost and productivity ratios set out in the above decision?

3. Has the second instalment been paid in full even though the conditions have not been fulfilled and the objectives of the revised plan have not been achieved, and is there any opportunity for submission by the Greek authorities and approval by the Commission of a third restructuring plan for the company? If so, what would the timetable be?

4. Who is responsible for the destruction, commercial losses and administrative disintegration of the company and for the squandering of Greek public money through the creation of deficits at the expense of taxpayers in Greece?

5. What is the amount of State aid received by the company in all forms over the last eight years and what financial costs have the company’s operating deficits had for the Greek economy over the same period?

6. Are Commission departments considering bringing a charge against OA for distortion of competition or abuse of their dominant position in the air transport sector?

(1) OJ L 128, 21.5.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The Commission approved in 1994 an aid package for Olympic Airways totalling more than GRD 500 000 million for the purpose of implementing a restructuring plan and subject to a number of conditions. The same aid was reauthorized in 1998 together with a revised restructuring plan.

The Commission is kept informed of the difficulties that Olympic Airways has been facing and of the intention of the Greek government to privatize the company. However, the report monitoring compliance with the conditions attached to Commission Decision 1999/332/EC of 14 August 1998 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways, has not yet been submitted. Instead, the Greek government has asked the Commission to suspend taking a decision on the payment of the last instalment of capital increase in the amount of GRD 7 800 million.

The Commission will review the company’s restructuring plan under the state aid rules. In this context, any possible anti-competitive implications of continued government support or preferential treatment for Olympic Airways would have to be considered. C 151 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3373/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission (25 October 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact and Community funding of projects

Authorisation has been granted for the construction of a sewage treatment plant in the community of Corias, situated in the municipality of Cangas de Narcea (Asturias). The project in question is to be part- financed with European Union funds.

The choice of site for the plant, which the EU is helping to fund, may have an irreversible effect on the historical and artistic heritage of the area, namely the Monastery of St John the Baptist in Corias, which has stood for a thousand years and was designated a national historic monument in 1982.

Furthermore, the authorisation breached the rules in force during the processing thereof, in that it has not been accompanied by an environmental impact assessment or a report by the municipal architect.

In these circumstances, will the Commission give its views on the fact that Community funding intended for environmental purposes will in fact serve to damage historical and artistic heritage, when another site could be found which would prevent such damage and thus comply with the Treaty on European Union, in which culture now features permanently in the Union’s sphere of activity?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (4 December 2000)

According to the information available to the Commission, the project in question is not going ahead at the present time and no structural funds are allocated to it. Should the Honourable Member have information to the contrary, the Commission would be pleased to pursue the matter further with the Spanish authorities.

(2001/C 151 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3374/00 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission (25 October 2000)

Subject: Civil protection and natural disasters

The recent dramatic events that have hit residents of the Po basin and the south of Italy, last year’s environmental disasters in France and other EU countries and the damage caused this summer by fires demonstrate the need to improve communication between the various departments in Member States responsible for civil protection. There is an urgent need, in particular, to divide up and coordinate available resources with a view to ensuring that financial, medical and psycho-social interventions are well coordinated, especially for vulnerable sections of the populations such as the ill, the young and the elderly.

Does the Commission intend to make sure that a possible European intervention force, which would join the numerous help centres and crisis management units and committees under EU authority, operates in a coordinated and consistent manner?

Can the Commission state whether it has already drawn up plans for coordination between the Commission and the Member States, between its own various Directorates-General and between the civil protection and volunteer organisations operating in the Member States in the event of a serious emergency?

Can the Commission state whether it plans to give priority to the regions which have been particularly badly hit when a decision is next taken on those Italian regions eligible under the Structural Funds?

Does the Commission intend, in the longer term, to reinstate the budget line ‘urgent aid for natural disasters’ which was removed several years ago but mentioned on 30 March 2000 in a Parliament resolution on the guidelines for the 2001 budget procedure Section III Commission, requesting the 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/153

reinstatement in the Commission’s budget of a budget line designed to help those in the European Union who had suffered natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, coastal erosion or landslides? Does it intend, specifically, to prioritise the funding of psychological support measures for victims of disasters of this kind?

Can the Commission state what consideration has been given to the issue of the environmental consequences of hydrogeological disruption in at-risk areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The Commission deeply regrets the serious damage and loss of life that have tragically taken place in the North-West of Italy.

As regards the coordination between the Member States and, in particular, between the civil-defence intervention teams in the Member States, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the proposal for a Council Decision of 27 September 2000 establishing a Commission mechanism for the coordination of Civil Protection intervention in the event of emergencies (1).

Moreover the list of eligible regions covered by Structural-Fund objective No 1 has been settled for the entire 2000-2006 period and can therefore not be altered.

On 27 July 2000 the Commission adopted a list of the Italian areas that are eligible under objective No 2 of said funds. That list is likewise valid up to 31 December 2006. However, in pursuance of Article 4(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2), the Commission, acting on a proposal from a Member State, may, where there is a serious crisis in a region, amend a list of areas during 2003 without, however, increasing the total eligible population of each region concerned. On this occasion account could indeed be taken of the particularly hard hit regions and territories within Italy.

As regards the period beyond 2006, the Commission will, during January 2001, adopt the second report on cohesion, which will launch the debate on the future of the Community’s regional policy.

As the Commission explained to Parliament on 25 October 2000 (3), with regard to financial help for affected areas and reinstating the budget line for emergency aid in the event of natural disasters: since there are other possible means of Community support and in view of the financial and human resources available, it considers that other types of action would require a higher priority at this stage.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (4) amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (5), the environmental impact assessment (EIA) Directive does not cover cases of natural catastrophes.

(1) COM(2000) 593 final. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (3) Debates of the European Parliament (October 2000). (4) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 151 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3376/00 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Positive list of medicinal products in Germany

Work is reportedly going on in Germany at present on drawing up a positive list of medicinal products. German pharmaceutical manufacturers consider that, because of the Directive relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of C 151 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

national health insurance systems (89/105/EEC) (1), the effective safeguarding of legal rights, which is a requirement under that Directive, is no longer guaranteed in Germany.

1. Does the Commission agree?

2. Is it true that, because of a similar case, the Commission launched Treaty infringement proceedings in autumn 1999 against Austria?

3. Has the Commission been notified of the German plan, and what action does it propose to take?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

Two complaints have been lodged with the Commission against Germany for an infringement of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems. The Commission is presently examining the two complaints thoroughly. At the moment, the Commission is not in a position to indicate whether it considers the German law on the reimbursement of costs for medicinal products is contrary to the Directive.

It is correct that the Commission initiated in October 1999 infringement proceedings against Austria under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. In these proceedings, which are now pending before the Court of justice, it is alleged that Austria did not respect the obligations laid down in Directive 89/105/ EEC.

So far, Germany has not notified either the amendment of the relevant legal acts or the contents of the ‘positive list’. In the two complaints against Germany, however, the relevant legal provisions are indicated and will be scrutinised within these infringement proceedings.

(2001/C 151 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3381/00 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: European Social Fund in Catalonia

Reports in the Spanish media indicate that, as a precautionary measure, the Commission has held back € 14 million from the European Social Fund earmarked for Catalonia. Since these reports appear to have originated from Community sources, will the Commission specify the exact figure involved?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

In the framework of the partnership principle, and on the basis of documentation provided on one of the promoters subject to judicial proceedings, in September 1999, the Commission made an initial estimate of the amounts to be retained from the 1999 advances. For the moment, the judicial investigation concerns operations undertaken in 1996, but a possible extension to the whole 1994-1999 programming period might be envisaged. This provisional retention would have allowed payment of the advances pending. However, the Member State rejected the Commission’s proposal by letter of 27 October 1999. At that stage, having deducted the amount blocked on the grounds of the state aid regulation, Council Regulation (EC) no 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the Community to certain categories of horizontal state aid (1), the Catalan Region should have received € 14 million from the Commission for the 1999 first advances request. This is the figure that has been reported by the press. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/155

At present, the financial requests that have not been treated by the Commission amount to € 63 million, of which € 31 million are still blocked on the grounds of the state aids Regulation and € 32 million are awaiting an examination as to the admissibility of the expenditure in question. These amounts correspond to the Objective 2 1998 final claim and the 1999 advances for all the objectives requested by the Member State.

(1) OJ L 142, 14.5.1998.

(2001/C 151 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3386/00 by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact of the Asti-Cuneo motorway link

Two questions have been put to the Commission on the subject of the Asti-Cuneo motorway link (P-1378/ 00 (1) and E-2356-00 (2)). However, in its reply of 14 September 2000 to the latter question E-2356/00 the Commission did not, as requested, address the aspects relating to the controversial matter of the environmental impact assessment. The Commission is therefore requested to give a further reply, bearing in mind that the modified Asti-Cuneo motorway project cannot be considered to meet the criteria laid down for the original project in the environmental impact assessment, as suggested by the Commission in its reply to the first question (P-1378/00).

The second plan has not, in fact, significantly changed the layout of the motorway link: only 2 kms have been modified, out of a total of approximately 77 kms which for the most part still run along the banks of the river Stura, a fast-flowing river that is subject to serious flooding. Inter alia, the Council’s approval of September 1994 was given without an argued justification the requested technical checks by the Ministry of Public Works were not in fact ever published and on the basis of an incorrect technical opinion given by an official in the Environment Ministry’s secretariat which was inconsistent with the unfavourable interim opinion delivered by the ministerial committee in the context of the environmental impact assessment of June 1994. An inquiry into the latter episode is currently in progress in the Italian Court of Auditors.

Meanwhile, although the Council of State’s ruling on the application for suspension of the work which was turned down by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court in the context of the appeal of 2 December 1995 lodged by the environmental associations is expected by 1 November, work on the most controversial stretch of the motorway (Massimini-Cuneo) has recently been intensified (3).

Can the Commission state its views on the environmental impact assessment procedure? What measures does the Commission propose to take in order to relaunch discussion of the Council of Ministers decision authorising construction of the link despite the negative outcome of the environmental impact assessment?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 218. (2) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 190. (3) The Regional Court has not yet ruled, however, on the merits of the appeal itself.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The fact of granting a development consent to a project which has been made subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure, and which has received a negative assessment, does not necessarily constitute a breach of Community directives on EIA (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1)on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), amending Directive 85/337/EEC).

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law. C 151 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

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

(2001/C 151 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3388/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: New aid scheme for coal with effect from 2002

At the ‘coal’ seminar held on 17 October in Brussels and organised by the ECSC Advisory Committee, the Commissioner responsible for energy and transport stated that, once the ECSC Treaty expires, much of Community production will be unable to compete with imported coal, for which reason a new aid scheme is to be proposed with effect from 2002, when the ECSC Treaty expires.

When is the Commission Green Paper on security of supply in respect of the various energy sources due to be published and what role is it likely to allocate to Community coal?

What are to be the features of the new post-2002 aid scheme?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2000)

The Commission is intending to publish a Green Paper on security of supply before the end of the year 2000. It is planned that this document will present its reflections on the position of coal as part of Community energy supply after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty.

The Commission will not however be able to define the features of any proposal for a coal aid scheme until it has drawn conclusions from the discussion which the Green Paper ought to incite.

(2001/C 151 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3390/00 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: State aids in the manufacturing industry

Will the Commission enumerate how many investigations into the provision of State aid to French manufacturing companies have taken place in the years 1995-2000? Could the Commission also set out the names of the companies or holding companies concerned and the extent to which they are connected to the water industries and manufacturing linked to them?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2000)

Between 1 January 1995 and 25 October 2000 the Commission closed 272 investigations into the provision of state aid to French companies in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries, transport and the 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/157

coal industry. The great majority of these investigations concern aid schemes for which the names of the benefiting companies are not known to the Commission. As for direct investigations into companies, reference is made to the Commission’s annual reports on competition policy. It is not possible for the Commission to indicate the extent to which the undertakings concerned are connected to the water industries and manufacturing linked to them.

(2001/C 151 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3392/00 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Taxation of Community aid to farmers

Is it the case that the income support made available to farmers from Community funds may be taxed in the country of residence and hence be partially ‘clawed back’ by the Member State concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The Commission is of the opinion that income support made available to farmers from Community funds may be subjected to national duties, taxes and charges, although not to taxes specifically levied on income support. The taxation in the Member State of residence and hence a possible ‘claw back’ by the Member State concerned is determined by the relevant national tax laws and, in cross-border situations, by the bilateral tax agreements between the Member States. Member States’ taxation systems vary considerably both in scope and in levels of taxation. In cross-border situations, the bilateral tax agreements apply a range of different rules to prevent double taxation between the two Member States involved in the case of income arising in one Member State and paid to a resident of another.

(2001/C 151 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3400/00 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: CD-ROM published by the Commission

In the CD-ROM ‘Hello Europe A youth guide to Europe and the European Union’ published by the Commission, Directorate-General for ‘Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual’, ‘Publications’ Unit, and distributed by the Official Publications Office of the European Communities, there is a difference in the way that minority languages in the Member States are treated.

One need only go to the description of Spain and Italy and click on ‘If you want to know more’ and then on ‘Listen to the language’ to see this difference:

Spain: ‘The official language is Castilian, often simply called “Spanish”. In some regions Catalan, Basque and Galician are also official languages’;

Italian: ‘Our language is Italian and the capital is Rome’.

Why does the CD-ROM not describe the linguistic diversity of Italy, exemplified by the use of French in Valle D’Aosta and German in South Tyrol? C 151 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

The Commission produced the ‘Hello Europe’ CD-ROM in order to provide information for young Europeans on all aspects of the Union which might interest them. An introduction to the various Member States provides general information to enable the users of the CD-ROM to familiarise themselves with the different Member States making up the Union.

This introduction includes firstly the official language(s) spoken in each Member State, usually laid down in their constitutions. For example, Spain’s official languages are set out in Article 3 of the Spanish Constitution, which includes the languages of the Autonomous Communities as official languages. Italy’s official language is Italian.

Incidentally, linguistic diversity in Italy is described in the ‘population’ section of the CD-ROM in question.

(2001/C 151 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3401/00 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Status of spouses of self-employed workers

In 1997 the European Parliament adopted the report by Mrs Astrid Lulling (A4-0005/97) (1)on ‘the situation of spouses assisting self-employed workers’, in which, while giving due regard to the subsidiarity principle, it proposed the adoption of some useful measures aimed at improving the situation of women working with their husbands in agriculture, crafts, commerce and the professions.

The report proposed remedies for the inadequacies of the 1986 Directive, which had fallen far short of its declared objective of ‘giving assisting spouses a clearly defined professional status and establishing their social security entitlements’.

The French association that represents spouses of self-employed workers estimates the number of people concerned at 8,2 million in the whole of the European Union. The Commission’s estimate in 1995 was 3,3 million.

Does the Commission have recent studies on the social situation of spouses of self-employed workers in the European Union?

Does it envisage recommending to the Member States that they adopt the measures, particularly those of a fiscal nature, needed to give spouses of self-employed workers a stable social status?

(1) OJ C 85, 17.3.1997, p. 186.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Commission does not have any statistical information or recent studies on the social situation of spouses of self-employed workers and is not currently planning to make any specific proposals of a fiscal nature relating to the situation of spouses of self-employed workers.

However, the situation of this category of people could be tackled as part of the more general debate which has started at European level on the modernisation and improvement of social protection in Europe. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/159

Questions of a fiscal nature relating to the situation of spouses of self-employed workers will also be examined as part of a study on the individualisation of rights in the areas of tax and social security.

In the agricultural sector, the spouses of farmers (who represent 22 % of workers in this sector) have had their status defined in some Member States which has improved their situation. But the situation varies from one Member State to another. This is also the case for training opportunities and facilities and services available, as shown by a recent publication (1).

(1) Women active in rural development, EEC, 2000 the text of the brochure can be found on the Europa web site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg06/publi/women/broch_en.pdf.

(2001/C 151 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3404/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Combating racism and xenophobia in Germany

Together with combating racism, exclusion, intolerance and xenophobia, safeguarding human rights represents the European Union’s highest-priority task. At present, however, the protection of human rights is at odds with the treatment suffered by Italian citizens who have emigrated to Germany and whose rights are being violated, particularly in the southern Länder, by State authorities, who are continuing to interpret Community legislation in a distorted manner, ordering multiple deportations and even refusing to recognise the right of residence.

In view, in particular, of the infringement proceedings the Commission has begun against Germany for serious violations in implementing the right of residence and of movement, how does the Commission intend to act to ensure that the rights of Italian citizens living and working in Germany are respected?

(2001/C 151 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3405/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Unemployed Sicilian family deported by the Federal Republic of Germany

The troubles of a Sicilian family who had emigrated to Germany have been highlighted by Councillor Zoratto (of the General Council of Italians Abroad) and taken up by an Italian newspaper in Stuttgart, Nuovo Oltreconfine. The newspaper reports that the head of the family, having first been dismissed because of an accident, was then, notwithstanding the fact that he was duly registered at the Stuttgart employment office after having found another job, taken at five in the morning by the German police, together with his entire family (wife and four children). After they had been stripped and searched, they were taken to Stuttgart airport to be deported to Italy. In view of the above, we ask the Commission:

to intervene urgently to safeguard the human rights of the emigrant family, which have been seriously violated by the German police;

to guarantee Italian citizens who have immigrated to Germany the right to exercise their European citizenship;

to examine what recourse is available to ensure that the Sicilian family which has been so seriously wronged can obtain justice. C 151 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3406/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Over-use of deportation procedures: infringement proceedings by the Commission against the Federal Republic of Germany

In the view of the German authorities, only those who work and are productive are EU citizens, and have the rights that go with citizenship.

Although accidents, illness or unemployment (which unfortunately strike the most disadvantaged sections of the population, such as immigrants) ought to lead to social assistance being granted as stipulated by the law, these authorities are instead, in contravention of Community legislation, ordering multiple deportations and cutting short lawful stays.

We ask the Commission to intervene with the German authorities to ensure that they comply once again with the Treaty and we also ask the Commission to state what measures the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany have introduced to combat racism, intolerance and xenophobia.

(2001/C 151 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3408/00 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Deportation of Italian citizens by Germany

Last spring an Italian family living in Baden-Württemberg was deported by Germany because the head of household had lost his job.

The couple had moved with their four children to the German Land just over a year earlier, with a standard employment contract, but after an accident the head of household had had to leave his new job and together with his pregnant wife found temporary employment in a cleaning firm.

Despite this, one morning the police took the whole family, searched the two spouses as if they were major criminals and loaded the family onto the first plane for Italy without even allowing them to collect their personal belongings or bottles for the small children.

1. What steps does the Commission, as ‘custodian of the Treaties’, intend to take with regard to this serious instance of breach of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and of other legislation in force which guarantees the free movement of persons and workers?

2. How does the Commission intend to react in view of the fact that actions such as these are becoming routine in some German Länder?

3. Since it has already opened infringement proceedings against these barbaric deportation methods, does the Commission not consider that it should adopt a more active role to ensure that actions such as these are not repeated?

4. Can the Commission say whether Community legislation concerning the free movement of persons and workers makes provision for sanctions against Member States which do not comply with the law? In the event that there is no provision for such sanctions, does the Commission not believe that sanctions should be added, as additional means to discourage breach of the laws and the racism which is unfortunately present even among the authorities, in this case those of the Federal Republic of Germany? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/161

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3404/00, E-3405/00, E-3406/00 and E-3408/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the specific situation concerning the Sicilian family outlined in the Honourable Members’ questions. If the Honourable Members could provide details of the case to the Commission, it could investigate further.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question P-3394/00 by Mr Musumeci (1) for an explanation of Community law on the renewal and withdrawal of residence permits as well as an explanation of the correspondence between the Commission and the German authorities on this subject. The German authorities have replied to the letter mentioned in the answer to Written Question P-3394/00 and have assured the Commission that they have written to the authorities at Länder level, who in turn have informed their authorities responsible for foreigners.

The Commission has taken infringement proceedings against Germany on the related topic of the expulsion of Italians from Germany for alleged public order offences. Other than launching infringement proceedings the Commission has no power to take other action to require a Member State to comply with Community law. There are no specific sanctions for breach of the rules on free movement of workers other than those which apply generally in the case of a breach of Community law. Union citizens who are involuntarily unemployed are entitled to social assistance, and must not be expelled from the territory for that reason.

The right to free movement of workers is a fundamental right under Community law. Any citizen who feels his right to free movement has been breached may complain to the Commission or petition the Parliament. He may also start proceedings before national courts alleging that national authorities have breached his Community law rights and are thus liable to compensate him (2).

The Commission is forwarding directly to the Honourable Members and to the General secretariat of the Parliament its report on Member States’ legal provisions to combat discrimination for information on the measures introduced by Germany to combat racism, intolerance and xenophobia.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 229. (2) See Cases C-9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029.

(2001/C 151 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3413/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Trade agreement between the EU and China

In February 2000 the negotiations between the EU and China on the conditions for China to join the WTO were broken off.

What progress has been made in the contacts and negotiations between the EU and China since then?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2000)

The bilateral negotiations between the Community and China concerning the conditions for China’s entry into the World Trade Organisation were concluded on 19 May 2000. The member of the Commission C 151 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

responsible for conducting these negotiations reported regularly on their progress to the relevant committee, including immediately after their conclusion in May 2000. Details of the outcome are sent direct to the Honourable Member, who may also wish to refer to the Commission’s website for the most up to date information (1), and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) http://www.cc.cec:8082/comm/trade/bilateral/china/wto.htm.

(2001/C 151 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3414/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Size of Swedish fermented Baltic herring (‘surströmming’) tins

According to ‘Dagens Industri’ of 2 August 2000 the EU has targeting the Norrland surströmming. According to the report, the tins had to be made narrower and taller or production would be halted. To comply with the EU decree Wahlströms Fisk at Utvalnäs, near Gävle, had to alter its canning plant to rescue production for the start of the surströmming starting date of 17 August.

Earlier, in summer 1998, there was a debate in Sweden on whether or not surströmming could be prepared in wooden barrels. On that occasion it turned out that Swedish officials had interpreted the EU directives too zealously.

What was the position in August 2000? Was it the Commission directive which obliged surströmming producers to change the size of their tins, or was it the Swedish authorities once again over-zealously interpreting a directive?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Community has no power to set the size of fish tins nor is there any need to legislate on this. It is up to the industry, if it wishes, to propose the use of norms issued by the standardisation organisations.

(2001/C 151 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3415/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: EU Member States and the international Convention for the protection of the European Commu- nity’s financial interests

This Convention has been in existence for five years. By January 2000 it had been adopted by only 5 of the 15 Member States: Sweden, Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Have any more countries now signed the convention and what is the Commission doing to persuade more countries to adopt it?

Would it not be appropriate to decide that countries that have not signed the Convention cannot take responsibility for the proper administration of EU payments and that payments to those countries should therefore be suspended until they have adopted the Convention? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/163

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

The Commission would first point out that the process of ratifying not only the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (1) but also its protocols (2) and the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union (3) is under way in the Member States.

At this stage, in addition to the Member States referred to by the Honourable Member (Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom), Greece, Spain, and France have notified the Council that they have ratified the Convention on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests.

The Commission has constantly reminded the Member States of the need to ratify the various instruments and to transpose them into national law. However, the Member States’ commitment to fighting fraud, money laundering, corruption and other illegal activities harmful to the Communities’ financial interests must also be seen in the light of the other national measures taken, in particular to monitor such activities.

In any case, given that the Member States have not all ratified the above instruments, the Commission has included in its work programme an initiative for legislative proposals to strengthen the legal and judicial framework for the protection of the Communities’ financial interests which they will replace.

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995. (2) OJ C 313, 23.10.1996; OJ C 151, 20.5.1997; OJ C 221, 19.7.1997. (3) OJ C 195, 25.6.1997.

(2001/C 151 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3418/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Promoting olive oil in the northern countries of the EU

An advertising campaign for the use of olive in Sweden among other countries began in October 2000. According to press reports the campaign is seeking to increase the consumption of olive oil, and has been funded by the Commission.

Will the Commission give details its expenditure in respect of this campaign?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The seventh campaign to promote the consumption of olive oil in the Community covers a three-year period (2000-2002).

The total budget for this period is € 35,26 million for the Community as a whole, with the following amounts allocated to the Nordic Member States:

Budget Budget Member State PR Total PR Medical Sweden 589 215 170 000 759 215 Finland 611 000 170 000 781 000 Denmark 610 000 136 000 746 000 C 151 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3419/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Cross-channel ferry operators

Is the Commission aware that both Eurotunnel and the cross-channel ferries were charging GBP 350 for a return fortnight last summer? Does the Commission believe that this price reflects the full play of market forces?

Will it please describe the market shares of the current operators on this route and state whether in its view the number of competitors and their respective shares are likely to lead to competitive prices and services for consumers as the Commission expected when it approved the P&O Stena joint venture on their short sea ferry operations (decision 1999/421/EC) (1)? Can the Commission confirm that it is currently investigating the effects of this joint venture on the market for cross-channel ferry travel?

What measures is it undertaking to ensure that there are no price-fixing arrangements in force on this key transport route between Member States?

(1) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 61.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

The Commission does not systematically monitor the prices charged by cross-channel operators. However, media surveys of prices published in early 2000 indicated that the peak period prices (for a car with driver and passengers) for a standard return ranged from GBP 318 to GBP 390. The three main operators charged between GBP 340 and GBP 360, which matches the GBP 350 figure cited by the Honourable Member.

It is important to note that customers paid less if they booked early, or travelled at off-peak times. For example, customers booking before April for an off-peak period in the summer would have paid, depending on the operator, between GBP 165 and GBP 189.

Although the Commission has no evidence to lead it to conclude that those prices do not reflect ‘the full play of market forces’, it is of course concerned that there should be effective competition between cross- channel operators. An assessment of competition between the operators will be central to the Commis- sion’s assessment of an application for renewal of the current exemption of the P&O Stena Line joint venture (1). The exemption expires in March 2001, and the Commission expects shortly to receive an application for its renewal. At this stage the Commission has not started its investigation and does not have recent figures for the market shares of the operators. The Commission is therefore not yet in a position to draw conclusions, as sought by the Honourable Member, as to the continued likelihood of competitive prices and services.

As for measures to ensure that there are no price-fixing agreements on this key transport route, the Commission will take appropriate action if it receives evidence of secret cartel agreements. The operators are doubtless aware of the Commission’s decision-making practice as regards price-fixing cartels between competitors and of the Commission’s guidelines on the methods of setting fines (2).

The Honourable Member is urged to forward to the Commission any evidence that he might have of price- fixing agreements.

(1) Commission Decision 1999/421/EC of 26 January 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/36 253 P&O Stena Line) (OJ L 163, 29.6.1999). (2) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/165

(2001/C 151 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3420/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Implementation of Article 13 of the Treaty

During the debate on the proposal for a Council directive on a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, Commission member Anna Diamantopolou pointed out that, for technical reasons, the Commission was unable to support an amendment to include a stipulation in the directive that protection would have to be ensured against all forms of discrimination, and not only on the labour market, within three years.

Does the Commission agree as was stressed during Parliament’s debates both on the directive on implementation of the principle of equal treatment for all irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and on the directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation that protection against all forms of discrimination covered by Article 13 must be ensured?

When does the Commission propose to submit further proposals for directives completing the process of implementing Article 13, so that this distinction in the way in which various forms of discrimination are addressed is eliminated?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Commission agrees that it is important to ensure legislative protection against discrimination on all the grounds stated in Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty. The package of proposals put forward by the Commission on 25 November 1999 (1) covered all the grounds cited in Article 13, with the exception of sex, in respect of which the principle of equal treatment is already enshrined in several directives, and notably in Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (2), which is the subject of a separate proposal for amendment under Article 141 (ex Article 119) of the EC Treaty (3). As the Honourable Member will be aware, all three parts of the package have now been agreed by the Council.

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Member of the Commission responsible for Employment and social affairs stated during the Parliament’s debate that the Commission could not accept amendments to the framework directive on discrimination in employment (2) which proposed a three year time limit for equalising the scope of anti-discrimination legislation for all the grounds in Article 13. As the Member of the Commission indicated, the implementation of the action programme to combat discrimination from 2001 to 2006 should provide vital information for consideration of proposals for legislation in the future. All information will be considered carefully before the Commission forms a view on the need for further proposals for legislation to combat discrimination not covered by Community law as it currently stands.

The next step that the Commission intends to take in implementing Article 13 is to propose a directive combating sex discrimination in areas other than employment and occupation.

(1) COM(1999) 564 final, OJ C 177 E, 27.6.2000, COM(1999) 566 final, COM(1999) 567 final. (2) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976. (3) COM(2000) 334 final. C 151 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3426/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Timeliness of economic statistics from Member States

Is the Commission aware of the importance that the foreign exchange markets currently attach to output, jobs, earnings and productivity data in the light of the debate about the ‘new economy’? In view of this consideration, will the Commission please provide a table which details for each Member State the periodicity, target time delay and recent average actual time delay between the period concerned and publication of national output, employment, productivity and earnings figures? What measures are being taken to improve this picture? What commitments have been entered into by the lagging Member States? Will the Commission describe what powers it has to encourage lagging Member States to produce timely and accurate data? Is the Commission satisfied with its current legal powers in this area?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

Efforts are being made to improve the timeliness of these data to meet the needs of a wide range of users.

According to the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (ESA) 95, data for main aggregates of national accounts have to be supplied both on annual and quarterly basis. The periodicity of the economic statistics associated to the main aggregates of national accounts is annual and quarterly. Their legal basis is ESA 95. The target delay is 120 days after the end of the reference quarter, four months after the end of the reference year.

As for the average actual delay for each Member State, at present two Member States do not compile quarterly national accounts (Greece and Luxembourg) and Ireland publishes only a very limited set of quarterly figures with a very long delay. All the other Member States compile quarterly figures and respect the target delay. The policy of publication of quarterly accounts varies in each Member State. Some Member States publish only one release of quarterly figures. Other Member States publish two releases, of which the second is usually more detailed. Some Member States publish a flash estimate restricted to a set of important variables quite early after the end of the quarter and compile later a complete set of quarterly accounts.

A table forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament shows the average delay, the main aggregates of national accounts in the field of output, employment (national accounts concept), productivity and earnings figures. The delay refers to the first available release for each country.

The measures to improve the transmission of quarterly economic data include the full implementation of ESA 95; the abolition of derogations concerning data-transmission and some modifications to the ESA 95 regulation. In this respect, the Commission has worked out an action plan proposing improvement of coverage and timeliness of such economic indicators. It was approved by the Ecofin Council on 29 September 2000.

The action plan covers quarterly national accounts; quarterly public finance statistics; labour market statistics; short-term statistics; external trade statistics; and publication of statistical data. The Commission will initiate work in order to specify, according to the action plan, modifications to existing statistical regulations to be submitted to the Council early in 2001. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/167

(2001/C 151 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Commission power over abuse of a dominant position

What powers does the Commission have, if it becomes aware of a dominant position in a market, to reintroduce competitive features into the market? Will the Commission please describe the powers to order a break-up of dominant businesses under United States law, and state whether it is in favour of introducing similar powers into EU competition policy? If it is not in favour, what features of the EU make such powers unnecessary compared to the US?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

In Community competition law the conduct of dominant firms is regulated by Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty. Article 82 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. It does not as such prohibit dominance. The Commission has no power under Article 82 to intervene against a lack of competition, which is due purely to the existence of a dominant position.

The Commission has the power to prohibit abuse of a dominant position and accordingly to require the dominant firm to bring the abuse to an end. To that effect the Commission may impose on the dominant firm an obligation to take positive actions. The obligations imposed may include remedies of a structural nature in case such a remedy is necessary in order to bring the infringement effectively to an end. It follows from the principle of proportionality that any remedy must not exceed what is necessary to end the infringement.

In the exercise of its powers the Commission has, for example, required a dominant firm to divest a minority shareholding in a competing undertaking, which allowed the dominant firm to gain influence over the commercial policy of a competitor and thereby to strengthen its dominant position.

Section 2 of the American Sherman Act prohibits monopolisation of a market and any attempts to do so. Like Article 82, Section 2 does not as such prohibit dominance. It prohibits the creation and maintenance of monopoly power by anti-competitive means. The remedies that can be imposed by the courts in monopolisation cases include divestiture, provided that such a remedy is required to end the violation. In some cases divestiture can amount to breaking up a dominant firm.

(2001/C 151 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/00 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Safety at sea

Following the accident which befell the Galician vessel, the ‘Arosa’, on 3 October 2000 in the Great Sole fishing grounds off the Irish coast, in which 12 people lost their lives, does the Commission plan to introduce a programme of any kind to combat accidents at sea, be they accidents at work in the strict sense or accidents resulting in the loss of human life in a shipwreck? Will an awareness raising campaign of any kind be adopted forthwith and introduced in the short term with a view to improving the safety of workers at sea? C 151 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Commission is most concerned about the loss of life arising from the loss of the British registered fishing vessel ‘Arosa’ off the Irish coast. Consequently, by letter of 8 November 2000, the Commission requested information from the United Kingdom concerning the implementation of Council Directive 97/ 70/EC of 11 December 1997 regarding a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over (1).

There is an extensive package of Community legislation on maritime safety in place addressing a wide range of subjects and different types of ship operation. Following the ‘Erika’ accident the Commission adopted, on 21 March 2000, a communication addressed to the Parliament and the Council (2). This presents a number of legislative proposals to enhance safety at sea. As a first step, the Commission presents regulatory measures to reinforce the existing directives concerning classification societies and port state control, and the adoption of a regulation on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull tankers. The first two proposals are of a general nature covering all different ship types. As a second step, the Commission will propose measures concerning the surveillance of navigation, a European structure for maritime safety and the liability of the various parties in the shipping community. These further proposals will be submitted to the Parliament in the course of December 2000.

Additionally, in May 2000 the Commission proposed a directive on the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers (3) aimed at improving the quality of operation and thus avoiding structural damage to vessels which may result in ship casualties.

Furthermore, the Commission is drafting a communication on the training and recruitment of seafarers which will integrate the existing Community measures on social maritime issues. This will address the issue regarding the need for adequate training of seafarers working on board Community ships.

Finally, as far as measures to improve the health and safety of workers on board fishing vessels are concerned, the Commission wishes to bring to the attention of the Honourable Member Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels (4), and Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels (5). The Member States have all communicated the national measures intended to implement these two Directives.

It is essential, in the light of the principle of subsidiarity, that the national authorities responsible for enforcement continue to control and safeguard the application of the national provisions taken to implement the directives. In this way the directives can contribute efficiently to a reduction in the number of accidents.

(1) OJ L 34, 9.2.1998. (2) Communication from the Commission on the safety of the seaborne oil trade, COM(2000) 142 final. (3) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000. (4) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. (5) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.

(2001/C 151 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3433/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Floods in northern Italy

As a result of the current spate of bad weather in northern Italy, dozens of people have died, hundreds injured and thousands evacuated; road and rail traffic has been disrupted, hundreds of communes have been isolated, rivers have burst their banks, and bridges, roads and buildings have collapsed. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/169

Will the Commission, in addition to immediately setting up an emergency assistance plan, draw up a directive instructing regions to forward a hydrogeological risk map, to provide detailed information on geological conditions in each commune?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission deplores the deaths, injuries and homelessness and the infrastructural and environmental damage resulting from the bad weather in northern Italy during October 2000.

As regards emergency assistance, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Oral Question H-0857/00 by Mr Ebner during question time at the November 2000 session of Parliament (1) and to its comments during the debate on climate change at the second October session on 25 October 2000 (2) and during the debate on the floods in Europe at the November session, on 16 November 2001 (1).

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and for reasons of proportionality it is not for the Commission to draw up any rules instructing regions to forward detailed hydrological risk maps for each municipality.

The Commission watched this disaster closely as it developed and offered assistance in the form of its own expertise and coordination of the national emergency teams. It would remind the Honourable Member that in September 2000 it adopted a proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community mechanism for the coordination of civil protection intervention in the event of emergencies (3) which will make it possible to mobilise operational resources and take rapid action to help a Member State facing an emergency situation.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000). (2) Debates of the European Parliament (October 2000). (3) COM(2000) 593 final.

(2001/C 151 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3436/00 by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE), Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) and Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Beet growing

Beet growers in the south of Italy have benefited from national subsidies within the meaning of the Community regulation which expires at the end of the current 2000-2001 year. Those sugar refineries which have remained operational (Celano, Foggia, Incoronata, Termoli and Villosar) employ 1 600 permanent and seasonal workers, in addition to which there are around 2000 workers in induced employment.

Clearly, productivity is inadequate (60 q of sugar per hectare) and will need to be improved through structural changes, in particular:

(a) development of water resources and of irrigation techniques;

(b) improvement projects in the agro-economic sector;

Could the Commission defer the proposal to amend the regulation on the common organisation of the market in sugar seeking to abolish national aid to beet growing in southern regions? C 151 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

This aid should be maintained for a further five years (until the end of the 2005/2006 year), so that there is sufficient time to prepare a specific project for the sector with the aim of improving structural aspects of holdings and increasing productivity of crops.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

Since the establishment of the common market organisation for the sugar sector in 1968, Italy has been authorised to grant national adjustment aid for improving the conditions under which sugar beet and sugar are produced. These aids have in particular been intended to improve the structural conditions under which sugar beet is grown in the southern region.

National aids in general have always been considered to be inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the objectives to be achieved by agricultural common market organisations. On the other hand, the regular renewals of the authorisation to Italy to continue granting these aids in the sugar sector have demonstrated both the gravity of the structural difficulties involved and the goodwill of the Council, the Parliament and the Commission in seeking to achieve an improvement in the conditions for the sugar beet growers directly concerned.

The last reform of the common market organisation for the sugar sector adopted in 1995 by Council Regulation (EEC) no 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) no 1785/81 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation (EEC) no 1010/86 laying down general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry (1) provided, however, that Italy should be granted only one further authorisation concentrating on the most critical situation of sugar beet cultivation, with a view to finally phasing out these national adjustment aids during the lifetime of the current production quota system which expires on 30 June 2001.

Subsequently the Council, after consulting the Parliament, has adopted Council Regulation (EC) no 2613/ 97 of 15 December 1997 authorizing Portugal to grant aid to sugar beet producers and abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year (2) which clearly provides that all national aids authorised by the common market organisation for the sugar sector are to be abolished with effect from 1 July 2001 onwards. In these circumstances, the Commission has not foreseen any new measures along the lines suggested by the Honourable Members in its recent proposal on the next production quota and other arrangements to apply in the sugar sector (3).

(1) OJ L 110, 17.5.1995. (2) OJ L 353, 24.12.1997. (3) COM(2000) 604 final.

(2001/C 151 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3437/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Countering the unintended catching of marine mammals by ensuring strict compliance with, and if necessary improving, existing protection measures

1. Is the Commission aware that, every year, thousands of marine mammals such as dolphins die as a result of accidentally getting into fishing nets as ‘by-catches’, even though they are not being fished for?

2. Can the Commission confirm that marine mammals are protected under the Berne Convention, the Bonn Convention and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) and come under Annex I to CITES? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/171

3. Is the Commission aware that, over the past 10 years, it has funded 20 research projects dealing with the problem of ‘by-catches’ and that, despite extremely clear evidence of a serious problem, Member States are continuing to carry out research instead of finally fulfilling their obligations on the basis of the Habitats Directive?

4. Does the Commission recall Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment, which states that, ‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation’. And is the Commission aware that some Member States are not yet applying this precautionary approach in the area of fisheries?

5. Is the Commission aware that the 1999 Annual Report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) states that the basis for any successful international, regional or national initiative with regard to protection of the environment is a consensus underpinned by the law, and that the United States and New Zealand have solved the problem of ‘by-catches’ of marine mammals to a large extent by implementing this strategy?

6. Is the Commission prepared to take action to actually resolve this problem of by-catches of marine mammals by, for example, taking measures under the Common Fisheries Policy to make it impossible for marine mammals to be caught accidentally by European fishermen or to reduce such catches to a minimum?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

1. The Commission is well aware of the problem of incidental catches of marine mammals, mainly small cetaceans, and shares the Honourable Member’s concern.

2. The Commission is well aware of the international agreements and conventions to protect and conserve marine mammals. Community law has been conceived to take into consideration all the provisions foreseen within international agreements and conventions regarding nature conservation that have been ratified till now.

3. Research on marine mammal incidental catches supported by the Community has thrown light on the problem. However, none of the studies are conclusive about measures to prevent or reduce incidental catches or the relative importance of mortality rates compared to population sizes. Further research is needed.

4. The adoption of the precautionary principle represents progress towards sustainable development but strategies, tools, targets and benchmarking are not yet clearly defined for marine ecosystems and the human activities exploiting them. There is still scientific debate on the precise formulation of a practical approach for the implementation of the precautionary principle. Taking measures to ensure the survival of marine mammals goes beyond just avoiding negative interactions between fisheries and these animals. It also implies trying to protect the marine environment as a whole. In fact, in addition to interactions with fishermen, there are many other causes of cetacean death and strandings. They cannot always be determined with certainty but include marine pollution, acoustic disturbance (shipping, seismic surveys, clearing shipwrecks, high-speed ferries, acoustic systems developed for military purposes) and mortality generated by epidemics.

5. and 6. The Commission will explore all realistic solutions to mitigate the problem. However, before new legislation, proper implementation of existing Community provisions is necessary. Member States play a very important role in the definition and implementation of both environmental and fisheries measures as well in their control. In particular, under the Habitats Directive (1) Member States should implement the requirements of Articles 11 and 12.4 dealing with the surveillance and monitoring of fishing activities associated with by-catches of cetaceans. It is the legal responsibility of Member States to implement these rules and to ensure compliance with them. The Commission reminded Member States of their obligation to propose sites which will form part of the Natura 2000 network for cetacean species included in Annex II of the Habitats directive. C 151 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Community fisheries legislation already includes a ban on the use of drift nets, a prohibition on encircling mammals with the purpose of catching tuna and a prohibition on fishing for sandeels in areas where they constitute a major food item for marine life.

The Commission considers that a dolphin-free fishery might be an unrealistic goal in several fisheries, while a dolphin-safe fishery could be an objective to be firmly pursued. To this end, the Commission has asked its scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries to convene a meeting in 2001 on the issue of incidental catches of small cetaceans. The Commission has also requested from the International council for the exploration of the sea as soon as possible during 2001 an overview of fisheries that have significant impact on small cetaceans, an assessment of the risks created by fisheries on identified populations and advice on possible remedial actions to reduce the impact of fishing.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

(2001/C 151 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3438/00 by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Genetically modified organisms

Public opinion was very alarmed by the recent discovery of genetically modified maize in food which is freely available for sale in the USA (Kellogg’s and Taco Bell products): it is banned for human consumption owing to the fact that it produces an insecticide substance to protect the crop. Moreover, the cultivation and marketing of such products are banned in many EU countries.

In view of this, will the Commission say whether the products in question are being imported into EU countries and, if so, which countries? Are spot checks being carried out on imported products and how effective are they? Does it intend to make the labelling of such products compulsory and to draw up a code of conduct to be respected by companies in the interests of consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The question concerns the recent discovery of some food products in the United States containing traces of the genetically modified maize variety called ‘Star Link’. Star Link maize has been approved by the American Environmental protection agency (EPA) for industrial and feed use, but not for use in food for human consumption because of uncertainties regarding its potential allergenicity.

Star Link maize has not been approved for cultivation or food use in the Community and foodstuffs containing traces of Star Link maize can therefore not be legally imported into the Community. Member States are responsible for the control and inspection of foodstuffs, including imported food. The Commission has not received any information from Member States suggesting that traces of Star Link maize have been found in imported products.

Labelling requirements apply to genetically modified (GM) foodstuffs, which have been approved for marketing in accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1). The Commission does not consider it appropriate to label products which have not obtained Community approval.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/173

(2001/C 151 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3439/00 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Distillation of alcohol intended for human consumption

The Rheinland-Pfalz Land Government has announced that it intends to provide a subsidy of DEM 15 million to increase the volume of alcohol for human consumption which is distilled.

Will the Commission say:

1. Has it received a request from the Federal Republic of Germany notifying it of this subsidy provided by the Land in question? If so, when?

2. What is the correct procedure for submitting an application of this kind and what form does the notification procedure take?

3. How long does it take as a rule for a decision to be taken from the day on which the application is submitted to the Commission?

4. What decision will it be taking in this specific case?

5. What is the basic legal position towards a national subsidy of this kind to supplement an EU programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The Commission is currently examining a notification of a state aid which Rheinland-Pfalz intends to grant to tackle problems caused by a higher than expected wine production, which has lead to low prices and created storage problems. A state aid to promote distillation would be granted on the basis of Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1) in addition to the Community aid, up to a total aid level of maximum 50 DEM/hl. The measure has been notified by letter of 26 September 2000, registered on 29 September 2000.

1. The formal requirements and the procedure to be followed are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 [now Article 88] of the EC Treaty (2).

2. A decision shall be taken within two months. The two-month period begins on the day following the receipt of a complete notification. The notification will be considered as complete if, within two months from its receipt, or from the receipt of any additional information requested, the Commission does not request any further information (cf. Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999).

3. At this stage, the Commission has not yet taken a position on the proposed aid scheme. Therefore, it cannot yet indicate what its decision in this case will be.

4. According to the established case law of the court, the existence of a common organization of the market precludes national measures in the areas covered unless the Community legislation provides otherwise. The court has moreover repeatedly ruled that once a common organization of the market has been established, Member States must refrain from taking any measures which might derogate from or harm that organization (3). The basic criterion for assessing the lawfulness of national measures is thus whether the exercise of the residual power resting with the Member States affects or may affect the proper functioning of the common market organization. This principle will guide the Commission in the assessment of the proposed state aid measure.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999. (2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999. (3) See, for example, Case 111/76 Officier van Justitie v. Van den Hazel (1977) ECR 901; Case 177/78 Pigs and Bacon Commission v. McCarren (1979) ECR 2161; Case 190/73, Van Haaster, (1974) ECR p. 1123. C 151 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3455/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Unexpected situations with regard to authority and ownership discouraging cross-border tourism in the European Union (taking Manchester as an example)

I recently received a complaint from a Netherlands citizen who suffered a surprising and disappointing experience last summer in the United Kingdom. Whilst on holiday in Manchester, he parked his car on a section of a public road (Princess Street) with no identifiable indication of a ban on parking. Subsequently, this turned out to be private land owned by security firm ‘Checquemade Security’. The firm in question tows away parked cars, and can only be contacted during office hours on work days. In this case, this meant that the person concerned had to extend his stay in Manchester and pay GBP 180 in order to get his car back. Bystanders described this state of affairs as ‘daylight robbery’. However, the local police said that the procedure was regarded as legal. The experience has left the tourist in question feeling astonished and outraged, and he will not be returning to Manchester in a hurry.

The Commission:

1. Does it agree that, whilst, within the European Union, it lies within the competence of local, regional and national authorities to lay down very different rules governing such situations for their area, this may well lead in cases such as the one referred to here to visitors from other areas suffering an unpleasant surprise, to their detriment, in a way which cannot be foreseen, making them feel very uncertain when visiting areas with unfamiliar rules?

2. Does it regard such a state of affairs as compatible with the aim of increasing tourism between Member States?

3. Is it prepared to take steps to see to it that a list is drawn up setting out the rules laid down by the authorities and the possibility of rules laid down by private owners not identifiable as such, which can cause visitors from outside the area an unpleasant surprise, in order to be able to examine, in consultation with the competent authorities, whether any adjustment or harmonisation is called for?

4. How can it contribute to improving the provision of information to tourists concerning the possibility that, when visiting other Member States, they may find themselves the victim of unexpected and inexplicable rules?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The question of the establishment and operation of parking and similar rules and regulations is a matter for each individual Member State, following the principle of subsidiarity. Although this might make it difficult for visitors to be aware of all local rules, the Commission has no plans or authority to examine the need for the adjustment or harmonisation of such rules in the context of tourism. It believes that this situation has no measurable impact on European tourism in general, even if in individual cases, it can cause problems.

Recent Commission studies into the integrated quality management (IQM) of rural, coastal and urban tourist destinations have pointed out that people travel in order to see and experience Europe’s diversity, but that it is also important that visitors should be provided with sufficient local information to make their stay a pleasant one. The Commission is ensuring a wide dissemination of the results of these studies, which are intended to provide a management tool for those responsible for tourism development at the local level. Summaries of the recommendations on implementing an IQM approach in each type of destination are available in all Community languages.

The Commission is also currently supporting the work of four sub-groups of the tourism advisory committee, formed of experts nominated by the Member States, one of which is looking specifically at 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/175

information needs and provision in the context of tourism. The Commission’s ‘progress report on the follow-up to the conclusions of the Council on Tourism and Employment’ (1) is based on the interim findings of these groups. The report has been adopted recently and is available on the Commission website homepage.

(1) COM(2000) 696 final.

(2001/C 151 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3456/00 by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Regulations on tooth amalgam

Environmental and public health issues have gained an increasingly prominent position in the EU’s legislation in recent years. At the Cardiff European Council in June 1998 a decision was also taken to step up efforts to integrate the environment and sustainable development into all Community policies. The Commission’s plans to submit a proposal for a strategy on chemicals this year must be seen as part of this trend.

Will the Commission’s work in this area also include a proposal for Community regulations on the use of tooth amalgam?

Or does the Commission consider that the issue of mercury in general, and tooth amalgam in particular, should be dealt with at national level, with Member States having the opportunity to notify the Commission of national bans?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

The Community has addressed for quite some time the issue of mercury products in order to minimize risks to human health and the environment related to the use of mercury. Several Directives concerning several mercury-containing products have been adopted (1). The legislation concerning mercury is under constant review in order to address potential remaining risks in the light of new evidence. The recent proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (COM(2000) 347 final of 13 June 2000) foresees a phase-out of mercury in electrical and electronical equipment with few exceptions.

1. The specific issue of amalgam waste from dental care has been addressed in Decision 2000/532/EC replacing Commission Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. This Decision includes an entry for ‘amalgam waste from dental care’ which is considered to be hazardous waste and therefore has to comply with the requirements of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. This constitutes a way to minimise the release of mercury into the environment by avoiding these residues from being released via the sewage systems in the clinics and laboratories.

2. As regards the use of dental amalgams, the Commission follows attentively, in close co-operation with Member States and other interested parties, the development of substitutes for the use of mercury in dental amalgam and their impact on health.

3. If Member States intend to introduce stricter rules on mercury in an area covered by Community legislation based on Article 95 of the Treaty, they can only do so under the specific conditions and notification requirements provided for in this Article. In the areas not harmonised or in areas covered by C 151 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Community measures based on Article 175 of the Treaty, the intended measures need to be notified according to the provisions of Directive 98/34 of 22 June 1998 insofar as they constitute technical regulations within the meaning of this Directive.

(1) Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances as amended by the following: Directive 98/101/EC banning mercury in batteries; Directive 82/176/EEC on limit values and objectives for mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry Directive 89/677/EEC amending for the 8th time Directive 76/769 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; Directive 2000/53/EC on end of life vehicles, as well as Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.

(2001/C 151 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3461/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Communication on children

Further to announcements made by Commissioner Vitorino nearly one year ago regarding a possible ‘Communication on Children’, will the Commission state whether it intends to publish such a document?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Honourable Member is referring to the remark made by the Member of the Commission responsible for Justice and Home Affairs during the parliamentary debate which took place in November 1999 to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As expressed in the minutes of the debate, the Member said, in the opening session, that ‘the Commission will give consideration to the idea of publishing a communication on children …’. He concluded: ‘With regard to sectoral policies, I still hold with the suggestion of a communication on this subject by the Commission which must, by definition, be horizontal’.

The Commission is of the view that these statements do not lead to the conclusion that the Commission has committed itself to publishing a communication on children’s rights.

It is also worth mentioning that competence for action concerning children still remains largely with the Member States, given the lack of an explicit legal base in the EC Treaty for the Community to safeguard children’s rights in terms that go beyond the existing framework.

(2001/C 151 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3462/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: High tension power line on Mount Riaño (Castille and Leon, Spain)

The high tension power line planned for Mount Riaño, in the ‘Picos de Europa’ regional park, may clash with various nature protection provisions covering regional parks, special conservation areas (Natura 2000 Network), special bird protection zones (Directive 79/409/EEC) and the brown bear recovery plan area. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/177

Is the Commission aware of the high tension line scheme?

What can it do to ensure that Directives 92/43/EEC (1), 79/409/EEC (2) and 85/337/EEC (3) are properly implemented in this connection?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Commission is aware of the scheme the Honourable Member describes. A recent complaint on the matter has been registered and is being looked at.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that Directives 79/ 409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, (1) are complied with in this instance.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 151 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3463/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: High concentration of metals in the Guadalquivir (Andalusia, Spain)

Two years on from the Aznalcollar mine toxic spill, a report drawn up by the Central University of Barcelona and published by ‘Ecologistas en Acción’ reveals that there are high concentrations of metals in the river Guadalquivir, and that the levels in the surrounding area are far in excess of the limits allowed under Community legislation.

Is the Commission aware of these findings?

Does it not believe that the situation means that the Spanish authorities need to adopt emergency measures to protect public health, maintain the estuary’s ecosystem and safeguard the future development of the area’s economic and tourist potential?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of the Central University of Barcelona’s report on metal concentrations in the Guadalquivir River in Andalusia mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is willing to take a look at this report in order to see whether the relevant Community legislation is being fully complied with.

The Commission is aware of the measures undertaken by the Spanish authorities to contain and repair the damage caused by the accident at the Aznalcollar mine in order to safeguard the Doñana national park. C 151 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3466/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Sale of meat and milk from cows affected with ‘cattle-wasting disease’

1. Is the Commission aware that in the Netherlands meat and milk have been sold from cows suffering from ‘cattle-wasting disease’, i.e., cows which after vaccination against bovine flu lose weight and also suffer swelling, fungal infections, fertility problems, inflammation of the joints and inflamed udders, despite the fact that 7 000 farmers have reported this illness and the Ministry of Agriculture acknowledges that 350 farms are affected? [Source: TV current affairs programme ‘Netwerk’, 19 October 2000]

2. How was it possible for the meat from these cows to be passed for consumption without the industry or the inspection services playing an active role in providing the public with information?

3. What action will the Commission take or what action has it already taken to put a stop to any further spread of this meat and milk for human consumption?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the replies to the Written Questions P-768/00 by Mr de Roo (1), P-788/00 by Mrs Thyssen (2) and P-1410/00 by Mr de Roo (3), where information has been given on the Commission approach to the ‘wasting cattle’ problem.

As mentioned in these replies, the Commission’s food and veterinary office (FVO) carried out an on-the- spot check in the Netherlands on 2-4 May 2000. The report (4) has been submitted to the Parliament and released on the Internet in accordance with the normal practice. It noted that there was still uncertainty on the origin of this problem and on its magnitude. It made a number of recommendations, in relation to which the Dutch authorities have taken several actions, which have been presented and discussed in a recent meeting of the standing veterinary committee.

The latest information provided by the Netherlands shows investigations on the origin and the potential risks related to the ‘wasting cattle’ have been and are still being carried out. The available results of these investigations have not indicated specific risks for public health and have also suggested that this problem has ceased to occur. The information shows that milk and the meat of suspect animals are being excluded from the food chain, as required by Community legislation.

The Commission is not aware of any recent information suggesting that the above requirements are not being observed.

The results of the investigations in the Netherlands are being reviewed by the appropriate scientific committee.

The Commission is therefore continuing to follow the situation carefully, taking into consideration factual information concerning the phenomenon, scientific knowledge, provisions of Community legislation and the advice of the experts.

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 109. (2) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 109. (3) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001. (4) document DG SANCO/1169/2000-MR final. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/179

(2001/C 151 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3467/00 by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Legal levels of swine fever compensation

The Eastern Region of the United Kingdom is currently suffering a prolonged bout of Classical Swine Fever (CSF). Pig producers with unaffected holdings within a certain range of an affected holding are in what is known as an exclusion zone and are unable to market their pigs. When these stationary animals become too large, they must be slaughtered on animal welfare grounds, with compensation available for producers forced to take such action.

Can the Commission verify the statement made by a Commission official, Joachim Heine, to Robert Sturdy, MEP, that the Commission could approve any UK proposal to compensate producers for an amount up to the market value of each pig slaughtered on animal welfare grounds within the exclusion zone?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

For the kind of measure addressed by the Honourable Member, state aid has to be assessed under section 11.4 of the Community guidelines for state aid in the agriculture sector (1). This section lays down the conditions for an aid for combating animal and plant health diseases to be compatible with these guidelines and with Article 87(3)(c) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty. According to these rules, and subject to all other requirements being fulfilled, compensation may be granted up to the normal value of animals slaughtered. Overcompensation of the losses should, however, be excluded.

On 18 October 2000, the Commission approved the United Kingdom Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme (state aid NN 95/2000). It appeared from the analysis of the notification submitted by the British authorities that the aid scheme fulfilled all the conditions described above and that it could benefit from the derogation provided in Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. As far as the compensation for the value of pigs slaughtered on animal welfare grounds within the exclusion zone is concerned, the Commission authorized flat rate compensations for pig producers of GBP 10 per pig for pigs in batches averaging 45 kilogram (kg) or less (liveweight), of GBP 30 per pig for pigs averaging between 46 kg and 100 kg per batch, and of GBP 50 per pig in batches averaging over 100 kg per batch. These are the rates for which the British authorities had sought approval.

(1) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3468/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: European shipbuilding industry

The European Shipbuilders’ Association has lodged a formal complaint with the Commission against the subsidies and unfair competition employed by South Korea in the shipbuilding industry.

Will the Commission say whether this complaint meets the requirements needed for it to be able to take action against South Korea at the World Trade Organisation (WTO)? C 151 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

If so, will the Commission say when it will take a decision on the complaint and take action at the WTO accordingly with a view to penalising and doing away with South Korean subsidies and dumping, so as to protect the legitimate interests of the European shipbuilding industry?

Will it explain the various stages involved in the proceedings at the WTO?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2000)

On 24 October 2000, the committee of European Union shipbuilders associations (CESA) lodged a complaint under the trade barrier regulation (TBR) Council Regulation (EC) No 356/95 of 20 February 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community’s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) (1)in order to eliminate certain trade practices caused by the subsidisation of commercial shipbuilding in Korea and which adversely affect Community sales of commercial vessels. The issue raised in the complaint has been for years an unresolved problem in the bilateral relations between the Community and Korea.

The Commission has from then 45 days to decide on the initiation of a Community examination procedure and to publish accordingly a notice in the Official journal. The examination procedure may take five months, and in the light of the conclusions of the investigation, the Commission may decide to resort to WTO dispute settlement. In such a case, the Community will first require to enter into consultations with Korea in order to find a satisfactory solution. If after 60 days from the request for consultations, there is no settlement, the Community may request the establishment of a panel.

(1) OJ L 41, 23.2.1995.

(2001/C 151 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3472/00 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Health Observatory monitoring

What monitoring is the Health Observatory planning to carry out on epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease and other neurological conditions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The present action programme on health monitoring and the future action programme on public health aim at developing and making available adequate, reliable and comparable data sets and indicators of public health in order to report on the health status within the Community. The Commission foresees that neurological conditions will be part of the European health monitoring system when this system is put in place.

A project entitled ‘Monitoring neurological diseases in Europe’ has already been completed and the Commission will provide the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat with a copy of this report. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/181

(2001/C 151 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/00 by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: European Year of Languages deadlines for applications for project subsidies

On 8 September 2000 the ‘Official Journal’ published details of the programme for the European Year of Languages. Applications for subsidies for projects scheduled before 30 June 2001 had to be submitted by 2 October 2000. Fifteen working days remained therefore in which to request the application forms and necessary information from the national coordinators, complete those forms submit them on time. Such a short deadline is unacceptable in my view. Small organisations in particular operating with few and often voluntary staff are clearly at a disadvantage here. Was the purpose of this short deadline to keep the number of applications to a minimum? Does the Commission consider such a short deadline acceptable? How can such short deadlines be explained to members of the public?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Decision of the Parliament and the Council on the European Year of Languages was adopted on 17 July 2000 and published in the ‘Official Journal’ on 14 September 2000 (1). The proposal for a Decision had been adopted by the Commission on 13 October 1999 (2).

The call for proposals was therefore published as quickly as possible. The Commission plans to fund a total of 150 projects, and the deadlines set for submission of applications are 2 October 2000 and 15 February 2001.

Although the Commission was aware that the deadline of 2 October 2000 left relatively little time to prepare projects, it nevertheless had to set this date to allow funding for projects beginning during the first half of next year. Despite this tight time-frame, the Commission received 250 project proposals.

The Commission would also point out that a second deadline for submission of applications is planned for 15 February 2001 for projects beginning from 1 June 2001.

(1) Decision No 1934/2000/EC (OJ L 232, 14.9.2000). (2) COM(1999) 485 final.

(2001/C 151 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3483/00 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Code of conduct on the use of menstrual tampons

In order to minimise the risk of the toxic shock syndrome related to the use of tampons, the European Parliament has on several occasions requested that the Commission should initiate either European legislation or a voluntary code of practice. The original demand, presented by the European Parliament’s Petitions Committee as early as 1996, was reiterated in a resolution in 1999 on the state of health of women in the European Union.

The European Commission and EDANA concluded a voluntary code of conduct on the use of menstrual tampons in June 1999. Could the Commission in view of the adopted text and the content of the letter by the responsible Director-General of 21 December 1999 clarify how the code will be enforced and controlled? What legal actions are possible in case (non)-EDANA manufacturers and importers bring non- conform products onto the internal market? C 151 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Could the Commission explain the reasons that have led it to accept a transitional period of two years for industry to implement the code which has been in force since 1 January 2000? Could the Commission clarify whether this voluntary code of conduct also applies to tampons exported to third countries, including the applicant countries of the European Union? If not, what steps does the Commission intend to take to protect also women outside the borders of the European Union against toxic shock syndrome?

The main aim of the voluntary code of conduct is to inform and protect women against toxic shock syndrome. Does the code provide for an obligation on the importer and/or the producer of tampons to include a warning on the tampon package in case the tampons contain genetically modified cotton? If not, will the Commission, in the interest of free choice for the consumer and as a precautionary measure, take an initiative which would make such labelling compulsory?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

In response to the risks related to the toxic shock syndrome and the concerns raised by the Parliament, the Commission has had repeated contacts with the manufacturers of tampons to explore the possibilities for self-regulatory measures with regard to these problems. As a result, in June 1999 the European Disposables And Non-wovens Association (EDANA) adopted a voluntary code of conduct on the use of menstrual tampons.

Under Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (1), codes of good practice form part of the criteria to be used to assess the conformity of a product to the general safety requirement, in the absence of specific rules. The Commission has therefore presented this code to the Member States, responsible for the enforcement of this Directive, as a standard for the assessment of safety aspects.

The different types of legal action that are at the disposal of the authorities are regulated in the national legislation transposing the Directive, but these should be based on the examples given in Article 6 of the Directive, such as product checking, product sampling, warning, temporary sales prohibition or even product withdrawal.

The two-year transition period for the implementation of the code of practice is necessary to allow manufacturers to complete the practical aspects of the Code. They have to start the labelling of the tampon-packs and also to ensure a total replacement of non-labelled packs by labelled packs before the end of the period. It is estimated that well over 90 % of all the tampons now sold in the Community fulfill the requirements of the code.

The Community is not in a position to prescribe the conditions for the placing on the market of products in third countries, as this is within the competence of these countries. Candidate countries are however implementing Community legislation and hence the General Product Safety Directive. It is therefore likely that in the long term the code of practice will also have an effect in those countries.

The issue of tampons containing genetically modified cotton is not related to the toxic shock syndrome and was therefore not included in the discussions between the Commission and EDANA on the code of practice. The Commission is aware of the concerns raised and is for the moment assessing the genetically modified organisms (GMO) related issues in a more general way. Any further measures will have to await the outcome of this assessment.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/183

(2001/C 151 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3497/00 by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 November 2000)

Subject: Permission from EU governments for the operation of Temelin type nuclear reactors

The German Minister for the Environment has declared that under the current German law the Soviet- designed plant Temelin in the Czech Republic would fail to pass the security tests for nuclear power stations.

In fact, four similar Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in East Germany were closed down after the unification of Germany.

Since there are not yet EU standards for nuclear safety, is the European Commission able to answer the following question: would a nuclear reactor of the Temelin type by allowed to start to function in Germany under German law, in France under French law, in the United Kingdom under British law, in Spain under Spanish law, in Sweden under Swedish law, in Finland under Finnish law, in Belgium under Belgian law and in the Netherlands under Dutch law?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The reactor that has recently started operation in the Temelín nuclear power plant, and the second that is being completed, are of the type VVER-1000, considered by the group of seven most industrialized nations (G7) in 1992 as upgradeable to Western nuclear safety levels at a reasonable cost, and listed as such in Agenda 2000. They are, therefore, quite different from the first four reactors in the Greifswald nuclear power plant, which are of the type VVER 440/230, defined by the G7 and in Agenda 2000 as non- upgradeable at a reasonable cost.

The regulatory system in each Member State has evolved during the last decades to guarantee a high level of nuclear safety taking into consideration different nuclear regulatory cultures, but also different technologies involved. The different regulatory regimes in the Member States all have in common the assurance of a high level of nuclear safety. This is also what is asked from the candidate countries in the accession process.

The responsibility for nuclear safety rests with the state having jurisdiction over a nuclear installation. Therefore, the Czech nuclear regulatory authority is the only one which has the power to award or refuse licences for the siting, construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants in the Czech Republic. It is important, in this context, to note that the Czech regulatory regime has been recognised by international experts on nuclear safety, including an international regulatory review team of the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) in February 2000, as being at a similar level to those of the Member States.

(2001/C 151 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3506/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Finland’s Natura network

The Commission brought a case against Finland in June. According to its submission, Finland’s proposed Natura network does not include enough conservation areas for birds. The Commission refers in its submission to the work ‘Important Bird Areas of Europe’ recently completed by BirdLife International, a nature conservation organisation. C 151 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Did the assessment drawn up during the IBA research project disregard the directive on birds when assessing the adequacy of the Natura network?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) requires Member States to classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas (SPAs) for the conservation of bird species mentioned in Annex I to the Directive, taking into account their protection requirements in the geographical sea and land area where this Directive applies.

The Court of justice has confirmed that while the Member States have a certain margin of discretion in the choice of SPAs, the classification of those areas is nevertheless subject to certain ornithological criteria determined by the Directive (see Case C-355/90 Commission v Spain). It follows that the Member States’ margin of discretion in choosing the most suitable territories for classification as SPAs does not concern the appropriateness of classifying as SPAs the territories which appear the most suitable according to ornithological criteria, but only the application of those criteria for identifying the most suitable territories for conservation of the species listed in Annex I to the Directive. Consequently, Member States are obliged to classify as SPAs all the sites which, applying ornithological criteria, appear to be the most suitable for conservation of the species in question (case C-3/96 Commission v. Netherlands).

The Commission considers that the inventories on important bird areas, the latest of which was published by BirdLife International in March 2000, serve as an important scientific reference in determining the obligations of Member States in classifying SPAs under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2001/C 151 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3508/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Circeo national park

Given that:

the Circeo national park was established by royal decree in the 1930s;

since that time no park authority has been set up and no regional development plan drawn up and adopted;

the zone includes an area of outstanding environmental importance, including Roman archaeological remains and lakes;

one of these lakes, lake Paola, is treated as private property, even though it is extensively subsidised by the local authorities and is not given the necessary protection from private activities; nevertheless it forms an integral part of the park and there should be public access to its waters;

the national legislation on the matter is confused and controversial and does nothing to clarify the situation, even though the area is one of national and European interest; 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/185

Will the Commission say:

whether it is aware of this problem?

whether it intends to investigate the matter further?

whether it intends to ensure that the national authorities comply with European law, with reference also to the broader area including the Pontine islands and the nature reserves there, in order to protect the environment in what is a highly man-made area and to defend the interest of inhabitants who are living in a state of uncertainty from all points of view?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

In the specific case, since certain portions of the territory covered by Parco Nazionale del Circeo have been proposed as sites of Community importance under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) and classified as special protection areas (SPA) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), these directives could constitute the possibly relevant Community law.

However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of grounds of complaint on the application of Community law, no breach can be identified at present.

As for the fact that the Ente Parco has never been set up, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that situations of non-conformity with internal national law are relevant only in the internal national legal system.

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

(2001/C 151 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3510/00 by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Receiving unemployment benefit in a Member State other than one’s home country

The free movement of persons within the European Union must be promoted and apply to all sections of the population. EU rules exist which allow people looking for work to receive unemployment benefit in a Member State other than their home country. The costs continue to be borne by the home country, but the scheme has to be administered by the authorities of the country in which the person concerned is looking for work. Every year in Sweden alone, some 1 600 people apply for permission to receive unemployment benefit in another EU Member State.

A survey carried out in Sweden last year showed that about one in two people looking for work and entitled to unemployment benefit in another Member State under EU rules had problems obtaining their money in the country where they were seeking employment.

Is the Commission aware of this problem, and does it intend to take steps to ensure that people looking for work can in future draw unemployment benefit in a Member State other than their home country without problems? C 151 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) provides detailed rules for the co-ordination of social security schemes of the Member States when Community workers and members of their families move within the Community. In Article 69 of the Regulation there are provisions which enable an unemployed person, under certain conditions, to seek work in another Member State and, during that period, to retain the right to unemployment benefit from the first Member State. During this search for work the benefits are provided by the institution in the Member State to which the unemployed person has gone to seek work. The institution in the first Member State is obliged to reimburse the amount of the benefits to the institution which provided the benefits.

The Honourable Member implies that Member States are not implementing this provision properly. However, more information is needed in order for the Commission to determine whether Community law has not been respected properly in any particular case.

(1) Last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(2001/C 151 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Negotiations on fisheries agreements with Cape Verde, Brazil, Senegal and Kiribati

The Commission is doing far too little as regards negotiating the conclusion or the extension of fisheries agreements with third countries. Not only is the fleet which used to fish in Moroccan waters tied up in port; the expiry of the agreement with Cape Verde means that a further 38 Community vessels will be idle. The fisheries sector is accusing the Commission of allowing the Community’s agreements with African countries ‘to die’.

What action has the Commission taken with a view to renewing the agreement with Cape Verde?

What information can the Commission provide regarding the dealings which it has had with the Senegalese authorities with a view to renewing the current agreement, which will expire in May 2001?

What stages are being taken to secure an agreement between the European Community and Brazil? What species will fishing vessels be able to catch, and in which waters?

What information can the Commission provide regarding the dealings it has had with the Kiribati Government with a view to securing a fisheries agreement?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for her interest in the renewal of the Protocols relating to the fisheries agreements with Cape Verde and Senegal and in the possibilities of concluding similar agreements with Brazil and Kiribati.

The Commission is pleased to inform her that, aware of the importance of renewing the protocol with Cape Verde before it expired, it made some preparatory contacts and subsequently took part in three negotiating rounds. The first round was held in Brussels on 19/20 July 2000, the second in Praia 23-25 August 2000 and the last in Brussels on 6/7 November 2000. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/187

Despite the significant progress made in these three rounds, especially on the issue of fishing opportunities and financial compensation, it proved impossible to conclude an agreement. The Commission, with the full approval of the Member States concerned (most notably Spain), could not accept Cape Verde’s insistence that a condition be inserted in the protocol obliging surface long-liners to land their catches in the port of Mindelo. The Commission will make every effort to conclude this agreement as soon as possible. Cape Verde has not yet set a new date for negotiations, however.

Turning to Senegal, the Commission and Member States together have begun to prepare for the first round of negotiations to renew the current protocol, which expires on 30 April 2001. Negotiations should start early in 2001. When the Commissioner responsible for Fisheries met the Senegalese Fisheries Minister on 19 October 2000, he reiterated the Community’s wish to maintain the good relations it enjoys with Senegal in this field.

In the case of Brazil, the Commission is committed to exploring the possibilities for developing bilateral cooperation on fisheries, including the issue of Community access to Brazilian waters. The Commission has invited the Brazilian authorities to Brussels with a view to initiating exploratory talks on this subject before the end of the year.

The Commission is studying a possible bilateral tuna fisheries agreement with the Republic of Kiribati and is analysing the implications this would have for the mid-western Pacific.

(2001/C 151 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3535/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Free movement of labour for all industries

In view of the response to my question No E-2823/00 (1) on the free movement of labour by Commis- sioner Diamantopoulou, which seems to indicate that the free movement of labour is set at the minimum age of each Member State, will the Commission not confirm that this provision will apply across all industries in the European Union including the football industry?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 101.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2000)

The Community law provisions on the free movement of workers apply to all Union citizens who have reached the minimum age fixed by the host Member State for access to its labour market including sports activities.

(2001/C 151 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3542/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Lead

The severely harmful effects of lead on human health are well documented internationally and recognised by the WHO. Harmful effects on the environment are also internationally documented. Lead is used in thousands of products. Each single product containing lead does not always in isolation constitute a serious problem but the impact of the total quantity of lead is a very serious health and environmental problem. C 151 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Does the Commission intend to submit a proposal to prohibit the production, sale and imports of lead and products containing lead?

If so, the proposal should cover all finished products containing lead and should lay down a comprehensive timetable for phasing out such products.

Will the Commission also say what prohibitions and restrictions on the use of lead exist under current legislation, and what prohibitions and restrictions on its use are contained in proposals submitted for directives and regulations?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the harmful effects of lead on human health and on the environment. The risks related to the use of lead have been addressed for quite some time in Community legislation.

In terms of hazard, most lead compounds are classified as toxic to reproduction, harmful, dangerous for the environment (ecotoxic) and presenting a danger of cumulative effects according to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1). In addition exposure of humans and of the environment to lead compounds from such sources as air, soil, and food is well documented.

In specific situations where exposure to lead has been assessed, the Commission has put in place measures to replace lead in petrol, in paints (8th amendment 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 (2)), in vehicles (under Directive 2000/53/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (3)), and to impose limits on the concentration of lead in the air (Council Directive 82/884/EEC of 3 December 1982 on a limit value for lead in the air (4)), and in water (Council Directive 98/83/EEC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (5)). The recent proposal for a directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (6) foresees a substitution of lead in electrical and electronic equipment with few exceptions. In addition, the Commission proposed to include lead in the list of priority substances under the Water Framework Directive (7). Subject to its adoption by the Council and the Parliament, the Commission will propose quality standards for surface and coastal waters and emission controls within two years thereafter.

In its recent opinion in the context of a notification of Denmark on lead (98/595/DK), the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment (SCTEE, opinion of 5th May 2000, http:// europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/sct/outcome_en.html) stated that these Community measures has contributed to an overall decrease in lead exposure to humans and the environment. The SCTEE also concluded that the main source of exposure to lead comes from historic uses, in particular from dust and land contaminated by the use of lead in paints and petrol.

Furthermore, the Commission has requested the SCTEE to assess the overall risks of lead to human health and the environment from all sources. On the request of the SCTEE, the Commission is commissioning independent studies to collect technical and toxicological information on which to elaborate the opinion. The Commission will use the results of the studies and the SCTEE opinion as the basis to take ‘possible additional’ specific actions to reduce risks to health or the environment including, if appropriate, proposals under Directive 76/769/EEC to restrict the marketing and use of lead.

(1) OJ B 196, 16.8.1967. (2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (3) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000. (4) OJ L 378, 31.12.1982. (5) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998. (6) COM(2000) 347 final. (7) OJ C 177 E, 27.6.2000. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/189

(2001/C 151 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3543/00 by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 November 2000)

Subject: Labelling of beef tending to disrupt the market

In the recent discussion on the compulsory labelling of beef the Commission has said that the new directive in this field must not result in disruption of the market.

1. Is the Commission aware that German buying associations have largely stopped buying meat not emanating from Germany?

2. Does the Commission intend to tackle this unacceptable protectionism and obstacle to intra- Community trade?

3. Is the Commission prepared to subject the compulsory labelling to a critical review?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Commission is aware that the indication of origin on beef labels can and will have an effect on commercial decisions. These decisions, taken by individual traders, cannot be considered as illegal measures of protectionism.

Already in the past, the Commission noticed a certain ‘national reflex’ in some Member States where beef is labelled with full origin. This is the main reason why, in its proposal for a Council regulation providing for the general rules for a compulsory beef labelling system (1), the Commission had included also the possibility of ‘EU origin’ labelling.

However the Council (unanimously) as well as the Parliament (by a very large majority) decided to limit the origin indications on beef at the level of the name of the Member States concerned.

In conformity with its declaration made in Council on the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/ 1999 of 21 December 1999 providing for the general rules for a compulsory beef labelling system (2), the Commission will continue to follow closely the evolution of intra-Community trade in the beef sector.

(1) COM(1999) 664 final. (2) OJ L 334, 28.12.1999.

(2001/C 151 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3557/00 by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 2000)

Subject: Wreck of the ‘Ievoli Sun’ and the role of the RINA classification society

The chemical tanker ‘Ievoli Sun’, which has sunk, was given a clean bill of health by the RINA classification society of Italy. The same classification society inspected the oil tanker ‘Erika’, which sank last December, and claims not to have noticed the vessel’s manifestly dilapidated condition. C 151 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Will the Commission therefore state:

1. How it proposes to investigate whether RINA carried out an adequate survey of the ‘Ievoli Sun’?

2. Whether it is considering initiating proceedings against RINA in order to have the society’s licence withdrawn should its investigations show that the ‘Ievoli Sun’ was classified as seaworthy despite obvious defects?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

It is regrettable that another tanker vessel has been lost in severe weather off the French coast. There are, however, considerable differences between the two accidents: the ‘Erika’ broke in two because of structural failure, the ‘Ievoli Sun’s hull structure appears to have remained intact. The Commission is carefully following the investigations carried out by the flag state, Italy, and the French authorities into the possible causes of the latest accident. In this respect, there is at this moment no evidence available to the Commission suggesting that the accident is the direct consequence of any under performance by the classification society, RINA.

In reply to the Honourable Member the Commission wishes to give the following information:

1. The Commission is not a flag state and has no powers to carry out maritime accident investigations, which are for the flag state and the state where the accident took place. However, the Commission is continuously monitoring the recognised organisations under Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 Novem- ber 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activites of maritimes administrations (1), one of which is RINA. In fact the Commission has just received, from RINA, all relevant information about the ‘Ievoli Sun’, and is the process of assessing that material.

2. Should there be evidence, from the official investigations or otherwise, that the accident was due to under-performance on the part of RINA the Commission will investigate the possibility of using Article 9 of Directive 94/57/EC, e.g. withdrawal of recognition.

In this respect, however, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the proposed amendments to the above-mentioned Directive, introduced in the wake of ‘Erika’, to strengthen the qualitative provisions in the Directive and to introduce a further sanction temporary suspension of the licence to operate designed for possible situations as described by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is hoping for the quick adoption of this amended directive.

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.

(2001/C 151 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3565/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: ILVA S.p.A., Taranto, Italy

Given that:

the Italian State is giving up its holdings in the iron and steel industry and selling ILVA S.p.A. to ILVA laminati piani S.p.A., a company which is to be formed in the near future and will be owned by a private syndicate;

other iron and steel undertakings in which the State has a shareholding such as Gescon 90, Icrot and Sidermontaggi are closing down and being sold to ILVA laminati piani S.p.A. As a result, that company will acquire their workforce and capital; 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/191

the deed of sale of these companies in which the State has a shareholding provides that the workers will first be dismissed and put on mobility lists for temporarily laid-off workers awaiting redeployment pursuant to Law No 223/91, then re-employed by ILVA laminati piani S.p.A. after remaining on these mobility lists for one year;

this scheme means first of all that the Italian social security institution, the INPS, will pay ILVA laminati piani S.p.A. a sum of money for every worker who is re-employed (equal to half the remaining mobility payment not paid to the worker) and secondly that the company employing the worker will not pay contributions in respect of the latter for a period of 36 months.

Can the Commission:

ascertain whether the foregoing is true?

establish whether the procedure of dismissing the workers, putting them on mobility lists and then re- employing them is contrary to Italian Laws Nos. 164/75 and 223/91 on the Wages Guarantee Fund and collective redundancy and the legislation implementing the Community directives on surplus labour?

ascertain whether the mobility procedure used by ILVA laminati piani S.p.A. is in breach of the Community competition rules?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

The case referred to by the Honourable Member concerns the restructuring of the firms ILVA SPA, Gescon 90, Icrot and Sidermontaggi, which was carried out in accordance with Italian law.

Firstly, it should be recalled that Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/ EEC 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 (1) and Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (2) were correctly transposed into domestic law as regards the circumstances referred to in this particular case. For this reason, any dispute arising in this connection should be brought before the national courts.

In these circumstances it is for the Member States to take appropriate measures with a view to improving the performance of the labour market.

As regards the possible breach of competition rules referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission intends to enquire about the facts described and, if appropriate, will examine them in the light of the rules governing state aids.

(1) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998. (2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2001/C 151 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Mansio Ad Quartum

Does the Commission intend to open infringement proceedings against Italy for failing to take the necessary action to protect the important Mansio Ad Quartum site in Quarto Flegreo (Naples), which has been totally wrecked by the wholly inappropriate work carried out there? C 151 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (9 January 2001)

Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty gives the Community the right to encourage cooperation between Member States in the field of culture. The issue raised by the Honourable Member is not a Community matter, however. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, this is a matter exclusively for the Member State concerned.

(2001/C 151 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3593/00 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission (22 November 2000)

Subject: Availability of EU statistics in official languages

We have observed that it is not possible to obtain some of the most important statistics from the Eurostat services on the Internet in any languages other than English, French or German. As many of the indexes are complicated, this makes it awkward to access the Eurostat services.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to improve the opportunities for citizens to obtain some of the most important economic statistics in all the EU’s official languages?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (22 December 2000)

Eurostat is very attentive to the issue of citizens having access to statistical data in the various Community languages.

However, at present, Eurostat only has sufficient human and financial resources to make its published information available to users in English, French and German, but not in all 11 Community languages. Moreover, the need to have statistical information published more quickly, which users consider very important, also prevents documents from being made available in all the Community languages.

Nevertheless, Eurostat does try each year to produce one or more publications in all 11 Community languages (e.g. ‘Europe in figures’) with a wide circulation (300 000 copies).

Eurostat will, however, investigate the possibility of publishing a range of basic statistical indicators on the Internet in the 11 Community languages for 2001.

(2001/C 151 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3597/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 November 2000)

Subject: The Emcdda and the Santa Maria de Feira summit

When the European Summit at Santa Maria de Feira adopted the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2000-2004, it decided as follows (1):

The Member States according to technical tools and guidelines provided by Emcdda to give reliable information on the five key epidemiological indicators in a comparable form drawn up by the Emcdda and adopted by the Council: 1. extent and pattern of drug use in the general population; 2. prevalence of problem drug use; 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/193

3. demand for treatment by drug users; 4. drug-related deaths and mortality of drug users; 5. drug-related infectious diseases (HIV, hepatitis).

Can the Commission say what steps it intends to take for the adoption by the Council of these five epidemiological indicators defined by the Centre, and specify the legal instruments it proposes to use for that purpose?

(1) EU Action Plan on Drugs 2000-2004, 9283/00.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (18 December 2000)

Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Emcdda), (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2220/2000, states that the Emcdda is to ‘ensure improved comparability, objectivity and reliability of data at European level by establishing indicators and common criteria of a non-binding nature, compliance with which may be recommended by the Centre, with a view to greater uniformity of the measurement methods used by the Member States and the Community’.

In view of the non-binding nature of the indicators established by the Emcdda, when the Santa Maria da Feira European Council approved the Union’s Action Plan on Drugs for 2000-2004 it urged ‘Member States, in cooperation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction … to enhance their efforts to provide reliable and comparable information on the key epidemiological indicators in order to better evaluate the impact of drug-related issues’.

At its next Management Board meeting in January 2001, the Emcdda should present a progress report on the work on epidemiological indicators and the difficulties encountered in implementation at national level.

On this basis, the Commission will consider whether it is appropriate to prepare a legal instrument or to implement any other measure so that comparable, objective and reliable epidemiological data can be collected.

(1) OJ L 36, 12.2.1993.

(2001/C 151 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3603/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission (22 November 2000)

Subject: Social assistance the first step on the road to deportation

The German Government is continuing to pursue a policy of summary expulsions, which is all the more serious in view of the infringement proceedings being brought against Germany under Article 48 of the Treaty and the fact that it is being applied to the most vulnerable sections of the community, such as migrant workers from other EU countries who have become unemployed, or pensioners whose income is less than DEM 1 200, and who are therefore eligible to receive social assistance.

The German Government’s current practice, which disregards the right of freedom of movement and freedom of establishment, clearly shows that if a citizen works and is productive (and pays tax) he is accepted and protected, regardless of his country of origin; but if his presence is no longer convenient in economic terms, he is rejected and, worse still, expelled from the country.

Yet another case of expulsion, reported by Mr Zoratto, a member of the Comites di Stoccarda (Stuttgart- based migrant workers’) council and the CGIE (general council of Italians abroad), involves a citizen from the Veneto who has been living in Costanza since 1961 and, now that he is receiving social assistance, is being denied his right of residence. C 151 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Would the Commission approach the German Government to ask it to halt the expulsion procedure in this case?

Would the Commission urge the German authorities to raise the social assistance threshold and thus prevent such frequent recourse to the expulsion procedure?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the specific situation concerning the Italian citizen from the Veneto resident in Costanza mentioned by the Honourable Members. If the Honourable Members could provide details of the case to the Commission, it could investigate further.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question P-3394/00 by Mr Musumeci (1) and to its answer to their Written Questions E-3404/00, E-3405/00, E-3406/00 and E-3408/00 (2) by Mr Cossutta for an explanation of Community law on the renewal and withdrawal of residence permits as well as an explanation of the correspondence between the Commission and the German authorities on this subject. This correspondence makes it clear that Germany accepts the Commission’s view that a migrant workers in receipt of social assistance may not, for that fact alone, be expelled from the Member States.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 229. (2) See p. 159.

(2001/C 151 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3611/00 by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Implementation of Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC in Tuscany Regional Council Decision No 184 of 27 September 2000

Does Tuscany Regional Council Decision No 184 of 27 September 2000 correctly implement Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) concerning derogations from the provisions on the conservation of wild birds?

The legal bases for that decision are, in addition to the above directive: Law No 157 of 11 February 1992; the Prime Ministerial Decree of 21 March 1997; the Legislative Decree of 4 June 1997; and Tuscan Regional Law No 70 of 11 August 1997. Pursuant to that legislative framework and owing to serious, proven and duly documented damage to crops and harvests, the Tuscan regional authorities decided to apply the provisions of Article 9 of the directive by providing for the slaughter, within clearly defined limits, of swallows and tree swallows, which are among the species covered by the conservation provisions.

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds sets out a system of wild bird protection. In general the capture of wild bird species is prohibited. However, the system of wild bird protection set out in the Directive allows for some derogations. Article 9 of the Directive lists the requirements and conditions under which derogations to the provisions of the Directive are allowed.

1. Member states may derogate from the provisions of articles 5, 6, 7 and 8, where there is no other satisfactory solution, for the following reasons: (a) in the interests of public health and safety, in the interests of air safety, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water, for 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/195

the protection of flora and fauna; (b) for the purposes of research and teaching, of re-population, of re-introduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes; (c) to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers.

2. The derogations must specify: the species which are subject to the derogations, the means, arrangements or methods authorized for capture or killing, the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which such derogations may be granted, the authority empowered to declare that the required conditions obtain and to decide what means, arrangements or methods may be used, within what limits and by whom, the controls which will be carried out.

In order to assess compliance with Directive 79/409/EEC of acts of derogation taken by the authorities it is necessary to check whether these derogations have met the above-mentioned requirements and conditions. On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have sufficient details to be able to investigate whether ‘deliberazione’ of Regione Toscana of 27 September 2000, which adopted a derogation concerning the wild bird species Passer Italiae and Passer Montanus, complies with Directive 79/409/EEC and it is not therefore in a position to answer the question at the moment. It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details.

However, the Commission is aware that these conditions are generally not fully respected by the Italian legislation. The derogation regime set out in the Italian legislation does not comply with the provisions of Article 9 of the Directive. The Commission considers that Italy failed to ensure respect for all conditions of the regime in certain situations where derogations are invoked. The Commission therefore referred the matter to the Court of Justice, where the case is pending.

(2001/C 151 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3617/00 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Import tariffs on fisheries products imported into Poland from the European Union

Can the Commission outline a predicted timetable for its stated policy of negotiating reduced import tariffs on fish and fishery products to the ten Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

Following the mandate given to the Commission contacts have been made with the ten Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) with which accession negotiations have been opened.

The Commission has carried out a first round of negotiations with eight of them. A second round of negotiations, resulting in agreed minutes to be put forward to the respective authorities, was carried out late November, covering four of the CEECs, including Poland.

If Member States agree to the Commission proposals, trade arrangements could enter into force early in 2001. C 151 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3619/00 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Prospects for the JRC

The JRC (Joint Research Centre) is an extremely important Community scientific research body, which serves as a forum not just for the exchange of experience between Europe’s various schools of scientific thought but also for checking the scientific findings produced in the Member States for possible applications in all areas (the environment, the economy, society, etc.).

It has been reported that plans are now being made to cut 200 posts at the Centre, despite the agreement reached by the Council in 1998 to maintain staff numbers at 2080 during the course of the Fifth Framework Programme.

Would the Commission state whether:

two hundred posts really are to be cut?

it is true that plans are being made to rationalise the Community research system (new synergies between the DG for Research and the JRC, etc.)?

it would not agree that such a cut in staff numbers would seriously undermine the Ispra centre’s role and its ability to carry out its appointed tasks?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

One of the recommendations to emerge from the report by the high-level panel chaired by Viscount Davignon was to concentrate the activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) on its strongest areas of competence. Likewise, following the recommendations of the Steering Group on striking a balance between human resources and the Institution’s tasks, the Commission decided to examine the scope for closing one site down or cutting 200 jobs within the JRC.

In view of that aim the Commission examined the scope for closing one site and is continuing the study in respect of all of the JRC’s institutes. As announced in letter of amendment No 1 to the 2001 preliminary draft budget, the Commission will re-examine the situation and put forward any changes needed to the research-staff tables.

The Community’s research system is undergoing a thorough restructuring via the European research area initiative. Against this backdrop synergies will emerge between the Directorate-General for Research and the JRC, and also with the research centres in the Member States.

The Commission does not intend to downgrade the operation and skills of the JRC as a whole, but on the contrary recognises the need to provide the JRC with a stable future by concentrating its activities on its areas of skill as part of its purpose to serve the Union’s policies.

(2001/C 151 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3622/00 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Women clergy

Through its Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs, the Commission seeks to promote equality between men and women. Perhaps the one field in which there is no such equality is the 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/197

conducting of religious service in the various faiths which totally exclude women from their holy orders. Women may not perform religious ceremonies which are reserved for men, they may not be ordained and are excluded from the one field in which surely everyone should have the same rights.

What is the Commission’s view on this matter? Does it intend to adopt initiatives to strengthen equality between men and women in this field? Will the framework strategy for gender equality (2001-2005) it has announced perhaps include some encouragement to the religions and faiths practised in the countries of the European Union to admit women to holy orders on an equal footing with men?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

It is not for the Commission to comment on the issue raised by the Honourable Member, as the conducting of religious ceremonies is not a Community matter.

(2001/C 151 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3639/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Child labour

Can the Commission state which European countries have not yet ratified the ILO Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour?

Can the Commission state which ACP countries have not yet done so?

What action will the Commission take to encourage ratification?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The latest available information shows 49 countries have ratified International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No 182 of 17 June 1999 concerning the prohibition and immediate action for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. A complete list of all ratifying countries is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s secretariat.

As the Honourable Member was informed by the Commission in reply to her Written Question E-1612/ 99 (1), the Commission strongly supports the principles underlying the Convention and hopes that the widest possible ratification will be achieved. To this end, on 15 September 2000, the Commission adopted a recommendation to the Member States on the ratification of ILO Convention 182 calling on Member States to ratify if they have not done so (2).

It is the Commission’s consistent policy to promote respect for core labour standards which include the prohibition of child labour, including the worst forms of child labour in its external relations and development assistance policy. The new agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific states and the Community thus contains a reaffirmation by the parties of their commitment to fundamental labour standards, including the prohibition of the worst forms of child labour. C 151 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

Moreover, the Commission funds projects in developing countries aimed at improving the situation of children including measures geared to providing legal protection, enabling children to go back to school or making society aware of children’s rights. Since 1997, projects of this kind have been financed in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Togo, Nepal and Ghana.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000. (2) OJ L 243, 28.9.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (23 November 2000)

Subject: Irregularities in the placing of land registry studies

On 17 May 1999 a competition was held for 12 land registry studies, with a five billion drachma budget, under the Second Principal Programme for a land registry of Greece now in preparation. The Commission has recently asked the ministry concerned, the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, for explanations regarding the confusing criteria applying to selection and the awarding of contracts under the tendering procedure.

1. What precisely was the legal obstacle in the assessment procedure by the Ministry of the Environ- ment, Regional Planning and Public Works?

2. What explanations did that Ministry give the Commission?

3. What action does the Commission intend to take if it does not accept the explanations given by the Ministry?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (12 January 2001)

The Commission can confirm that it has received complaints concerning the contract in question. Following a preliminary examination of the matter, the Commission sent the Greek authorities a letter about some aspects of the procedure that seemed to raise problems regarding conformity with existing Community rules. The Commission has just received a written reply from the Greek authorities and is making a detailed assessment of it.

In view of the current stage in this assessment process, the Commission cannot at the moment answer the honourable Member’s questions with any precision.

(2001/C 151 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3650/00 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission (23 November 2000)

Subject: City guides

Is the Commission aware of the scam being carried out by a company based in Spain and promoting the ‘European City Guide’? Small traders are sent a misleading form asking for company details to be included in the ‘European City Guide’. This form, once signed and dated, commits the trader to an expensive entry in the ‘European City Guide’ for which they are then billed. For those traders who do not read all the small print on the form, this comes as a complete surprise.

If the Commission is aware of this matter, what measures has it taken to combat this? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/199

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the promotion of the ‘European City Guide’ in Spain. It is not within the Commission’s competences to treat this question as only national law applies. Appropriate measures can only be taken by the competent national authorities.

(2001/C 151 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3672/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Introduction of blind-spot mirrors

In the Belgian Federation, fifteen people have already been killed on the roads this year because truck- drivers failed to see them in the blind spot left by their wing-mirrors. According to the Belgian Road Safety Institute, a truck-driver on average fails to see a road-user to the right of his vehicle in his wing-mirror five times every day.

Yet there is a simple solution to the problem, the special blind-spot mirror. This is a small convex mirror which is also used when taking dangerous hairpin bends. However, in order to make it compulsory to instal these mirrors on vehicles notably trucks Directive 71/127/EEC (1) (last amended by Directive 88/321/EEC (2) of 16 May 1988) would have to be amended.

Will the Commission amend Directive 71/127/EEC (last amended by Directive 88/321/EEC of 16 May 1988) so as to make it compulsory for vehicles notably trucks to be fitted with blind-spot wing mirrors? If not, why does the Commission not consider it necessary to introduce such mirrors in order to reduce the number of deaths on the roads caused by this problem? In its opinion, what more effective ways might there be of solving the problem of the blind spot in the field of vision of drivers?

(1) OJ L 68, 22.3.1971, p. 1. (2) OJ L 147, 14.6.1988, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

The Commission is also concerned about the number of accidents caused by vehicle drivers who are not aware that other road users are very close or already beside their own vehicle. These accidents are often related to changes of direction at crossings or junctions when drivers fail to detect the other road users in the blind spot of their rear-view mirror on the right side of the vehicle. When larger vehicles like trucks or buses are involved, these accidents frequently lead to serious injuries or even fatalities to vulnerable road users like cyclists.

The Commission will carefully examine the situation and discuss with Member States, industry and other interested parties during the coming months the possibilities of reducing the risk by modifying Council Directive 71/127/EEC of 1 March 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the rear-view mirrors of motor vehicles, as last amended by Commission Directive 88/321/EEC of 16 May 1988 to include specific requirements for blind-spot mirrors. C 151 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3677/00 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Cooperation between lawyers and accountants

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will shortly be hearing a matter referred to it by the Dutch Council of State. The ECJ is being asked to give a preliminary ruling on the compatibility, with the provisions of the EC Treaty on competition, freedom to provide services and the right of establishment, of a regulation promulgated by the Dutch Bar (the Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten).

The Dutch Bar regulation, while authorising Bar members to enter into fully integrated partnerships with notaries, patent agents and tax consultants, prohibits Bar members from having any cooperation with (any number of) accountants that involves any degree of fee sharing or any use of a common name.

The European Parliament understands that the Commission in its submission to the Court of Justice may have taken the position that the aforementioned prohibition is legitimate as it is imposed in the general interest to protect clients and third parties. It is hard to believe that such a selective prohibition is either necessary or proportionate as it presumes that any cooperation of a Bar member with (any number of) accountants poses insurmountable problems for the Bar member’s profession. This presumption would seem untenable.

In several Member States, including, inter alia, Germany and Spain, Bar members are permitted to enter into cooperation with accountants. In addition, the Law Society of England and Wales recently announced its intention to permit such cooperations. Furthermore, the Dutch Ministries of Justice and Economic Affairs, in a special report released in July 1999, concluded that inter-professional cooperation between notaries, tax consultants, Bar members and accountants should be allowed.

Will the Commission explain why it believes that the total ban imposed by the Dutch Bar is justified or necessary and, in particular, why there are no alternative solutions that are less restrictive to such a total ban? Furthermore, how does the Commission reconcile this position with the freedom (and proposed freedom) to establish cooperation arrangements between Bar members and accountants in Germany, Spain and the UK?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

The ban in question may be justified by the overriding reasons relating to the public interest, i.e. the lawyer’s independence and professional secrecy for active client protection. Nor does the ban seem disproportionate since we do not envisage any less restrictive measure. More particularly, a separation within the group does not give an adequate guarantee while there remains a conflict of interests.

Moreover, Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on lawyers right of establishment (1) recognises that such prohibitions are justified by the general interest to protect clients and third parties (Article 11(5), second subparagraph, which refers back to paragraph 1 of the same Article). This subparagraph was added at Parliament’s request.

The Directive provides for the Members States to impose this ban, but they are under no obligation to do so. Similarly, although Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty does not oppose this ban, nor does it impose it.

(1) Directive to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ L 77, 14.3.1998). 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/201

(2001/C 151 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3678/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: WTO waiver

Would the Commission give details of any progress which is being made in consultations to end the impasse on a WTO waiver for the EU-ACP Cotonou Agreement?

Would the Commission agree that reform of the EU’s banana regime and the granting of a WTO waiver for the Cotonou Agreement are two entirely separate issues, and that ACP countries should not be penalised by any further delay in dealing with the waiver request?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member in that reform of the Community banana regime and the granting of a World Trade Organisation (WTO) waiver for the Cotonou Agreement are two entirely separate issues, and that the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries should not be penalised by any further delay in dealing with the waiver request. Indeed, the Commission, representing the Communities in the WTO council for trade in goods (CTG), has repeatedly stated this very same argument in its interventions in support of an examination of the request and then the granting of the waiver.

However, in spite of the concerted efforts of the Community and the representatives of the ACP countries in the CTG, it has not been possible to break the impasse on a WTO waiver for the Cotonou Agreement. Some members of the WTO continue to claim all documentation relating to the Agreement has not been made available since no details are given on the ACP preferential treatment for bananas. These members have not been convinced by the ACP and Community arguments that the waiver request refers to tariff preferences for the ACP, which is clearly foreseen in the Agreement, and not to the details of them.

The Commission wishes to underline that this situation has not penalised the ACP since they continue to fully enjoy their preferential access to the Community without restrictions.

(2001/C 151 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3692/00 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: The toxic nature of the Shu Gan Wan pill

Is the Commission aware of the toxic nature of the Shu Gan Wan (or Shu Kan Wan) pill, a traditional Chinese medicine? The pill is used to treat stomach or liver disorders and contains dangerous levels of mercury. What action does the Commission intend to take to protect consumers against this health risk?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2000)

No medicinal product may be marketed in the Community unless it has received a marketing authorisation and documentation has been submitted to enable its quality, safety and efficacy to be evaluated. Marketing authorisations are granted either through the centralised procedure for medicinal products from biotech- C 151 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

nology or for those which are particularly innovative, or through the national procedure. In the former case, the competent authority is the Commission, and in the latter, it is the authorities in the Member States.

Though traditional Chinese medicinal products such as Shu Gan Wan or Shu Kan Wan are presented as medicinal products with therapeutic benefits, they have no marketing authorisation under the ‘centralised’ procedure. According to the data available, certain traditional Chinese medicinal products are contaminated by heavy metals such as mercury.

Since the Commission is not competent with regard to medicinal products which do not come under the centralised procedure, the national authorities are responsible for ensuring that only those medicinal products which have been properly authorised are marketed.

(2001/C 151 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3694/00 by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: Protection of workers at the work place

Directive 2000/54/EC (1)of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 places special emphasis on the protection of workers from health and safety risks related to exposure to biological agents at work.

In this connection, specialists in hygiene and preventive medicine are specifically trained to deal with health surveillance of workers who are or may be exposed to such agents in their work, especially as regards adopting all possible preventive measures such as vaccinations.

Once again the question arises, then, of whether specialists in hygiene and preventive medicine can be employed as medical officers responsible for health and safety at the workplace, thereby taking advantage of the adoption of the EU directive by all Member States.

Will the Commission therefore say whether it intends to take specific measures to enable specialists in health and preventive medicine to act as medical officers with responsibility for health and safety at the work place?

(1) OJ L 262, 17.10.2000, p. 21.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The qualifications required to deal with health surveillance of workers are not referred to in Directive 2000/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work, which was mentioned specifically by the Honourable Member, or in any other directive on the safety and health protection of workers, as per Article 16(1) of the framework Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1).

In defining the ‘medical officer’ as the person responsible for the above surveillance, the secondary Italian legislation determined the qualification required and, as a result, it is within the competence of the Italian legislature to broaden the range of qualifications, as requested by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/203

(2001/C 151 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3715/00 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: ESF Objectives

Given that:

since 1999, with the adoption of Regulations Nos 1260 and 1784, the role of the ESF is based on the new ‘Employment’ title of the Amsterdam Treaty, which in turn is part of the employment strategy set out by the Essen European Council and in the annual employment action programmes in the Member States;

the basic aims of the ESF are to support the labour market through measures designed to combat and prevent unemployment, promote social integration and education and training systems which foster employment and to support women in the labour market;

the ultimate aims of the ESF include promoting local job creation schemes and implementing Community initiatives to combat discrimination and disparities in access to the labour market;

the European institutions are therefore fully aware that the training of human resources is of capital importance in a society that is increasingly characterised by far-reaching cultural, economic and production change that is developing at an extraordinary rate.

training, quality and research are the key areas of a credible policy to strengthen Europe’s position in the international context.

the accreditation of training facilities is essential to ensure quality standards for training providers, based on objective parameters and specific and rapid procedures.

Can President Romano Prodi say, on behalf of the Commission, what instruments if any it intends to propose to introduce a system of accreditation, based on standardised conditions and parameters, for training facilities in the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

The Commission recognises the crucial role of education and training for the economic and social development of the Community. Since the Lisbon European Council stressed the need to adapt European education and training systems to the needs of the knowledge society, a Commission working document in the form of a memorandum has been prepared. It provides a conceptual framework for developing a comprehensive lifelong learning strategy and will be the basis for a consultation process of all stakeholders during the first part of 2001. Furthermore, the key role of lifelong learning has been underlined in the Employment Guidelines for 2001. The quality of education and training systems and the issue of recognition of qualifications, acquired knowledge and skills are addressed by the employment guidelines as well as by the Community action programmes Socrates (education) and Leonardo (training).

The implementation of European Social Fund (ESF) activities over the next six years is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) and by Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund (2). These regulations do not refer explicitly to common standards in vocational training across Member States and there are no plans to tie ESF-support to the establishment of any Community-wide system of accreditation of training. However, Member States do have the flexibility to use the ESF to help improve the quality and relevance of their vocational education and training systems and thereby respond to the employment guidelines which will be the subject of reporting in the annual national action plans on employment. Moreover, the Commission will assess the impact of these policies in each ESF programme during the mid-term review in 2003.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999. C 151 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3720/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (30 November 2000)

Subject: Trade in cigarettes

The Commission’s legal dispute with two American tobacco manufacturers has focused interest once more on the import and export of cigarettes.

There is a degree of uncertainty about the extent of the cigarette trade (including smuggling). I should therefore be glad if the Commission could answer these questions: 1. How many cigarettes were confiscated in the various EU Member States in 1997, 1998 and 1999? 2. Which were the five most confiscated makes of cigarettes in the EU, in order of importance, in 1997, 1998 and 1999? 3. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Cyprus in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)? 4. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Yugoslavia in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)? 5. From which countries were cigarettes imported into the EU in 1997-1999 through the port of Antwerp? (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)? 6. To which countries outside the EU were cigarettes exported from the Belgian Federation in 1997- 1999? (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (18 January 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 151 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3721/00 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission (30 November 2000)

Subject: Family allowances as an obstacle to freedom of movement

Border workers are sometimes faced with discrepancies between the legislation in their country of residence and their country of work. One notable case is the legislation on family allowances. The German child allowance rules are based on the country-of-residence principle, while the Netherlands General Child Allowances Act (AKW) is based on the country-of-employment principle. The underlying rule of European coordination law is that the border worker should receive whichever of the amounts payable under the two schemes is the higher.

In practice, however, the following cases have arisen. A German border worker who works in the Netherlands has for some years now received the Dutch benefit under the AKW, topped up with a benefit under the German child allowance scheme, adding up to a total amount of family allowances equal to the amount he would have received in child allowances if he had worked in Germany. However, after a few years his wife also went to work in the Netherlands and the body paying the benefit has decided that there is no longer any entitlement to the German top-up family benefit.

1. Is the action of the German government compatible with the regulation or with other parts of the EU Treaties?

2. Does the Commission consider that this action may constitute an obstacle to the free movement of workers? 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/205

3. To what extent is it relevant that in this case both parents are border workers? Does the Commission consider that such a distinction is legally admissible?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (23 January 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2668/00 by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten (1).

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 73.

(2001/C 151 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3734/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (30 November 2000)

Subject: Conversion costs of the euro

Will the Commission please estimate what the conversion costs of the euro (for slot machines, software changes, production of notes and coins etc.) are likely to be for each Member State participating in the euro area?

Will it also cite alternative estimates available from national central banks, public authorities, academics or private research groups including business organisations?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (18 January 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2741/00 by Mrs Villiers (1).

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 219.

(2001/C 151 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3737/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (30 November 2000)

Subject: Television licences

1. Will the Commission state whether a licence, fee or tax is levied for the use of television in each Member State, and also state what the current rate of such a levy is in each Member State, in both national currency and in euro?

2. Are there any exemptions in Member States for blind people?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (22 January 2001)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings. C 151 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3741/00 by Gerard Collins (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Subject: UK road tax

As the Commission is aware the UK is proposing to introduce a road tax for ‘foreign’ hauliers as part of a package of measures aimed at cutting road costs for British hauliers and motorists. Has the Commission concluded its examination of this proposed measure, does it agree that it would discriminate more seriously against Irish road hauliers than their counterparts in other EU countries, on the basis that some 70 % of Irish hauliers use the UK road system either as a means of access to the continent or as a final destination, and will it therefore rule against the introduction of this discriminatory road tax?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0873/00 by Mr McCartin during question time at Parliament’s December 2000 part-session (1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 2000).

(2001/C 151 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3786/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Adapting Directive 70/156/EEC on the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers to the requirements of technical progress

On 27 November 1997 the Council adopted Decision 97/836/EC (1) on accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, known as the ‘Revised 1958 Agreement’.

Given that one of the main reasons which prompted the European Community to accede to this Agreement is to remove technical barriers to trade in motor vehicles and ensure a high level of road safety and environmental protection, it is vital to make effective progress towards adapting Directive 70/ 156/EEC (2) to the requirements of technical progress, if this fundamental objective is to be achieved.

However, although this directive needs to be adapted regularly, its most recent update (Directive 98/14/ EC (3) of 6 February 1998) incorporated in Annex IV, Part II, only 49 of the 78 regulations contained in the ‘Revised 1958 Agreement’ adopted by the European Community on 27 November 1997.

When will the Commission submit a fresh update of Council Directive 70/156/EEC?

Will it incorporate the remaining regulations from the Agreement included in Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997, as it is required to do?

What other regulations from the Agreement does the Commission plan to incorporate in the latest update of this directive, bearing in mind the ‘state of the art’?

(1) OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78. (2) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1. (3) OJ L 91, 25.3.1998, p. 1. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/207

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, as amended by Directive 98/14/EC of 6 February 1998, includes, in its annex IV, part II, those United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) regulations adopted by the Community at the time of accession to the Revised 1958 Agreement which refer to the type-approval of motor vehicles, and for which a corresponding separate directive exists. With regard to UN-ECE regulations adopted by the Community after its accession to the Agreement, as well as regulations for which a corresponding Community directive has been adopted in the meantime, the Commission will update annex IV, part II accordingly, in a proposal for the recasting of Directive 70/156/EEC in 2001.

In addition, some of the regulations listed in annex II of Council Decision 97/836/EC (1) refer to the type- approval of motorcycles and tractors, which do not fall under the scope of Directive 70/156/EEC. Regulations relating to motorcycles are already listed in the relevant separate directives relating to the type-approval of two and three wheeled vehicles. With regard to regulations concerning tractors, these will be listed in a proposal for the recasting of Council Directive 74/150/EEC of 4 March 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (2), which is currently being drafted by the Commission.

Finally, since for 12 UN-ECE regulations listed in annex II of Decision 97/836/EC there is no corresponding Community separate directive in place, they will not be included in any of the above mentioned directives for the time being.

(1) Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the UN-ECE concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (Revised 1958 Agreement). (2) OJ L 84, 28.3.1974.

(2001/C 151 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3818/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Export of live cattle to third countries

In an answer given on 19 May 2000 [E-1015/00 EN], the Commission stated that 323 000 live cattle were exported from the Community to third countries in 1999. Furthermore, in an answer given on 25 October 1999 [1730/99 EN], the Commission stated that 266 256 live cattle were exported from the Community to third countries in 1998.

How many of the live cattle exported from the Community to third countries in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999:

1. were for (a) slaughter, (b) further fattening and (c) breeding;

2. how many in each of these categories were exported from each Member State;

3. how many in each of these categories did each exporting Member State send to each individual third- country destination?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. C 151 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3826/00 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Improper use of the Valpolicella brand name in a publicity campaign against drink-driving

An article published on 12 November 2000 in the Verona newspaper ‘Arena’ reveals that Valpolicella Consortium advertisements have been used in Ireland in a campaign against drink-driving in an improper and damaging way. The Valpolicella brand name is shown in the campaign with the letters ‘police’, which appear within the word, highlighted in red so as to create an obvious connection between the name of the wine and checks by police officers.

Although a publicity campaign against drink-driving is a legitimate and praiseworthy initiative, does the Commission not consider that the use of a specific registered appellation of origin, such as the Valpolicella Consortium, constitutes a defamatory act resulting in considerable commercial damage to the brand name?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to resolve the situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. It has asked the Member State concerned for information and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings.

(2001/C 151 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3877/00 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Electrically assisted bicycles

Can the Commission confirm that European legislation will soon require simultaneous pedalling on electrically assisted bicycles i.e. when the pedalling stops, the motor also stops? If so, UK legislation, which currently allows for bikes to be ridden in ‘electric-only’ mode, will be changed.

Does not the Commission agree that current restrictions on the weight of the vehicle, motor power and the maximum motorised speed provide ample and sufficient limits on such vehicles, thereby allowing them to be treated as pedal cycles?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

A proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive (1) amending Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (2) is currently under discussion in the Council working party for motor vehicles. In the original Commission proposal, which has been accepted by the Parliament without amendments in its first reading on 27 October 1999 certain vehicles are exempted from the scope.

Beside other vehicles this Commission proposal foresees the exclusion of ‘cycles with pedal assistance (EPACs) which are equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum power of 0,25 kilowatt (kW), of which the output is progressively reduced as the vehicle speed increases, being cut off altogether at a speed of 25 kilometre per hour (km/h), and which cannot be propelled solely by means of such a motor’. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/209

Several modifications proposed by Member States to the Commission’s proposal have been discussed, but a decision has not been taken yet. For this reason the Commission can at this stage not predict how far the wording will be changed in the Council Common Position and if e.g. the possibility of simultaneous pedalling on EPACs will be required or not.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000. (2) OJ L 225, 10.8.1992.

(2001/C 151 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3888/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (13 December 2000)

Subject: Protection for shipwrecks

British Navy ships that were lost at sea during the war are nowadays often looted for souvenirs by commercial operators and used as playgrounds by leisure divers.

What plans does the Commission have for protecting these shipwrecks from such activities?

Would the Commission consider giving them the same status as war graves?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (24 January 2001)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.

(2001/C 151 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3961/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (20 December 2000)

Subject: Construction of gas turbines

The Minister for Development recently announced that gas turbine units would be built in the area of Hellinoperamata (Herakleion) for the Greek Electricity Board (DEI). This decision is contrary to decisions of the relevant prefectural and local government bodies. It should be pointed out that the area concerned is already polluted by fumes from a DEI plant built inside the coastal area without any operating licence which, along with other companies in the vicinity, is causing heavy pollution in the area to the west of the City of Herakleion. A study drawn up for the municipality concerning the environmental consequences of the DEI plant for the region in 1998 and 1999 respectively found that nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels had risen by 300-400 %.

Is the Commission aware of these very serious allegations, and what action does it intend to take to ensure compliance with Community environmental legislation and to put an end to pollution in the Hellinoper- amata region?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (1 February 2001)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible. C 151 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/00 by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Community subsidies for the Midi-Pyrénées Region: amounts and allocation

What are the figures for Community subsidies, distinguishing where necessary between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations, for Toulouse and the Midi-Pyrénées Region in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, and who were the beneficiaries, under the heading of:

the ERDF

the EAGGF-Guidance

the ESF

research programmes

environment programmes

SME programmes

education, training and youth programmes

decentralised cooperation?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 151 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4106/00 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: State of affairs of farming in Apulia

In demonstrations lasting several days during the first half of November, in the city of Barletta and in villages in the Ofanto valley, farmers from Barletta mounted a strong protest against the steep increase in fuel prices, the extremely high fines imposed for planting vines which are held to be illegal, and the 35 % cut in aid for olive oil.

The city and residents of Barletta suffered serious damage when the town hall was occupied, the main internal roads in the city itself were blocked and a tilting train was forcibly held at the city railway station; as a result of these protests three city guards who had intervened to curb the demonstration were wounded.

Therefore, will the Commission say whether farmers within Objective 1 regions may benefit from:

the abolition of fines imposed for vines which are held to be illegal or, alternatively, the imposition of a token fine, as is already the case in Spain;

non-implementation of the revised 35 % cut in aid to olive oil, or, if the revised cut is confirmed, a reduction below 35 %;

a reduction in the cost of fuel used for agricultural purposes. 22.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 151 E/211

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 January 2001) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 151 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0005/01 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission (17 January 2001) Subject: Distribution and use of Community financial aid in the Auvergne region 1994-2000 During the programming period 1994-2000 Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region benefited from Community aid and subsidies under the structural funds, and also under other Community programmes in the fields of culture, education, research, the environment, aid to SMEs and small industry, etc. 1. Can the European Commission say what programmes Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region benefited from during the 1994-2000 programming period?

2. Can the Commission say what sums were allocated to Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region and their beneficiaries each year between 1994 and 2000, if necessary making a distinction between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations?

3. Is the Commission satisfied with the implementation of appropriations under the various Community programmes in Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region during the period 1994-2000?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (29 January 2001) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.