Official Journal C 174 E Volume 44 of the European Communities 19 June 2001

ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 174 E Volume 44 of the European Communities 19 June 2001

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 174 E/001) P-2575/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Lack of infrastructures and facilities at Patras Port (Supplementary Answer) ...... 1 (2001/C 174 E/002) E-2783/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Shortcomings of public works in Greece (Supplementary Answer) ...... 2 (2001/C 174 E/003) E-0951/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: The Objective 2 region of Hainaut (Supplementary Answer) ...... 3 (2001/C 174 E/004) E-2666/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: Safety of nuclear power stations in the applicant countries ...... 5 (2001/C 174 E/005) E-2682/00 by Matti Wuori to the Commission Subject: Nuclear safety Temelin power station ...... 6 (2001/C 174 E/006) E-2736/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Consistency in the application of the precautionary principle ...... 7 (2001/C 174 E/007) E-2743/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Sewage plant in Sarroch, Sardinia (Supplementary Answer) ...... 8 (2001/C 174 E/008) E-2776/00 by Avril Doyle to the Council Subject: Torture in Turkish prisons ...... 9 (2001/C 174 E/009) E-2795/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Top rate of tax on personal incomes in each country of the European Union ...... 10 (2001/C 174 E/010) E-2796/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Top rate of personal inheritance tax in each country of the European Union ...... 10 (2001/C 174 E/011) E-2797/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Top rate of capital gains tax charged in each country of the European Union ...... 11 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2795/00, E-2796/00 and E-2797/00 ...... 11 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/012) E-2819/00 by Marco Cappato to the Commission Subject: Council annual report on human rights: Commission’s position on calls made by Parliament ...... 12 (2001/C 174 E/013) P-2822/00 by W. G. van Velzen to the Council Subject: Credit card fraud on the Internet ...... 13 (2001/C 174 E/014) E-2882/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Council Subject: Population trends in Spain and Galicia and EU harmonisation of the legal, economic and social conditions of women’s work ...... 14 (2001/C 174 E/015) E-2975/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Council Subject: Funding of European Union island regions ...... 15 (2001/C 174 E/016) E-3083/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: PHARE programme ...... 16 (2001/C 174 E/017) E-3093/00 by Ioannis Averoff and Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Funding for Greece for reafforestation and flood prevention schemes ...... 18 (2001/C 174 E/018) P-3108/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Council Subject: State laws on language issues ...... 19 (2001/C 174 E/019) E-3147/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: EU financing of the planning and construction of a motorway through the Kresna gorge nature conservation area in Bulgaria ...... 20 (2001/C 174 E/020) E-3157/00 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Taxation of online supplies ...... 21 (2001/C 174 E/021) E-3163/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Water infrastructure ...... 23 (2001/C 174 E/022) E-3197/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Internal Drainage Boards in the United Kingdom ...... 23 (2001/C 174 E/023) E-3204/00 by Chris Davies to the Council Subject: Civil liberties in Saudi Arabia ...... 24 (2001/C 174 E/024) E-3218/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Development of a studio theme park in Mainz ...... 24 (2001/C 174 E/025) E-3221/00 by Glyn Ford to the Council Subject: Tobacco directive derogation ...... 25 (2001/C 174 E/026) E-3223/00 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Transport of animals and compliance with Council Directive 91/628/EEC ...... 26 (2001/C 174 E/027) E-3240/00 by Gabriele Stauner to the Commission Subject: Fléchard firm’s involvement in adulterated butter fraud ...... 27 (2001/C 174 E/028) P-3478/00 by Gabriele Stauner to the Commission Subject: Payments to the firm Fléchard ...... 28

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3240/00 and P-3478/00 ...... 28 (2001/C 174 E/029) E-3242/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Civil war in Sudan ...... 29 (2001/C 174 E/030) E-3263/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Reciprocal defence guarantees in the EU ...... 30 (2001/C 174 E/031) P-3266/00 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: Support for the arts in the EU ...... 31 (2001/C 174 E/032) E-3279/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Arrest of priest in Turkey ...... 32 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/033) E-3289/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Measures against caffein ...... 32 (2001/C 174 E/034) E-3296/00 by Bernd Lange to the Commission Subject: Harmonisation of motor boat skippers’ licences ...... 33 (2001/C 174 E/035) E-3327/00 by Christoph Konrad to the Commission Subject: Consumer protection and unfair commercial practices and sales methods ...... 34 (2001/C 174 E/036) E-3337/00 by Lucio Manisco to the Commission Subject: Attacks on press freedom in Austria ...... 35 (2001/C 174 E/037) E-3346/00 by Ursula Schleicher to the Council Subject: Revision of the Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament (Anastassopoulos Report) ...... 36 (2001/C 174 E/038) E-3347/00 by Paul Rübig to the Council Subject: Visa requirement for Slovakian citizens on entry to Belgium ...... 36 (2001/C 174 E/039) E-3348/00 by Anna Karamanou to the Council Subject: Strengthening democratic institutions and promoting respect for ethnic minorities in Albania ...... 37 (2001/C 174 E/040) P-3360/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Conditions in Greek slaughterhouses ...... 38 (2001/C 174 E/041) E-3366/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Avoiding tax by spreading high incomes over different Member States ...... 40 (2001/C 174 E/042) E-3382/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez to the Commission Subject: Criteria used by the Commission for allocating fishing opportunities ...... 41 (2001/C 174 E/043) E-3383/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Planned directive with harmful effects on regional airlines ...... 42 (2001/C 174 E/044) E-3384/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Council Subject: Opportunities for internet companies in the People’s Republic of China ...... 44 (2001/C 174 E/045) E-3385/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: Opportunities for internet companies in the People’s Republic of China ...... 44 (2001/C 174 E/046) E-3387/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Persuading people to travel short distances by air on routes with frequent rail services ...... 45 (2001/C 174 E/047) E-3395/00 by Freddy Blak and Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the Commission Subject: Use of evidence of previous convictions for recruitment purposes ...... 47 (2001/C 174 E/048) E-3398/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the Commission Subject: Overcharging by mobile oeprators ...... 48 (2001/C 174 E/049) E-3402/00 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the Commission Subject: Intercultural management in the Commission ...... 49 (2001/C 174 E/050) E-3407/00 by Armando Cossutta to the Council Subject: Deportation of Italian citizens by Germany ...... 50 (2001/C 174 E/051) E-3412/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Support for information on EMU in Sweden ...... 51 (2001/C 174 E/052) E-3417/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Recruitment of staff for the Commission IT Directorate ...... 51 (2001/C 174 E/053) E-3423/00 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Fuel tax charges in Greece ...... 52 (2001/C 174 E/054) E-3434/00 by Antonio Tajani and Mario Mauro to the Council Subject: Protection of Italian journalists in the Middle East freedom of the press ...... 54 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/055) E-3442/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Italian gene food ban ...... 55 (2001/C 174 E/056) E-3450/00 by Jean-Claude Fruteau to the Council Subject: Liberalisation of the Community market for LDCs ...... 56 (2001/C 174 E/057) E-3459/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Council Subject: Elections in Albania and the Greek minority ...... 58 (2001/C 174 E/058) E-3460/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Council Subject: Peace initiative in the Middle East ...... 59 (2001/C 174 E/059) E-3492/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Council Subject: Community measures to stop war in the Middle East ...... 59 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3460/00 and E-3492/00 ...... 60 (2001/C 174 E/060) E-3477/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Cable pipes through the Brabantse Wal special protected zone ...... 60 (2001/C 174 E/061) E-3481/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Substandard road construction funded by the second Community Support Framework ...... 62 (2001/C 174 E/062) E-3494/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Council Subject: Arrest and intimidation of Syriac Orthodox clerics in Turkey ...... 62 (2001/C 174 E/063) E-3499/00 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Council Subject: Provocative statements by Turkish Minister ...... 63 (2001/C 174 E/064) E-3502/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Compensation for criminal injuries ...... 64 (2001/C 174 E/065) E-3503/00 by Jules Maaten to the Commission Subject: Number of European Commission officials working on the cancer programme ...... 65 (2001/C 174 E/066) P-3513/00 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: Commission’s Standing Group on Seeds ...... 66 (2001/C 174 E/067) E-3515/00 by Werner Langen to the Commission Subject: Emergency measures to offset the additional burden of increased energy costs ...... 66 (2001/C 174 E/068) E-3517/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Inntrepeneur Beer Tie ...... 68 (2001/C 174 E/069) E-3522/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: Animal meal ...... 69 (2001/C 174 E/070) E-3523/00 by Cristiana Muscardini, Mauro Nobilia, Raffaele Costa and Guido Podestà to the Commission Subject: Infringement proceedings against Italy for failure to transpose Directive 97/67/EC correctly ...... 70 (2001/C 174 E/071) E-3529/00 by Andre Brie to the Council Subject: Deaths and murders of illegal immigrants in southern Italy ...... 71 (2001/C 174 E/072) E-3530/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Council Subject: Contestation of Greek sovereign rights by Turkey ...... 72 (2001/C 174 E/073) E-3532/00 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Peace process in the Middle East ...... 72 (2001/C 174 E/074) E-3534/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Aid to countries of South and Central America ...... 73 (2001/C 174 E/075) E-3546/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Education ...... 73 (2001/C 174 E/076) E-3547/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Excessive increase in the price of paper ...... 75 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/077) E-3548/00 by Umberto Scapagnini, Raffaele Lombardo, Francesco Musotto, Guido Viceconte, Guido Podestà and Giuseppe Nisticò to the Commission Subject: Mediterranean Basic ...... 75

(2001/C 174 E/078) E-3552/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Aerial crop spraying and the use of pesticides in Greece ...... 76

(2001/C 174 E/079) E-3554/00 by Antonio Di Pietro to the Council Subject: Terms and conditions of employment of members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank .78

(2001/C 174 E/080) E-3556/00 by Antonio Di Pietro to the Commission Subject: Application of Community directives to the ECB ...... 78

(2001/C 174 E/081) E-3563/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Refusal of a derogation allowing the Turks and Caicos Islands to export small quantities of rice ...... 79

(2001/C 174 E/082) E-3566/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Progress in implementing the operational programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training’ under the second CSF in Greece ...... 80

(2001/C 174 E/083) E-3567/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: The current system of car taxation and its inconsistency with the Internal Market and free trade ..... 81

(2001/C 174 E/084) P-3573/00 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Commission Subject: Cultural Olympiad ...... 82

(2001/C 174 E/085) E-3581/00 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the Commission Subject: Letter of 23 March 1998 from Commission Member Leon Brittan to Thabo Mbeki concerning the TRIPS agreement ...... 82

(2001/C 174 E/086) P-3584/00 by Laura González Álvarez to the Council Subject: Damaged British nuclear submarine HMS Tireless, docked in Gibraltar ...... 83

(2001/C 174 E/087) E-3588/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Budgetary contributions of Member States ...... 84

(2001/C 174 E/088) E-3590/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Health expenditure in Cuba ...... 84

(2001/C 174 E/089) E-3592/00 by Gordon Adam to the Commission Subject: Hydrocarbons research ...... 85

(2001/C 174 E/090) E-3598/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: EU Action Plan on Drugs ...... 87

(2001/C 174 E/091) E-3600/00 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: The ‘de minimis’ rule ...... 87

(2001/C 174 E/092) E-3602/00 by Luciano Caveri to the Commission Subject: Air traffic over the Alps ...... 88

(2001/C 174 E/093) E-3607/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Conduct of Spanish road transport authorities towards foreign motorists ...... 90

(2001/C 174 E/094) P-3609/00 by Paul Lannoye to the Commission Subject: Complaint against three companies in the airport sector ...... 90

(2001/C 174 E/095) P-3613/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Council Subject: Action to combat trafficking, exploitation and sexual abuse of children ...... 91

(2001/C 174 E/096) E-3615/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: ECJ judgment in Case C-205/98 tolls levied on goods vehicles using the Brenner motorway ...... 92

(2001/C 174 E/097) P-3618/00 by Raffaele Lombardo to the Council Subject: Combating paedophilia and ‘sex tourism’ ...... 93 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/098) E-3629/00 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Notification of bird species on the ‘Natura 2000’ information form ...... 94 (2001/C 174 E/099) E-3632/00 by Antonio Tajani to the Council Subject: Western Sahara ...... 95 (2001/C 174 E/100) E-3634/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Measures to tackle energy prices rising as a result of liberalisation, privatisation and competition ..... 96 (2001/C 174 E/101) E-3635/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Concentration of ICT firms in large cities with a shortage of electricity ...... 97 (2001/C 174 E/102) E-3636/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Introducing the high-speed Internet: delays, resistance and incompetence ...... 98 (2001/C 174 E/103) E-3638/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: The pesticide Rotenone as a possible cause of Parkinson’s disease ...... 99 (2001/C 174 E/104) E-3641/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Building of a motorway in the Braga district ...... 101 (2001/C 174 E/105) P-3644/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: EU responsibility for ferry services ...... 102 (2001/C 174 E/106) E-3656/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Difference in treatment under Spanish tax law ...... 103 (2001/C 174 E/107) E-3661/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Coastal fishing in ACP countries ...... 104 (2001/C 174 E/108) E-3662/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Council Subject: The EU’s White Paper seminar in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000 ...... 105 (2001/C 174 E/109) E-3663/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Commission Subject: The EU’s White Paper seminar in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000 ...... 105 (2001/C 174 E/110) E-3665/00 by Luciana Sbarbati to the Commission Subject: Safeguarding jobs in firms which have been beneficiaries of state and Community aid ...... 107 (2001/C 174 E/111) E-3666/00 by Mario Mantovani, Guido Podestà and Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Children in Romania ...... 108 (2001/C 174 E/112) E-3670/00 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Need for an environmental impact assessment of a project in Puerto de Grau (Castellón, Autonomous Community of Valencia) ...... 109 (2001/C 174 E/113) E-3671/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Introduction of blind-spot mirrors ...... 110 (2001/C 174 E/114) E-3675/00 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission Subject: Special scheme for access to Portuguese universities for the families of EU officials ...... 111 (2001/C 174 E/115) E-3679/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Export aid for milk surpluses ...... 112 (2001/C 174 E/116) E-3681/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Milk quotas and EU enlargement ...... 113 (2001/C 174 E/117) E-3695/00 by Torben Lund to the Commission Subject: By-catches of harbour porpoises plan of action ...... 114 (2001/C 174 E/118) E-3696/00 by Torben Lund to the Commission Subject: By-catches ...... 115 (2001/C 174 E/119) E-3697/00 by Torben Lund to the Commission Subject: Drift net fishing in the Baltic ...... 116 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/120) E-3698/00 by Torben Lund to the Commission Subject: Porpoise by-catches ...... 117 (2001/C 174 E/121) E-3700/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Malawi ...... 117 (2001/C 174 E/122) E-3701/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: UN special session on children ...... 118 (2001/C 174 E/123) E-3702/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román, Nelly Maes, Pere Esteve, Neil MacCormick, Gorka Knörr Borràs, Luciano Caveri, Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm, Concepció Ferrer, Carlos Bautista Ojeda and Jillian Evans to the Commission Subject: Language diversity in the European Union ...... 119 (2001/C 174 E/124) E-3705/00 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: The treatment of pro-democracy protestors in Belarus ...... 120 (2001/C 174 E/125) E-3706/00 by John Cushnahan to the Commission Subject: Child labour in Latin America and the Caribbean ...... 121 (2001/C 174 E/126) E-3707/00 by John Cushnahan to the Council Subject: The plight of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan ...... 122 (2001/C 174 E/127) E-3710/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the Commission Subject: Red Tuna catches in Dènia and Gandia ...... 123 (2001/C 174 E/128) E-3716/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Protected geographical indication (PGI) for Balsamic vinegar from Modena ...... 124 (2001/C 174 E/129) E-3719/00 by Demetrio Volcic and Vincenzo Lavarra to the Commission Subject: Illegal immigration in Italy ...... 125 (2001/C 174 E/130) E-3722/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Development of sugars and insects as a result of the altered composition of the unusable parts of genetically-modified plants ...... 126 (2001/C 174 E/131) E-3729/00 by Michel Hansenne to the Commission Subject: VAT deductions VAT Committee guidelines ...... 128 (2001/C 174 E/132) P-3732/00 by Brian Crowley to the Commission Subject: Massacre in La Union, Colombia ...... 129 (2001/C 174 E/133) P-3740/00 by Robert Sturdy to the Commission Subject: ‘Everything But Arms’ proposal ...... 130 (2001/C 174 E/134) P-3742/00 by Pat Gallagher to the Commission Subject: Insurance companies’ use of genetic tests for inherited diseases ...... 130 (2001/C 174 E/135) P-3743/00 by Maurizio Turco to the Council Subject: Clarifications concerning the reply to priority Written Question P-2247/00 on Opus Dei and European officials’ right to exercise discretion ...... 131 (2001/C 174 E/136) E-3746/00 by Marit Paulsen and Karl Olsson to the Commission Subject: TSE in pigs ...... 132 (2001/C 174 E/137) E-3747/00 by Joachim Wuermeling to the Commission Subject: Discrimination against foreign coach drivers in France ...... 134 (2001/C 174 E/138) E-3749/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Serious deficiencies in the application of Community Directives 89/362 and 92/46 in Greece ...... 135 (2001/C 174 E/139) E-3752/00 by Alexander de Roo to the Commission Subject: Ivory trade ...... 136 (2001/C 174 E/140) E-3755/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Spatial planning in the EU: Interreg II C ...... 136 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/141) E-3765/00 by Nelly Maes to the Commission Subject: Transport of live animals over long distances ...... 137 (2001/C 174 E/142) E-3769/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the Commission Subject: Accidents in the EU ...... 138 (2001/C 174 E/143) E-3780/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Objective 2 aid to Hainaut ...... 139 (2001/C 174 E/144) P-3784/00 by Heidi Hautala to the Council Subject: Secret protocol to the St Malo Declaration ...... 140 (2001/C 174 E/145) P-3785/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Progress in the implementation of Directives 91/628/EEC, 95/29/EC and 70/156/EEC ...... 141 (2001/C 174 E/146) P-3787/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Conservation of the Marína di Ravenna wandering dunes, Ravenna, Italy ...... 142 (2001/C 174 E/147) E-3791/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Repair of churches ...... 143 (2001/C 174 E/148) E-3793/00 by Roberto Bigliardo to the Commission Subject: Transparency of negotiations ...... 144 (2001/C 174 E/149) E-3797/00 by Maurizio Turco to the Commission Subject: Limits to the protection of privacy and legal tapping ...... 144 (2001/C 174 E/150) E-3798/00 by Maurizio Turco to the Council Subject: Limits to the protection of privacy and legal tapping ...... 146 (2001/C 174 E/151) E-3802/00 by Maurizio Turco to the Council Subject: Transposal of Directive 97/66/EC ...... 146 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3798/00 and E-3802/00 ...... 147 (2001/C 174 E/152) E-3806/00 by Stephen Hughes to the Commission Subject: Safeguarding employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings ...... 147 (2001/C 174 E/153) E-3807/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Illegal deductions of aid for farmers ...... 148 (2001/C 174 E/154) E-3808/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Lettori ...... 149 (2001/C 174 E/155) E-3809/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Export of live horses ...... 150 (2001/C 174 E/156) E-3810/00 by Neil MacCormick to the Commission Subject: Bridge tolls and freedom of movement ...... 151 (2001/C 174 E/157) E-3811/00 by Patricia McKenna to the Council Subject: Prison reform in Russia ...... 152 (2001/C 174 E/158) E-3812/00 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: State of Russian prisons ...... 152 (2001/C 174 E/159) E-3816/00 by John Bowis to the Commission Subject: Community rules on the transport of live animals ...... 153 (2001/C 174 E/160) E-3817/00 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: Transport of live animals ...... 154 (2001/C 174 E/161) E-3823/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Commission Subject: The Nordic Passport Union and Article 45 of the Schengen Convention ...... 155 (2001/C 174 E/162) E-3831/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Abolition of the advance tax deduction from subsistence allowances and accommodation costs on business and service travel and commercial relocation costs ...... 156 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/163) E-3832/00 by Rolf Linkohr to the Commission Subject: European Southern Observatory ...... 157

(2001/C 174 E/164) E-3833/00 by Raina Echerer to the Commission Subject: Threats to official vets and animal welfare organisations ...... 157

(2001/C 174 E/165) E-3834/00 by Raina Echerer to the Commission Subject: Monitoring of animal transport ...... 158

(2001/C 174 E/166) E-3837/00 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Concerted practices with regard to the value date for bank transfers ...... 159

(2001/C 174 E/167) E-3839/00 by Brian Crowley to the Council Subject: Deteriorating situation in Sierra Leone ...... 160

(2001/C 174 E/168) P-4143/00 by Niall Andrews to the Council Subject: Deteriorating situation in Sierra Leone ...... 161

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3839/00 and P-4143/00 ...... 161

(2001/C 174 E/169) E-3840/00 by Raina Echerer to the Commission Subject: Directive 91/628/EEC ...... 161

(2001/C 174 E/170) E-3842/00 by Jacqueline Foster to the Commission Subject: Long-line fishing ...... 162

(2001/C 174 E/171) E-3843/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Iron foundry coke dumping by the People’s Republic of China ...... 164

(2001/C 174 E/172) E-3844/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: Filmmaking in the EU ...... 164

(2001/C 174 E/173) E-3851/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Council Subject: Early retirement ...... 165

(2001/C 174 E/174) E-3853/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Council Subject: Enlargement and fisheries ...... 166

(2001/C 174 E/175) E-3855/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Council Subject: Enlargement and regional policy: economic, social and territorial cohesion of the outer maritime regions of the EU cohesion...... 167

(2001/C 174 E/176) E-3857/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Council Subject: Enlargement and regional policy: European territorial strategy (ETS) ...... 168

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3855/00 and E-3857/00 ...... 169

(2001/C 174 E/177) E-3864/00 by Ingo Friedrich to the Commission Subject: ‘Inforegio Panorama’ glossy magazine ...... 169

(2001/C 174 E/178) E-3874/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: The arms trade ...... 170

(2001/C 174 E/179) E-3879/00 by Charles Tannock to the Council Subject: Carbon sinks ...... 171

(2001/C 174 E/180) P-3881/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: BSE in Germany ...... 171

(2001/C 174 E/181) E-3885/00 by Ioannis Souladakis, Minerva Malliori and Paulo Casaca to the Council Subject: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (mad cow disease) ...... 172

(2001/C 174 E/182) E-3886/00 by Ioannis Souladakis, Minerva Malliori and Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (mad cow disease) ...... 173 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/183) P-4076/00 by Dominique Souchet to the Commission Subject: Developing the production of fodder protein in response to the recent ban on the use of meat meal . . . 173

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3886/00 and P-4076/00 ...... 174 (2001/C 174 E/184) E-3889/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Council Subject: Integrated policy against crime ...... 174 (2001/C 174 E/185) E-3890/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Financial aid to Latin America ...... 175 (2001/C 174 E/186) E-3892/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Council Subject: Review of the directive on European works councils ...... 176 (2001/C 174 E/187) E-3896/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Further question concerning late payments by the Commission ...... 177 (2001/C 174 E/188) E-3897/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Council Subject: Advance supply of?5 and?10 banknotes ...... 177 (2001/C 174 E/189) E-3898/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission Subject: Advance supply of € 5 and € 10 banknotes ...... 178 (2001/C 174 E/190) E-3899/00 by Astrid Lulling to the Commission Subject: Coin exchange on introduction of the euro in 2002 ...... 178 (2001/C 174 E/191) E-3900/00 by Astrid Lulling to the Commission Subject: Restrictions imposed by the Evin law on the televised broadcasting in France of sporting events from abroad ...... 179 (2001/C 174 E/192) E-3904/00 by Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Use of marker vaccines in the European Union ...... 180 (2001/C 174 E/193) E-3909/00 by Adeline Hazan, Anneli Hulthén, Ulpu Iivari and Catherine Stihler to the Council Subject: Alcohol awareness ...... 181 (2001/C 174 E/194) P-3912/00 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Implementation of environmental legislation in Greece, ECJ Judgment C-387/97 and the examination of the charges brought concerning the project to build a link across the Gulf of Malia ...... 182 (2001/C 174 E/195) P-3915/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Implementation of environmental legislation ...... 184 (2001/C 174 E/196) P-3916/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: BSE in Germany ...... 185 (2001/C 174 E/197) P-3919/00 by Caroline Lucas to the Commission Subject: Bathing Water Directive ...... 186 (2001/C 174 E/198) E-3921/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: The Dolomites as a European cultural heritage site ...... 187 (2001/C 174 E/199) E-3922/00 by Anna Karamanou to the Council Subject: Increase in xenophobia in Europe ...... 187 (2001/C 174 E/200) E-3923/00 by Anna Karamanou to the Commission Subject: Increase in xenophobia in Europe ...... 188 (2001/C 174 E/201) E-3930/00 by Joaquim Miranda and Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Safeguarding the European shipbuilding industry ...... 189 (2001/C 174 E/202) P-3931/00 by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann to the Commission Subject: Introduction of the Euro in the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro ...... 191 (2001/C 174 E/203) P-3933/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Common Foreign Policy and Kosovo ...... 193 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/204) E-3936/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Market surveillance and the EC trade mark ...... 194 (2001/C 174 E/205) E-3939/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Outvoting under QMV ...... 195 (2001/C 174 E/206) E-3940/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Common agricultural policy and enlargement ...... 196 (2001/C 174 E/207) E-3942/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Application of the common fisheries policy ...... 196 (2001/C 174 E/208) E-3944/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Variable VAT rates ...... 197 (2001/C 174 E/209) E-3945/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Euro conversion costs ...... 198 (2001/C 174 E/210) E-3946/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Ecofin documents ...... 198 (2001/C 174 E/211) E-3952/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Index-linking of war pensions ...... 199 (2001/C 174 E/212) P-3959/00 by Vitaliano Gemelli to the Commission Subject: Banking interests: is the Commission supporting the ABI (Italian Banking Association) or the general public? ...... 199 (2001/C 174 E/213) P-3962/00 by Elspeth Attwooll to the Commission Subject: Fisheries agreement between the European Union and Senegal ...... 200 (2001/C 174 E/214) P-3964/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Council Subject: Tunisia ...... 202 (2001/C 174 E/215) E-3966/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Commission’s refusal to renew freelance interpreters’ contracts ...... 203 (2001/C 174 E/216) E-3970/00 by Peter Skinner to the Commission Subject: Asbestos ...... 203 (2001/C 174 E/217) E-3975/00 by Armando Cossutta to the Commission Subject: Defective tyres ...... 204 (2001/C 174 E/218) E-3976/00 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Monopoly in sports and recognition of diplomas in sports training ...... 205 (2001/C 174 E/219) E-3984/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Freedom of expression for the media ...... 206 (2001/C 174 E/220) E-3985/00 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Recognition of university degrees ...... 207 (2001/C 174 E/221) E-3988/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Future spread of the dwarf tapeworm in Sweden ...... 209 (2001/C 174 E/222) E-3990/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Exemption from passport requirement for Russian citizens in the Kaliningrad enclave ...... 209 (2001/C 174 E/223) E-3992/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Forthcoming Swedish ban on firecrackers ...... 210 (2001/C 174 E/224) E-3994/00 by Helmuth Markov to the Commission Subject: Transposition and interpretation of EU Directives by the Federal Republic of Germany ...... 211 (2001/C 174 E/225) P-3997/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: The Charter of Fundamental Rights (legal status) ...... 212 (2001/C 174 E/226) E-4003/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Abolition of the current system of vehicle retail monopoly ...... 213 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/227) E-4015/00 by Carlos Carnero González to the Commission Subject: Open letter from Amnesty International concerning the human rights situation in Turkey ...... 214 (2001/C 174 E/228) E-4016/00 by Carlos Carnero González to the Commission Subject: Referendum against trade union freedom in Venezuela ...... 214 (2001/C 174 E/229) P-4018/00 by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo to the Commission Subject: Relations with the State of Israel ...... 215 (2001/C 174 E/230) E-4020/00 by Charles Tannock, Martin Callanan, Nirj Deva, Den Dover, Jacqueline Foster, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer, Bashir Khanbhai, Timothy Kirkhope, Neil Parish and Geoffrey Van Orden to the Commission Subject: Weights and measures ...... 216 (2001/C 174 E/231) E-4025/00 by Jeffrey Titford to the Commission Subject: Refusal of grant to the International Youth Festival in Wertheim in Germany ...... 217 (2001/C 174 E/232) E-4027/00 by Freddy Blak to the Commission Subject: Lorry drivers ...... 218 (2001/C 174 E/233) E-4030/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: The killings at Racak ...... 218 (2001/C 174 E/234) P-4041/00 by Michael Cashman to the Commission Subject: Charter of Fundamental Rights/Electromagnetic fields ...... 219 (2001/C 174 E/235) P-4042/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act ...... 220 (2001/C 174 E/236) P-4047/00 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission Subject: Renewal of the motorway concession held by the Brescia-Padua motorway company and the building of the Valtrompia motorway ...... 220 (2001/C 174 E/237) E-4054/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Council Subject: Central European Bank: how much do its directors earn? ...... 222 (2001/C 174 E/238) E-4055/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Central European Bank: how much do its directors earn? ...... 222 (2001/C 174 E/239) P-4058/00 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Inspection of meat imported into Greece ...... 223 (2001/C 174 E/240) P-4059/00 by Willy De Clercq to the Commission Subject: Access to innovative medicines ...... 224 (2001/C 174 E/241) E-4063/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Businesses and the EU-Mexico Agreement ...... 224 (2001/C 174 E/242) P-4067/00 by Stavros Xarchakos to the Council Subject: Visa for Turkish nationals ...... 225 (2001/C 174 E/243) P-4068/00 by Karla Peijs to the Council Subject: Illegal emigration from the Schengen area to Britain ...... 226 (2001/C 174 E/244) P-4075/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Promotion of fisheries initiatives ...... 228 (2001/C 174 E/245) P-4077/00 by Mario Mantovani to the Commission Subject: Football transfers ...... 229 (2001/C 174 E/246) E-4080/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Cooperation agreements with the countries of Central Asia ...... 230 (2001/C 174 E/247) E-4084/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Italian law on the buying, registration and selling of cars ...... 231 (2001/C 174 E/248) E-4086/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Business Impact Assessments ...... 231 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/249) E-4100/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Linguistic discrimination in the European Union ...... 233 (2001/C 174 E/250) E-4103/00 by Vittorio Sgarbi to the Commission Subject: Implications of sanctions policy against Austria ...... 234 (2001/C 174 E/251) E-4116/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar, Salvador Jové Peres and Carlos Carnero González to the Commission Subject: Public works contracts and the fight against unemployment ...... 234 (2001/C 174 E/252) E-4121/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Prohibition of markings by independent third-party certifiers in addition to the CE marking ...... 235 (2001/C 174 E/253) P-4129/00 by António Seguro to the Commission Subject: Secretary-General’s report on the outcome of the Nice European Council ...... 236 (2001/C 174 E/254) P-4130/00 by Ingo Schmitt to the Commission Subject: Non-recognition of German disability cards in Spain ...... 237 (2001/C 174 E/255) E-4134/00 by Gerhard Schmid to the Commission Subject: Directive on cableway installations ...... 237 (2001/C 174 E/256) E-4145/00 by Michel Hansenne to the Commission Subject: Safety of lifts ...... 238 (2001/C 174 E/257) P-4147/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Aid for single-parent families ...... 239 (2001/C 174 E/258) P-4149/00 by Dorette Corbey to the Commission Subject: Dutch law on plant protection products ...... 240 (2001/C 174 E/259) P-4157/00 by Mauro Nobilia to the Commission Subject: Exorbitant interest rate threshold in respect of bank interest in Italy ...... 241 (2001/C 174 E/260) P-4158/00 by W. G. van Velzen to the Commission Subject: Discrimination in the conclusion of mobile telephone subscriptions ...... 242 (2001/C 174 E/261) E-0002/01 by Rolf Linkohr to the Commission Subject: Recycling of medical devices ...... 243 (2001/C 174 E/262) E-0011/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Metrication ...... 244 (2001/C 174 E/263) E-0029/01 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Cancer prevention ...... 245 (2001/C 174 E/264) P-0041/01 by Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Closing down the Europartnership programme ...... 245 (2001/C 174 E/265) P-0043/01 by María Rodríguez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Disposal of carcasses of ruminants as part of action to combat BSE ...... 246 (2001/C 174 E/266) P-0052/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: BSE and burial of cows in Mesia (Galicia) ...... 247 (2001/C 174 E/267) P-0054/01 by Nelly Maes to the Council Subject: Political dialogue meetings with the Turkish authorities ...... 249 (2001/C 174 E/268) E-0066/01 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Delays in rescue operations after road accidents because of secrecy surrounding technical innovations in cars ...... 250 (2001/C 174 E/269) P-0071/01 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: TV rights relating to football ...... 251 (2001/C 174 E/270) E-0075/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Linguistic reform in Navarre ...... 251 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2001/C 174 E/271) E-0104/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Why is Commission President Romano Prodi travelling to Morocco to sign a cooperation agreement, when Morocco is refusing to sign a mutually beneficial fisheries agreement on reasonable terms? ...... 252 (2001/C 174 E/272) P-0123/01 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: Independence of Austrian judges ...... 253 (2001/C 174 E/273) E-0124/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Protection of the patents system to ensure its continued effectiveness ...... 254 (2001/C 174 E/274) E-0126/01 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Droit de suite ...... 255 (2001/C 174 E/275) E-0134/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Secrecy of legislative proceedings ...... 255 (2001/C 174 E/276) P-0196/01 by John Bowis to the Commission Subject: Tobacco Control Directive ...... 256 (2001/C 174 E/277) P-0272/01 by Christian von Boetticher to the Commission Subject: Electronic postage stamps and compliance with EU data-protection directives ...... 256 (2001/C 174 E/278) P-0274/01 by Jillian Evans to the Commission Subject: The United Kingdom Census in Wales ...... 257 (2001/C 174 E/279) E-0301/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Demolition of a building in Viana do Castelo ...... 257 (2001/C 174 E/280) P-0305/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Inclement weather in Portugal ...... 258 (2001/C 174 E/281) E-0317/01 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Treatment of naval war graves ...... 258 (2001/C 174 E/282) E-0324/01 by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt to the Commission Subject: Information on the volume of EU funding flowing to Berlin in 1999 and 2000 ...... 259 (2001/C 174 E/283) E-0325/01 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Lorry rear-view mirrors ...... 259 (2001/C 174 E/284) P-0342/01 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission Subject: Community contribution to tourist infrastructure in Valesia and on Monterosa ...... 260 (2001/C 174 E/285) P-0360/01 by Werner Langen to the Commission Subject: Obstacles to the work of travel guides in Portugal ...... 260 (2001/C 174 E/286) E-0385/01 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: EU funds ...... 262 (2001/C 174 E/287) P-0550/01 by Dirk Sterckx to the Commission Subject: Impounding of Belgian ham in Portugal in the wake of the dioxin crisis ...... 262

EN 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/1

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 174 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2575/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Lack of infrastructures and facilities at Patras Port

The recent tragic accident involving the passenger ship Superfast III in which 12 people died in a fire which broke out 14 nautical miles from Patras Port has highlighted the chronic problems facing this port. The very poor infrastructures and facilities pose a threat to the health and safety of passengers and hamper passenger embarkation, disembarkation and control procedures as well as basic control procedures on freight vehicles. In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to demand that the Greek Government take immediate action to improve Patras Port facilities for the benefit of passengers, especially given that Greece receives Community funding for the improvement of ports, funding which however is usually channelled solely into the freight sector?

2. Does it know why the relevant Greek ministry has failed to carry out improvements to Patras Port facilities, as the Commission had suggested on the basis of proposals made in studies carried out by the relevant service in the port of Dover and, if not, does it intend to seek clarification on this point?

3. Even though Directive 1999/35 (1) becomes mandatory for the Member States only on 1 December 2000, does the Commission intend to ask the Greek Government as a gesture of goodwill to publish the findings of the inquiry into the Superfast III tragedy and to forward a copy to the Commission, in accordance with Article 12 of the above directive?

4. Does the Commission have any proposals for improving the basic safety and health infrastructures for passengers at other ports in Greece (Piraeus, Igoumenitsa, the ports of various islands, etc.) and what commitments will it ask the Greek Government to provide in this connection?

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 1.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Apart from the obligations for the Member State to take the requisite measures in order to comply with Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services (1), the Commission has no powers to oblige a Member State to take specific actions concerning ports. Member States can, however, ask for Community funding for projects of common interest, including ports. This co-funding is based on Decision C 174 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the Trans-European transport network (TEN-T) (2).

Greece has never submitted a proposal concerning the existing port of Patras under Community financial aid in the field of TEN-T. However, the construction of a new port in Patras is underway and being co- financed by both the Community support framework (CSF) for Greece during the 1994-1999 programming period and the Community Initiative Interreg. This project, which will be completed with co-funding from the CSF for the current 2000-2006 period, fully takes into account the required safety standards.

Concerning the safety aspect in Community ports, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2530/99 (3).

The Commission is prepared to ask the Greek government to make available the report resulting from the investigation into the accident involving the ferry Superfast III, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 (5) of the Council Directive mentioned above.

In general, projects involving ports which are carried out with Community co-funding should improve efficiency and safety in the transport of passengers and goods, given that those projects have to comply with the required safety standards.

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999. (2) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996 modified in OJ L 15 of 17.1.1997. (3) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2783/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Shortcomings of public works in Greece

In its answer (P-2120/98) (1) to my question concerning compliance with quality standards in public works in Greece (E-2592/98) (2), the Commission pointed out that the first ESPEL (special quality control council) quarterly report found that problems of the kind mentioned do exist and stressed that it ‘expects this matter to make rapid progress and hopes that any financial, disciplinary, penal or other consequences for those responsible will have a dissuasive effect in the future and will result in lasting improvements to the situation as regards quality’. It also noted that, depending on their seriousness, the shortcomings suffered by the projects would either have to be corrected by the contractors, or the costs involved would be deducted from their payments, or else the projects would have to be rebuilt at the contractors’ own expense.

Given that ESPEL recently forwarded to the services of the Ministry for Economic Affairs reports on 44 public works, of which it transpires that only four projects meet all the necessary standards:

1. Will the Commission say what progress has been made in each case in dealing with the shortcomings mentioned in its answer, on which it expected ‘rapid progress’ to be made?

2. What information does it have on further shortcomings and what measures does it intend to take?

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16. (2) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 151. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/3

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, between July 1998 and April 2000 ESPEL carried out 1 253 routine inspections of projects part-financed by Community Funds. The findings show that 52 % of the projects are in order or have minor defects which the contractors will rectify (project category 1); 45 % of the projects have major defects which do not have safety implications but which will entail higher maintenance costs: these additional costs must be deducted from payments to the contractors concerned (project category 2); 3 % of the projects have serious defects which cannot be rectified: the contractors will have to redo these projects in full or in part and at their own expense (project category 3).

In accordance with existing procedures, the Ministry of Economic Affairs as the managing authority for the Community support framework sent the 1 122 individual reports drawn up by ESPEL in respect of projects with quality defects to the public authorities managing the projects concerned, asking them to take the action provided for by law. In 198 cases, the Ministry of Economic Affairs instructed the authorities managing the projects to require the contractors to set up and operate on-site test laboratories in compliance with their contractual obligations. In 478 cases falling within project categories 2 and 3 referred to above, the Ministry of Economic Affairs submitted the files to the public works inspectorate. Lastly, as provided for, the 30 cases falling within category 3 were sent direct to the public prosecutor’s office.

On 5 April 2000, the public works inspectorate called on 136 authorities concerned with the projects at issue to submit a report on the measures taken in order to require the contractors to carry out the necessary repairs or in order to impose penalties on them in accordance with the law.

According to the Greek authorities, on the basis of the reports available and depending on the various cases, the following measures have been taken: financial penalties; price reductions; repair orders issued, in some cases with complaints against the contractors; repairs carried out; responsibilities attributed for the non-operation of on-site test laboratories; basic geological and other studies where these were not done; additional quality controls.

The Greek authorities have also informed the Commission that the reports are still being examined and that they will be published at a later date by the Joint Steering Committee on Public Works. The Commission has taken note of the quality controls which the Greek Government has requested, and welcomes this initiative. It would nevertheless like the files to be processed and monitored more quickly, and will ask for detailed information on the practical action taken in each case i.e. the economic, administrative or other penalties imposed.

The European Anti-Fraud Office also states that no communication has so far been received from the Greek authorities on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field (1).

(1) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.

(2001/C 174 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0951/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: The Objective 2 region of Hainaut

The awarding of Objective 2 aid to the Walloon province of Hainaut is leading to the relocation of firms which have been established for many years in the neighbouring province of Western Flanders. The businesses operators in question acknowledge that the removal of their activities to Hainaut is entirely dependent on their obtaining Objective 2 subsidies. If these business operators do not obtain any European aid, they will keep their operations in Western Flanders. In order to be considered for such aid they have to have their company headquarters in Hainaut. C 174 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

1. How many applications have been made since 1 January 2000 for Objective 2 aid for new economic operations in Hainaut, and to what do they relate?

2. When and where were the company headquarters of these firms registered?

3. (a) How many of these firms were formerly operating in the province of Western Flanders?

(b) How many of these firms are currently operating in Western Flanders?

4. Have the firms in question expressly been asked whether their relocation from Western Flanders to Hainaut is dependent on the award of Objective 2 aid?

(a) If so, how many ‘West Flanders’ operators would choose to move their operations to Hainaut without Objective 2 aid?

(b) If not, will the Commission ask these business operators to what extent their relocation is dependent upon Objective 2 aid?

5. Is the Commission prepared to take measures to prevent the relocation of West Flanders firms to Hainaut?

(a) If so, what measures?

(b) If not, why not?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

During the 2000-2006 programming period, the Walloon province of Hainaut will receive Structural Funds aid under Objective 1, not Objective 2.

To that end, on 15 May 2000 the Commission approved the single programming document (SPD) submitted by the regional authorities. A task force comprising representatives from the authorities, university lecturers, delegates from employers’ associations and an outside consultant will be responsible for appraising projects submitted under the new programming exercise.

Investment aid features among the programming document’s principal measures, but at this stage it is too soon to say how many businesses will benefit from such aid and certainly too soon to say exactly how many businesses currently based in West Flanders might relocate their headquarters to Hainaut.

During the 1994-1999 programming period, investment support was available under two schemes: aid for setting up businesses, and aid for expanding businesses. The statistics available show that assistance under one or other of those schemes was given to about fifty businesses located in Flanders, accounting for approximately 7 % of all investment projects supported under Objective 1.

The statistics provided by the Walloon Region relate only to aid approved between 1995 and 1999. Various places in Hainaut are involved, but those which recur most frequently are the towns Mouscron, Tournai and Comines.

The regional authorities responsible have not yet updated the figures needed to answer the Honourable Member’s questions about Flemish businesses’ previous and current activities.

Neither the Commission nor the Walloon Region authorities investigated the motives of the businesses which applied for investment aid and which set up their headquarters in the province of Hainaut so as to receive that assistance. The Commission does not intend to undertake such an investigation. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/5

The Commission is responsible for ensuring that investment aid schemes which regions or national authorities introduce comply with the competition rules laid down by the EC Treaty. During the negotiation of programmes, the Commission also examines whether development plans are consistent with the general guidelines which it has proposed to Member States.

On the general issue of relocation, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the answers given to Written Questions E-1396/99 by Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert (1), E-1446/99 by Mr Meijer (2), P-1805/99 by Mrs Figueiredo (3) and P-1706/00 by Mrs Randzio-Plath (4).

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000. (2) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000. (3) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000. (4) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 75.

(2001/C 174 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Safety of nuclear power stations in the applicant countries

The very controversial Temelin nuclear power station in the Czech Republic is currently being made ready to go on stream. It was built in the 1980s on the basis of a Soviet design. Last week, after years of debate about the safety of that nuclear power station, authorisation was issued in a suspicious manner. Accordingly, for a few months, reactor 1 of the power station may run on a test basis, despite powerful protests from citizens and the concern expressed by President Havel and the Austrian Government.

1. Does the Commission agree with me that, with a view to the accession of the applicant countries, Community standards relating to the safety of nuclear reactors in the European Union, including minimum safety requirements as regards design, construction and use, are urgently required?

2. What is the Commission planning to do, in the light of the accession negotiations, in order to prevent the commissioning of nuclear power stations, such as Temelin, which are unsafe?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Construction of the Temelin nuclear power plant (NPP) was started in the 1980s and later halted. Parts of the plant are still under construction. Electricity production is planned to start in 2001 (Unit 1) and 2002 (Unit 2). The reactor is of an upgraded VVER 1000 design and will incorporate new safety-related systems of recent design.

The Community has repeatedly recalled the need for nuclear power plants to respect high nuclear safety standards. The Commission has taken in Agenda 2000 a clear position in this respect. The December 1999 Helsinki European Council recalled the importance of high standards of nuclear safety and called on the Council to consider how to address the issue of nuclear safety in the framework of the enlargement process. The Council is currently looking into this matter, drawing on the expertise existing in the Member States, and the Commission is supporting this process fully. Nuclear safety is the national competence of Member States. This principle applies to candidate countries by analogy.

The Temelin NPP is one of very few nuclear power plants that might be commissioned in the period prior to the accession of candidate countries. The Commission has no means to prevent the commissioning of specific plants under the authority of the national regulatory responsibility within a candidate country. However, the Commission will continue to work with the Czech authorities to assist the continuous C 174 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

existence of a strong and independent nuclear regulatory body, capable of enforcing a high level of nuclear safety. This is a key element of the Commission’s responsibility to work towards a successful finalisation of the ongoing accession negotiations. According to Agenda 2000, the Temelin reactor type has been classified in the category of reactors upgradeable at reasonable cost.

The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the reply given to Written Question E-2682/00 (1) by Mr Wuori on the safety of the Temelin NPP.

(1) See page 6.

(2001/C 174 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/00 by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Nuclear safety Temelin power station

Some extremely alarming facts have come to light concerning the safety culture at Temelin nuclear power station. The power station’s completion was delayed by nearly ten years on account of technical problems and cost factors affecting the building work, the additional costs arising partly from Western safety standards. The power company CEZ has nonetheless brought forward the commissioning of the power station, inter alia with an eye to the company’s future privatisation, and nuclear fuel began to be loaded into the Temelin 1 reactor at the beginning of July 2000.

Independent observers, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Greenpeace, have reported that there are serious technical and safety problems associated with the commissioning of Temelin. At the beginning of July, Greenpeace published internal documents concerning the safety culture at Temelin which give rise to doubts as to how safe the nuclear reactor will be when in use. The documents reveal that, in building the number one reactor, test procedures which accorded with safety standards were not adhered to, that these procedures were altered because of unsatisfactory results and that the management of Temelin resorted to temporary safety solutions. The IAEA meanwhile has criticised the inadequacy of inspections by the Czech nuclear safety authority (SUBJ) this year. According to the IAEA, the SUBJ cannot guarantee that sufficient impartial inspections will be carried out. The CEZ’s final assessment of Temelin power station has been declared secret on commercial grounds, and because of this the SUBJ has not allowed Greenpeace to inspect the document in question.

This year the Czech Republic will already be exporting 25 % of its energy production. This being so, virtually the whole of Temelin power station’s production capacity will be used to provide electricity for export. At the same time, however, in the EU accession negotiations the Czech Republic is asking for Community rules on the liberalisation of the energy market not to apply to the new Member States before 2007. According to these rules, trade in energy must be based on reciprocity.

Does the Commission consider that Temelin power station complies with technical and operational nuclear safety standards applicable in the EU Member States? Can the appropriate authorities in the Czech Republic guarantee that high standards will be adhered to? Have the appropriate parties in the Czech Republic forwarded information about nuclear safety to the Commission regularly? How is the Commission dealing with the issue of nuclear safety in the accession negotiations? What view does the Commission take of the possibility of delaying the liberalisation of the energy market in the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The issue at stake is to ensure that the Czech national standards and the national nuclear safety regulator (SUJB) impose a high level of nuclear safety, as repeatedly demanded in Agenda 2000 and (European) Council conclusions. In July, the Coreper mandated the Atomic Questions Group to address the issue of a high level of nuclear safety in the context of enlargement. The Commission is actively co-operating in this exercise. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/7

The Honourable Member refers to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports on the situation in the Czech Republic. Such reports aim to identify shortcomings and to encourage specific improvements. The Commission welcomes the IAEA work to ensure the efficiency of the regulatory authority and monitor the safety environment in the Czech Republic, in view of the commissioning of the Temelin Nuclear power plant (NPP). The Commission has involved SUJB in various working groups with regulatory authorities of Member States to help strengthen SUJB’s capacities further. The Commission has, already over a period of several years, provided assistance in developing a strong and independent nuclear regulatory body in the Czech Republic. The level of professional effectiveness of the national nuclear safety regulators in candidate countries will also be an element of attention under the current efforts undertaken by the Council. The Czech Republic has repeatedly forwarded information to the Commission.

The Honourable Member’s attention is also drawn to the recent publication of the report on nuclear safety in candidate countries carried out by the Western European Nuclear Regulators’ Association (WENRA) which concludes that the safety improvement programme for Temelin units 1-2 is the most comprehensive ever applied to a VVER-1000 reactor and that the two units should reach a safety level comparable to that of currently operating Western European reactors, provided a few safety issues which still require clarification are resolved.

The negotiations with the Czech Republic on the energy chapter were opened in November 1999. The Union’s common position does not indicate any willingness of the Member States to grant extended transition periods on the liberalisation of the electricity market. The Lisbon European Council expressed the Union’s intention to speed up the liberalisation process. This policy aim will also impact on the liberalisation process undertaken by candidate countries. Among the elements of the functioning of the internal energy market are reciprocity and compliance with environmental standards.

(2001/C 174 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2736/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Consistency in the application of the precautionary principle

How can the Commission justify a blanket ban on six phthalates when, after reviewing the single unreplicated piece of research on the dangers of phthalates, its own Scientific Committee the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Eco-toxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) concluded that there was no identifiable risk that could lead to a justified ban, whilst at the same time refusing to consider precautionary measures to protect children (who are known to be more sensitive to electromagnetic radiation) from the potential hazards of using mobile telephones, given that there exists a body of published research which casts doubt on the safety of mobile-telephone use in adults and the fact that, as M. Laurent Bontoux admitted to the Environment Committee when giving evidence for the Commission on 24 May, there is no known explanation for the doubling in the incidence of brain neoplasms (tumours) over the past ten years?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2000)

The Commission has, on previous occasions, extensively presented to Parliament the reasons and justifications for a ban on certain phthalates in toys and childcare articles intended to be placed in the mouth by babies under three years old.

The adverse toxicological effects of the phthalates in question are well established. Full details of the subject may be found in the relevant opinions of the scientific committee on toxicity, eco-toxicity and the environment (SCTEE), which are easily available on the Commission web-site. C 174 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Based both on the scientific information available and on other relevant considerations (notably the lack of suitable testing methods for phthalate migration, the sensitive group of the population exposed and the uncertainties regarding other sources of exposure to phthalates), the Commission has concluded that a ban on these substances is justified in the specific case of childcare articles and toys intended for mouthing by babies under three. Some Member States and Parliament itself have taken the view that an even broader ban is necessary. In particular, Parliament requested, in July 2000, its extension to all phthalates and all toys for babies under three years of age. This request goes far beyond the provisions of the existing Commission decision.

As far as the potential hazards of mobile telephones are concerned, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 HZ to 300 GHZ) (1). That Recommendation sets basic restrictions and reference levels that the Member States should apply in order to ensure adequate health protection of the whole population, including children, against electromagnetic radiation.

These levels of health protection set by the Council Recommendation were obtained by the application of safety factors to the limits of exposure to the electromagnetic fields. These safety factors made it possible, as part of a precautionary approach, to address long term effects for which there is currently no scientific certainty. The Council Recommendation will be reviewed in 2004, or earlier, if validated new scientific evidence of risk emerges for consideration by the scientific steering committee.

The Commission would point out that, under the provisions of the Treaty concerning health protection, it endeavours to promote the development of a strict health protection policy for citizens. Accordingly, it supports, inter alia, a number of studies designed to produce further advances in knowledge on the potential and actual effects on health of the use of electromagnetic radiation. These studies should take account of, among other things, any developments in scientific knowledge in this area that are scientifically validated.

In addition, mobile phones are covered by Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (2). This Directive, in conjunction with Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (3), includes essential safety requirements applicable to radiation.

In October 2000, the Commission gave a standardisation mandate to the European standardisation bodies to establish, within the framework of these directives, specific standards applicable to mobile phones, taking into account the exposure limit levels in the Council Recommendation 1999/5/EC. Any specific protection needs will be considered within the framework in which European harmonised standards are developed.

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999. (2) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999. (3) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.

(2001/C 174 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Sewage plant in Sarroch, Sardinia

In 1993 the region of Sardinia delegated responsibility to the municipality of Sarroch for building a sewage treatment plant at Perd’e Sali Porto Columbu with funding from the Envireg Community programme (1). After the project had been assigned to a firm (2), the work was suspended on 26 February 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/9

1996 for an expert’s report to be drawn up on relocating the sewage plant, because the engineer responsible for the planning of the project had failed to take into account the fact that there was still housing in the vicinity of the proposed site. Once the survey had been approved (3), the contractors refused to resume work, prompting the municipality of Sarroch to cancel the contract (4). The work was then entrusted to another firm, which built the sewage plant at the new location indicated in the report, above the user sector, close to the sea, in the only remaining unspoilt natural area of the municipality of Sarroch.

Although a letter was sent to the office of the Cagliari Public Prosecutor on 23 July 1997 asking it to check the legality of the various authorisations for the construction work and compliance with the existing laws on the environment, no measures have yet been taken.

At present, the sewage plant has been completely abandoned and is a target for vandalism. The sewage problems of the area concerned have not been resolved and the area has been disfigured, jeopardising possible tourist development.

Will the Commission investigate the legality of the management of the Community funds used for the project? Does it not think that the recipients of the funding should compensate the European Union, since the project concerned did not fulfil its objectives?

(1) Decision No 35/3 of 24 September 1993; delegation order DCGADA No 2557 of 8 October 1993. (2) Municipal Council Decision No 365 of 25 November 1994. (3) Municipal Council Decision No 328 of 8 November 1996, endorsed by the opinions of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Public Education of the autonomous region of Sardinia and the office for the protection of the artistic, architecture and historical heritage. (4) Municipal Council Decision No 58 of 21 February 1997.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

Following the Honourable Member’s question the Commission been in contact with the Italian Environ- ment Ministry, responsible authority for the Envireg programme, for the purpose of having the matter thoroughly investigated.

If the conclusions of the investigation so warrant, the Commission will be able under Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 (1) amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments), to call for exclusion of the project from the Envireg programme and recovery of sums already paid out under it.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2001/C 174 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2776/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Torture in Turkish prisons

Bearing in mind:

the likelihood that Turkey will become a member of the European Union,

the importance of the Copenhagen Criteria in the enlargement process, particularly the provisions concerning respect for human rights and C 174 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

the reports from Amnesty International and the Committee for Struggle against Torture Through Isolation that Turkish prisons are rife with cases of torture and human rights abuses;

Would the Council comment on the conditions and the human rights record in Turkish prisons, especially in relation to the status of Turkey’s application for accession to the Union?

(8 March 2001)

The Turkish authorities are well aware that they have much to achieve in improving prison standards, ending torture and reforming their judicial and penal system generally in order to meet the Copenhagen Criteria.

Conditions in Turkish prisons feature in the Commission’s regular report on Turkey’s progress towards accession (1) and in Turkey’s Accession Partnership.

(1) COM(1999) 513 final, p. 13.

(2001/C 174 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2795/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Top rate of tax on personal incomes in each country of the European Union

Would the Commission please draw up a table showing the current top rate of tax on personal incomes in each country of the European Union, indicating in respect of each the threshold of income (expressed in euros and pounds sterling) at which this tax rate applies?

(2001/C 174 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2796/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Top rate of personal inheritance tax in each country of the European Union

Would the Commission please draw up a table showing the top rate of personal inheritance tax, or other comparable tax at death, in each country of the European Union? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/11

(2001/C 174 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2797/00 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Top rate of capital gains tax charged in each country of the European Union

Would the Commission please draw up a table showing the top rate of capital gains tax charged on disposal of shares in publicly quoted companies in each country of the European Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2795/00, E-2796/00 and E-2797/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The three questions mainly relate to taxation of individuals. There is a great diversity among Member States on the way this taxation is organised. This has to do with the progressivity of the tax scales, the definition of the tax bases, the exemptions (e.g. for some social security benefits), the tax deductions such as family allowances, and special schemes for capital income or real estate. Given the complexity of these issues that are not harmonised at Community level, it is difficult to make comparisons of specific tax provisions in the Member States and to draw conclusions on the tax burden on the basis of the top marginal rate of these taxes.

The Commission is working on an improvement of information on the tax systems in the Member States. As a first step, the national data collected in the ‘Inventory of Taxes levied in the Member States of the European Union’ (1) have been updated (rates as percentage as of 1 January 1999). The top rates of state tax on personal income with their respective thresholds of income, according to information received from Member States, are listed below. In some countries, regional or local taxes are also levied. These may be quite substantial. The top rate of these regional and local taxes may be higher than the top rate of the state tax.

Regional Top marginal rate Threshold Threshold in euro or local taxes of the state tax in national currency levied Belgium 55 2 443 000 60 560,39 5-8 Denmark 15 258 400 34 636,68 28,6-33,5 Germany 51 114 696 58 643,13 No Greece 45 15 825 000 46 787,69 No Spain 39,60 11 000 000 66 111,33 8,4 (1) France 54 295 070 44 983,13 No Ireland 46 14 000 17 776,33 No Italy 46 135 000 000 69 721,68 No Luxembourg 46 2 640 000 65 443,89 No Netherlands 60 105 954 48 079,83 No Austria 50 700 000 50 870,98 No Portugal 40 6 405 000 31 948,00 No Finland 38 315 000 52 979,20 15-20 Sweden 25 360 000 42 969,68 (2) 27-33 United Kingdom 40 27 100 44 587,03 (2)No

(1) As additional part of the state income tax. (2) On the basis of market rates on 13.9.2000. C 174 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

The top rates of personal inheritance tax are as follow:

Belgium 80 Denmark 40 Germany 50 Greece Na Spain 34 (1) France 60 Ireland 40 Italy 33 Luxembourg 15 Netherlands 68 Austria 60 Portugal 50 Finland 48 Sweden 30 United Kingdom 40

(1) Additional local taxes can be applied.

Furthermore capital gains are usually taxed as personal or corporate income. A few Member States do not levy tax on capital gains at all. There is wide range of tax rates on these revenues.

(1) Next edition 2000 (situation on 1.1.1999) will be published in the near future by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

(2001/C 174 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2819/00 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: Council annual report on human rights: Commission’s position on calls made by Parliament

In its report on the ‘Annual report by the Council on human rights in the European Union (1998-1999)’, the European Parliament states in paragraph 10 that it ‘… regrets the disappointing nature of the report’s content which is merely a statement of fact’, and in paragraph 11 that it ‘sincerely hopes that the next Council report will contain a country-by-country detailed analysis of developments in the human rights situation in the EU and proposes that monitoring systems and strategies be introduced in the future to improve respect for such rights pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU’. In paragraph 92 Parliament also states that it ‘considers that the role of the Council’s annual report on human rights should be specified and should hold a European analysis of human rights developments, including rights for national minorities, in the various Member States and a definition of strategies to enable national and European policies in this field to evolve with a view to improving their coherence’.

Does the Commission share the opinion of the European Parliament?

Does the Commission not consider that it would be useful for an insterinstitutional procedure to be launched in order to involve all of the institutions in the drawing up of an annual report of the Union on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Commission shares in principle Parliament’s view that the Annual Report by the Council on human rights should contain an even more detailed analysis of human rights developments, including rights for national minorities.

The Commission does not take part in the drafting of a Council report; under the provisions of the EC Treaty, however, it keeps a constant watch on respect for fundamental rights. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/13

(2001/C 174 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2822/00

by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Credit card fraud on the Internet

Credit card fraud has been found to occur far more frequently on the Internet than in traditional shops. Major credit card companies confirm that this is a big problem, which may jeopardise the further development of and confidence in the new Internet economy. According to a publication by the Nether- lands Public Prosecutions Department, investigating credit card fraud involving the Internet has low priority, both within the EU Member States and internationally, despite the large number of victims.

1. Can the Council indicate the state of affairs in this regard (how much Internet credit card fraud is reported, what are the figures for credit card payments in traditional shops)? Can the Council confirm that credit card fraud is approximately three times as common in connection with Internet transactions as in normal credit card transactions?

2. Is such credit card fraud indeed an obstacle to the development of e-commerce and e-europe? How is the Council minimising the adverse consequences and, bearing this situation in mind, how is the Council ensuring the attainment of the objectives formulated at the special ICT summit in Lisbon?

3. In the light, inter alia, of the special summit in Lisbon on ICT policy in the EU, what priority is currently assigned to investigating such fraud and prosecuting offenders?

4. Can the Council confirm that the low priority assigned to investigating such fraud in the EU impairs public confidence in the Internet economy in the EU and that the good intentions stated at the special ICT summit in Lisbon may consequently be jeopardised?

5. How can the priority assigned to investigating such fraud and other Internet-related fraud and prosecuting offenders be raised in order to continue to promote the development of e-commerce in the EU as fully as possible?

6. When will the Council raise this priority?

(8 March 2001)

The extent of credit card fraud has not been quantified by the Council, but the European Parliament produced the following figures in its report on the draft framework Decision (1):

Globally, the payment-card industry has a turnover of some USD 2 000 billion, between 0,1 % and 0,2 % of which is lost to various forms of payment card fraud; in other words, some USD 3 billion is siphoned off annually from the normal economy by criminals. About 25 % of all losses are incurred by issuers in the European Union. Most credit-card crime is committed on an organised basis. Eurocheque fraud also causes considerable losses (in 1995 some ECU 41 million). C 174 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

The need to combat this type of fraud was taken into account in the action plan of the Council and the Commission of 3 December 1998 on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice (2). That action plan mentions high-tech crime among the types of criminal behaviour which should be approached in an equally efficient way throughout the European Union and for which ‘the possibilities of improving coordination of prosecution, whenever greater efficiency can be reconciled with respect for individual rights, must be examined.’

The Honourable Member will also note that, at its special meeting in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000, the European Council stated that ‘the rules for electronic commerce must be predictable and inspire business and consumer confidence’. It called on the Council, along with the European Parliament where appropriate, to adopt as rapidly as possible during 2000 pending legislation on the legal framework for electronic commerce and suggested that the Commission and the Council consider how to promote consumer confidence in electronic commerce. (3)

The Council has since reached provisional agreement, at its meeting on 29 May 2000, on a draft framework Decision on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. The aim of the draft is to ensure that fraud in respect of non-cash means of payment is recognised as a criminal offence and is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in all the Member States. It also aims to introduce suitable cooperation mechanisms so that such offences can be prosecuted effectively, without prejudice to the Member States’ right to criminalise other forms of fraud in respect of non-cash means of payment. In its Opinion of 5 July 2000, the European Parliament agreed to this draft, which is still the subject of parliamentary scrutiny reservations in some Member States. Those reservations will probably be withdrawn very soon, and formal adoption is planned for early 2001.

(1) Report by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on the proposal for a Council framework Decision on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment (COM(1999) 438- C5-0066/2000 1999/0190(CNS)). (2) OJ C 19, 23.1.1999, p. 1-15. (3) Presidency conclusions.

(2001/C 174 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2882/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 September 2000)

Subject: Population trends in Spain and Galicia and EU harmonisation of the legal, economic and social conditions of women’s work

According to demographic forecasts by the EU’s statistical services, the population of the Spanish state is likely to diminish considerably over the next fifty years (by as much as 10 million), should the current, extremely low birth rate be maintained. Numerous specialists, expressing views which common sense itself confirms, believe that the main cause of the low birth rate lies in the problems faced by women in trying to reconcile the world of work with their family responsibilities and the upbringing and education of children, in the face of the unacceptable rigidity of employers who prefer to recruit women without children, thus deterring women who would otherwise want more children from having them; a further factor lies in the financial penalties attaching today to extended maternity leave, given the lack of creche facilities and the obstacles to women improving their technical and professional skills during their maternity leave.

The demographic problems obviously have numerous additional causes one of them being men’s continued unwillingness to help in the home which are independent of the specific problems faced by women. They are also to be found to some extent in most of the Member States, although they are hitting the Spanish state and within it, regions such as Galicia particularly hard. However, the nature of the 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/15

economic and social support offered to women varies enormously from one Member State to another, and the situation in the Spanish state is particularly unfavourable in both legal and financial terms. The aid provided in the Spanish state to families with large numbers of children is one-seventh of that granted in France and one-ninth of that obtaining in Luxembourg.

In view of these circumstances, is the Council considering any initiative, by joint agreement with the Commission and Parliament, for the harmonisation of the legal conditions which affect the economic and social dimensions of family life, with particular reference to women, and make it impossible or difficult for women to have more children?

(8 March 2001)

The Council is aware of the demographic problems and the impact they may have on the job situation in the future.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it has no responsibility in family policy matters; however, it is considering ways of better reconciling professional and family life, especially in connection with the monitoring of Member States’ implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action. That is why the Council is preparing a set of conclusions on this issue.

In addition, the Lisbon European Council on 23 and 24 March 2000 recognised that it was important to further all aspects of equal opportunities, including reducing occupational segregation, and making it easier to reconcile working life and family life, in particular by setting a new benchmark for improved childcare provision. It added that those measures should contribute, inter alia, towards increasing the number of women in employment from an average of 51 % today to more than 60 % by 2010.

It was in that context that the Council adopted, on 29 June 2000, a Resolution on the balanced participation of women and men in family and working life (1).

Furthermore, the Employment Guidelines 2000, approved by the Helsinki European Council on 10 and 11 December 2000, stress how important it is, in order to strengthen equal opportunities, for Member States and the social partners to design, implement and promote family-friendly policies, including affordable, accessible and high quality care services for children and other dependants, as well as parental and other leave schemes. These points are confirmed in the proposed guidelines for 2001.

Finally, the social policy agenda approved by the Nice European Council contains an important section on equality between men and women.

The Council is therefore aware of the problems of reconciling professional and family life raised by the Honourable Member and is taking a number of measures under the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty.

(1) OJ C 218, 31.7.2000, p. 5.

(2001/C 174 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2975/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(25 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 C 174 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

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 Council 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.

(8 March 2001)

1. In its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-1737/00 on the funding of the European Union island regions, the Council already stated that in the context of economic and social cohesion, the Structural Funds and in particular the ERDF are, in this connection, an important instrument for action, having a positive effect on the growth and convergence of the island regions of the European Union.

2. Under the new regulatory framework of the Structural Funds, the island regions in the European Union meeting the criteria of eligibility defined in the general Regulation may benefit from Community financial help under Objective 1 (regions lagging behind in development) or Objective 2 (areas undergoing social and economic conversion). The total budget of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006 amounts to € 195 billion at 1999 prices. More than 81 % of the overall budget is concentrated on Objectives 1 and 2. Furthermore, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as regards the specific measures to which he refers, it should be emphasised that under Article 29(3)(a) of Council Regulation No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), where the regions are located in a Member State covered by the Cohesion Fund, the Community contribution may rise, in exceptional and duly justified cases, to a maximum of 80 % of the total eligible cost and to a maximum of 85 % of the total eligible cost for the outermost regions and for the outlying Greek islands which are under a handicap due to their distant location.

3. The Council has not to date received any proposal from the Commission along the lines referred to by the Honourable Member and cannot therefore give a more precise reply to the question. However, it would remind the Honourable Member that, on the basis of Declaration No 30 annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice European Council confirmed the need for specific measures for the benefit of island regions, in accordance with Article 158 of the TEC, in view of their structural handicaps, which impair their economic and social development, within the limits of the budget resources available (point 55 of the Presidency conclusions).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 174 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3083/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: PHARE programme

The PHARE programme was introduced to bring the Central and Eastern European countries closer to the Union. Negotiations on accession by those countries are entering their final stages; the time consequently has come to take stock of the impact of PHARE programme support operations. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/17

In its report on enlargement to the east (PE 286.105), the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry states the following (paragraph 3): ‘… however, the PHARE programme, partly due to its current management and priorities, has not yet been an overwhelming success; calls upon the Commission to submit to the European Parliament a separate progress report …’.

How does the Commission rate the success of the PHARE programme?

Does the Commission share the view of the Committee on Industry that the PHARE programme has not hitherto been an ‘overwhelming success’?

Assuming that the Commission shares that committee’s view, what are the reasons for the PHARE programme’s relative lack of success, and what changes are being planned in order to achieve PHARE objectives?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

In its recently released ‘Phare 2000 Review Strengthening Preparations for membership’ (1), the Commission recognised that Phare’s performance can still be improved in certain areas but that its basic orientations as introduced in 1997 and updated in 1999 continue to address the main needs of the applicant countries. Beneficial results arising from these orientations include: Phare programming has been fully re-oriented towards the accession priorities of the accession partnership and the annual regular reports; strengthening administrative capacities is now a key priority, with 200 Member States’ civil servants in place advising their applicant country counterparts on priority acquis issues; new Phare management structures are operational in all ten candidate countries based on national funds, central financing and contracting units (CFCUs) and implementing agencies; the joint monitoring commitees are entering operation; and lastly, more responsibility has been deconcentrated to Commission delegations. Phare programmes focusing on promoting economic and social cohesion are being financed in 2000 on the basis of draft national development plans. Phare contracting rates are improving. The five worst performing countries in 1997 have shown substantial improvements in 1998. The average time between the financing memorandum and contracting is decreasing. Average contract size is increasing by between two and four times, depending on country. Phare’s reforms sought to raise impact and, as a result, the number of Phare programmes rated as satisfactory or above in the Commission’s assessment has increased from 39 % in 1999 to 56 % in 2000.

Despite the advances above, the Commission agrees with the committee’s view that there is still substantial room for improvement on Phare (see communication section 2 and annex 1 for more detail).

As highlighted also in various reports by the Court of auditors, past problems have included: the disruption caused to candidate countries by introducing too many changes at the same time, some of which had not been sufficiently worked out in advance; the need for continued improvements in project design; certain problems regarding twinning and the lack of an effective Phare management information system.

All these problems are addressed in this communication. In summary, the communication identifies two additional broad challenges for Phare that must be tackled in the period 2000-2006 to achieve Phare’s objectives better and deliver on the past reforms. There should be a period of relative stability to consolidate the past reforms and to ensure their full benefit is obtained. In addition, some of the 1997 reforms must be refined to respond to the constructive criticisms of the Court of auditors and Parliament. Lastly, efforts to raise impact and absorption capacity in the applicant countries must be further emphasised.

The objective of Phare in the structural funds area is to prepare for the implementation of structural funds in candidate countries by putting in place the necessary administrative and budgetary structures, and to allow these countries to benefit from a first generation of integrated regional development programmes of an objective 1 type contributing to their economic and social cohesion. C 174 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

A new series of country evaluations under the Phare programme is at an early planning stage.

(1) C-2000-3103-2.

(2001/C 174 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3093/00 by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) and Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Funding for Greece for reafforestation and flood prevention schemes

Although the Commission has been asked repeatedly in the past about the number of flood prevention and reafforestation schemes it has funded in Greece, it has hitherto failed to give clear answers as to the precise programmes which have received funding, the exact amounts made available, and the results of those programmes. Following the summer fires, which affected almost the whole of Greece, both Attica and many regions of provincial Greece, particularly Epirus and the Peloponnese, are threatened by flooding.

Can the Commission state specifically:

1. how many flood prevention schemes it has funded in Greece, exactly which projects are involved, the amount of finance per project, and whether the projects have been fully completed,

2. where exactly reafforestation has been carried out in Greece; whether the frequently announced reafforestation of Pendeli in Attica, for example, has been completed, and

3. what measures the Greek Government has taken to use up Community funds in response to this year’s disasters, and how the Commission responded to the Greek Government’s requests?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

There is currently no computerised and standardised information system making it possible to rapidly identify flood control projects and their main features. However, working together with the regional authorities in the three regions to which the Honourable Members refer particularly, namely Attica, the Peloponnese and Epirus, the Commission has compiled a detailed list of projects which can be made available if desired. In future, the new ‘management information system’ (MIS) should ensure better transparency of implementation. As regards the flood control projects part-financed so far in Greece under the above three regional programmes in the Community support framework that is now nearing completion (CSF II), a total number of 102 projects to combat flooding have been part-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The volumes committed and payments made so far are set out in the following table. Under the subsidiarity principle, the selection of individual schemes falls to the national government. It is worth noting that eligible expenditure under CSF II can still be made by final recipients up to 31 December 2001.

(In million euro)

Number Committed Take-up Region of projects amounts amounts Attica 26 25,0 24,0 Peloponnese 0 0 Epirus 76 4,3 3,9 Total 102 29,3 27,9 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/19

Under CSF II and the Community initiatives covered by the EAGGF Guidance Section in 1994-1999, a total of € 159 million was allocated to the forestry sector in Greece as part of a national operational programme and € 134,2 million as part of 13 regional operational programmes. The Community contribution was 75 %. The public expenditure under the regional programmes has gone towards complementary measures targeted more selectively than under the national programme (measures of a horizontal nature).

So far, most of this funding has been taken up by Greece: € 150 million under the national programme and € 105,6 million under the regional programmes. The remaining expenditure committed for 1994- 1999 can be carried out by Greece up to mid-2001.

Turning more particularly to the three regions in question, i.e. Attica, the Peloponnese and Epirus, the ratio of commitments to take-up is as follows:

(In million euro)

Committed Take-up Region amounts amounts Attica 13,3 8,9 Peloponnese 12,0 12,0 Western Greece 7,8 6,0 Epirus 13,8 12,2

These sums cover a broad range of activities and a multitude of interlinked project sites in the forestry sector, such as fire prevention, forest protection, laying of forestry roads, stabilising of river banks, reafforestation and forestry development. The number of schemes and the figures above show the intensity of effort in the forestry sector in Greece, including reafforestation in Attica which contains the Penteli mountains. In fact, during the period in question, 2 229 hectares were reafforested in Attica, 1 369 ha in the Peloponnese and 727 ha in Epirus.

Under CSF III for Greece (2000-2006), the Greek national and regional authorities have already made major requests for funding in the forestry sector in their draft national and regional operational programmes, including reafforestation and anti-flooding works. The Commission is currently negotiating these programmes with the national and regional authorities with a view to finalisation soon. The number of works and schemes in the fields of reafforestation and flood control will appear in the programming complements that are to be submitted by the Greek authorities to the Commission after it has adopted these programmes.

(2001/C 174 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3108/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(29 September 2000)

Subject: State laws on language issues

On 5 September, the French Presidency of the Council, on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the fact that the Latvian government had adopted the decrees implementing the law on the country’s official language. The OECD’s high commissioner for national minorities, Max Van der Stoel, claims that these decrees fully meet the undertakings given by Latvia at international level.

There can be no question that it is incumbent on the European Union to ensure that human rights and minority rights in the applicant countries are respected. These are essential prerequisites for the accession of any country, as laid down by the Copenhagen criteria. But within the European Union itself, there are Member States whose laws on language issues and the recognition of minorities leave a lot to be desired. C 174 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

How does the Council view the discrepancy which exists between the rigorous application of the need to respect certain fundamental rights in the applicant countries, and the blatant failure to observe such rights in certain Member States such as France and Greece? Does the Council intend to mandate Mr Max Van der Stoel to draw up a report reviewing and assessing respect for minorities inside the European Union?

(8 March 2001)

The Council can only endorse the Honourable Member’s analysis of the attitude to be taken in regard to the applicant countries concerning certain fundamental principles and values which are at the basis of the Union’s very existence. Compliance with the political criteria laid down by the Copenhagen European Council stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities is a pre-condition for any accession and the Union has the necessary means to verify such compliance on the part of the applicant countries. As is clear from Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU, moreover, the Union is a community of shared values.

(2001/C 174 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3147/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: EU financing of the planning and construction of a motorway through the Kresna gorge nature conservation area in Bulgaria

1. Is the Commission aware of the Bulgarian government’s intention to build a motorway through the valley of the Struma, which flows north to south in Western Bulgaria, to form part of Transeuropean Corridor No 4 leading from Bulgaria’s capital, Sofia, to the Greek port of Thessaloniki? Is the commission aware that Phare (cross-border cooperation programme) and the European Investment Bank are already making a contribution to the planning of this road by the Italian firm SPEA Ingeneria Europea?

2. Is the Commission also aware that the plans for the motorway assume a route through the gorge north of the city of Kresna rather than the more costly variant of a tunnel outside the Kresna gorge as advocated by nature and environmental organisations?

3. Can the Commission confirm that the Kresna gorge is the most important area in Bulgaria for the protection of unique species of trees, snakes and tortoises which are characteristic of the Balkans and that because of the great wealth of biodiversity and natural features this area qualifies for inclusion in Natura 2000, the European ecological network, while if this virgin environment is preserved the city of Kresna can develop as a centre for tourism based on nature, the countryside and health?

4. Does the Commission agree that road construction and air pollution radically encroaching on the Kresna gorge and the suburbs of Kresna would not only exceed the economic capability of the city of Kresna but would also violate the Convention of Bern (in particular Article 4) and following Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union Directives 92/43 and 79/409? Is the Commission therefore prepared to help prevent natural areas being destroyed and ecological areas being bisected with EU money which subsequently have to be protected from the time when they form part of EU territory?

5. In anticipation of Bulgaria’s possible accession to the European Union, is the Commission prepared to work towards a situation where

(a) not only part, but the whole, of the Kresna area with its major natural features is designated an area to be protected, 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/21

(b) the design phase is based on a modified route and/or construction of a tunnel for the motorway so that no further costs are incurred for a variant which runs counter to the interests of nature and the environment,

(c) the provision of European financial contributions for the building of the motorway, as intended by the Bulgarian government under the ISPA, is made conditional on the natural features of the Kresna gorges being retained and no ecological corridors being destroyed within that area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

1. The Commission is aware that the Bulgarian government intends to build a motorway through the valley of the Struma as part of Trans-European Corridor No 4. The Commission has approved the Phare Cross-Border Co-operation (CBC) project E-79 motorway study (BG9803 and BG99404) including the preparation of a preliminary design, feasibility study and detailed design of the Daskalovo-Kulata section. The European Investment Bank has not been asked to finance the Struma motorway. To date no request for additional Community assistance has been made. The Commission undertakes a thorough appraisal of all projects submitted by the beneficiary countries for ISPA financial assistance to ensure compliance with the requirements of the appropriate regulations. One of these requirements is for an assessment of environmental impact of the project similar to the assessment under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1) amended by Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 (2). It is within the context of such an EIA procedure that the environmental sensitivity of areas affected by the construction, including the Kresna gorge, should be considered.

2. The Commission will closely follow, especially through its delegation in Sofia, the planning of the Struma motorway, in order to ensure that the less damaging route for the environment is used, and that an alternative solution to that presently planned is chosen, if necessary. The Commission will facilitate meetings and dialogue between the Bulgarian authorities and the Bulgarian environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In this context, the Commission delegation in Sofia organised meetings with the interested parties (i.e., the mayor of the town of Kresna, representatives of Bulgarian environmental NGOs, the contractor, the CBC implementing agency and the Roads implementing agency) on 1 and 13 November 2000, during which possible alternative solutions for the location of the motorway were discussed.

3. The Commission is well aware of the importance of the Kresna gorge from an environmental point of view. Different habitat types in the sense of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3) are present in the Kresna gorge, and plant, fish, amphibian and reptilian species that fall within the annexes of the Directive live in the Kresna gorge area. For these reasons, the Commission is undertaking the actions described at point 1 and 2 aiming to preserve the status quo of this important bio-diversity area.

4. and 5. Should Bulgaria decide to ask for the inclusion of the Kresna gorge area in the Natura 2000 network, the Commission would be ready to support such a choice.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 174 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3157/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Taxation of online supplies

In June 2000 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/ EEC (1) on the treatment for VAT purposes of certain electronically provided services, and a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) 218/92 (2) on administrative cooperation in the field of indirect taxation (VAT). C 174 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

In the light of the problems linked to the online supply of digital products and their treatment for tax purposes, I should like to ask the Commission the following:

1. Before submitting the above proposals, did the Commission study the taxation of online supplies in regions with similar economies?

2. How is the taxation of this type of online supplies handled in the USA, for example?

3. In what international context beyond the countries of the EU does cooperation take place on the taxation of online supplies?

4. Is there any international requirement regarding the taxation of online supplies?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1. (2) OJ L 24, 1.2.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Commission studied the issues surrounding electronic commerce taxation systems in considerable depth before making a proposal. As well as working closely with Member States’ tax administrations and with representatives of European business, the Commission played a central role in the work undertaken within the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD). This recognised the international nature of the questions raised and the need to compare and exchange experiences in addressing a new economic paradigm. The taxation guidelines put forward by the Commission to the Ecofin Council in July 1998 reflected this, and these guidelines in turn formed the basis of a common Community position at the OECD ministerial conference at Ottawa in October 1998. The international taxation framework conditions established by the OECD at the Ottawa ministerial conference were subsequently considered by the Commission in its working paper of June 1999, which set out various issues and options for the consideration of those involved in electronic commerce and was the subject of extensive consultation. Finally, the proposal from the Commission was issued in June 2000 (1), reflecting the international taxation framework conditions for electronic commerce established by OECD member countries, and encompassing the extensive consultative process of the preceding years.

The taxation of online supplies in the United States is not directly comparable as there is no harmonised national system of consumption taxation. Instead, most state governments impose retail sales taxes on the purchase of goods, and in some cases services, by their residents. Although e-commerce is an impetus for modernisation and reform of these systems, it is too early to say how online supplies will eventually be handled.

The OECD has established a role as the primary forum for international co-operation in developing policies on the taxation of on-line e-commerce. At present the Commission is participating there, together with other Community administrations and representatives of, inter alia, the United States, Australia, Japan and Canada on reaching international consensus on the measures needed to give effect to the taxation framework condition agreed at Ottawa.

The OECD framework conditions agreed at the ministerial conference at Ottawa in October 1998 lay down international taxation principles that should apply to electronic commerce. For consumption taxes (such as VAT) taxation should result in the jurisdiction where consumption takes place and, for these purposes, the supply of digitised products should not be treated as a supply of goods. The proposal from the Commission will ensure that the Community VAT system is in conformity with these principles.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) also has a number of rules regarding taxation measures that have an impact on trade. The Commission’s proposal is in line with these rules.

(1) COM(2000) 349 final. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/23

(2001/C 174 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3163/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Water infrastructure

On 15 September this year Mrs Margarita Nájera, Mayoress of Calvia and President of the Balearic Islands Federation of Local Authorities (FELIB), announced that she had travelled to Brussels to meet with environment officials at the Commission and stated that the Commission had undertaken to fund several water infrastructure projects in full, and in particular the Sa Costera transfer project and a further water supply project in the town of Soller, on the island of Majorca (Balearic Islands).

1. Is it true that Mrs Nájera met with environment officials at the Commission?

2. Is it true that the Commission has undertaken to fund several water infrastructure projects on the Balearic Islands in full, including the Sa Costera transfer project and a further water supply project in the town of Soller, on the island of Majorca?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

Commission environment officials have not officially met the person referred to by the Honourable Member during the last few months.

Water supply projects, including a project on Sa Costera, have been submitted by the Government of the Balearic Islands in the framework of the single programming document for the Balearic Islands.

The Commission is examining the single programming document for the Balearic Islands and a decision on the programme will in principle be taken before the end of the year. No projects are funded 100 % under the Structural Funds.

(2001/C 174 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3197/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Internal Drainage Boards in the United Kingdom

Does the Commission feel that these Boards meet the normal criteria of democracy? Election to these Boards is dependant on certain land ownership criteria, meaning that votes are determined not on the principle of one person one vote but on wealth (in terms of land).

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

After examining 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. It is the consistent practice of the Court of Justice, in accordance with its case law, not to monitor respect of fundamental rights by Member States when they are acting outside the scope of Community law. Consequently, and quite apart from whether a fundamental right has been violated, the Commission is not competent in this instance to open infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty. C 174 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that once all national remedies against the act in question have been exhausted, it is possible to bring a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

(2001/C 174 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3204/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: Civil liberties in Saudi Arabia

Further to reports of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, how has the Council addressed the issue of civil liberties during multilateral talks with this country?

(8 March 2001)

The EU is encouraging Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to act to improve civil liberties and the human rights situation in their countries and to cooperate with the UN and international human rights organisations. The issue of human rights is always raised by the EU in its twice- yearly Ministerial meetings with the GCC, as well as at other meetings. In the framework of the Cooperation Agreement between the Community and the GCC (1), the EU has so far unsuccessfully proposed the establishment of a human rights dialogue at all levels.

A negotiating mandate with a view to the conclusion of a free trade agreement between the Community and the GCC was drawn up in 1991. This mandate is currently being updated. A Commission proposal to that effect is expected in a few weeks. In accordance with the policy followed by the EU as regards human rights in the context of its agreements with third countries, human rights would constitute an essential element in any agreement of that type.

(1) OJ L 54, 25.2.1989, p. 1.

(2001/C 174 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Development of a studio theme park in Mainz

The ZDF is planning to develop a studio theme park in Mainz, Germany. The theme park is to provide purely commercial leisure facilities, not unlike attractions on offer in other leisure parks, with which it will therefore be in direct competition.

In this context the following questions are asked:

1. What view does the Commission take of the fact that the ZDF studio theme park is a purely commercial theme park whose activities are not covered by the public-service broadcasting remit, contrary to stipulations of the German Monopolies Commission’s thirteenth Biennial Report 1998/ 1999 drawn up in accordance with Section 44, paragraph 1, sentence 1, of the GWB (Act against Restraints of Competition) (p. 446)?

2. What view does the Commission take of the German Monopolies Commission’s recommendation that these kinds of activities should not be pursued by public institutions such as the ZDF? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/25

3. Does the Commission consider that the financing of the studio theme park with funds generated from public fees constitutes unauthorised financial aid under Article 87(1) of the EEC Treaty?

4. What does the Commission understand by the ‘public-service broadcasting remit’?

5. How does the Commission intend to monitor, in accordance with the public-service broadcasting remit, the operation and utilisation of the ZDF studio theme park under the current funding supervision system involving a body whose task is to establish the financial needs of broadcasting corporations?

6. How will the Commission ensure that, with a view to transparent public accounting, no funds generating from public fees will be used as state aid for the planning, development and utilisation of the ZDF studio theme park?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

1. and 2. The Commission has not reached any conclusion regarding the planned development of a studio theme park by Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (the ZDF). Until now the Commission has dealt only with complaints received regarding the ZDF plan. It originally informed the applicants that the information at its disposal did not indicate that state aid would be used to develop the studio theme park. The applicants have since supplied further information, which is currently being examined.

3. and 5. The Commission has not found that the studio theme park is being financed with funds from public licence fees. Consequently, it has not concluded that the financing is in breach of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. For this reason there is no cause to consider monitoring the operation or utilisation of the studio theme park.

4. The definition of ‘public-service broadcasting remit’ is a matter for the Member States, not for the Commission.

6. In principle, 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) also applies to the broadcasting sector. However, the requirement to keep separate accounts applies solely where a company conducts different activities and not in the case where activities are conducted by different legal persons.

Where it is necessary to examine a complaint concerning the infringement of state aid rules, it is the Commission’s practice to request information from the Member State concerned. There is normally no reason to doubt the accuracy of this information.

(1) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3221/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(20 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? C 174 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(26 February 2001)

The common position adopted by the Council on 31 July 2000 (1) provides that, as from 1 January 2004, the yield of cigarettes released for free circulation, marketed or manufactured in the Member States shall not be greater than 10 mg per cigarette for tar.

As you have pointed out, the common position includes a temporary derogation for Greece with regard to the maximum tar yield of cigarettes manufactured and marketed within its territory. As a result, it will not be possible for cigarettes manufactured in Greece with tar yields over 10 mg to be marketed outside Greece.

As the Honourable Member is aware, this directive is intended to promote the elimination of those differences between the Member States’ laws, regulations and administrative provisions on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products which impede the functioning of the internal market.

As a consequence of the case law of the Court of Justice, Community legislation should be applied uniformly in all the Member States. However, a derogation is possible when, as in this case, the derogation is objectively justified and limited in time.

(1) OJ C 300, 20.10.2000, p. 49.

(2001/C 174 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3223/00 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Transport of animals and compliance with Council Directive 91/628/EEC

The Commission recently published a report on a mission to France in November 1999 concerning staging points for the long-distance transport of animals. The report stated that 40 % of the vehicles from another Member State which were due to stop at a French staging point failed to do so. The Commission also visited a port at which a ferry arrived carrying livestock vehicles from another Member State. The Commission found numerous irregularities in the vehicles’ route plans. They also found that, out of seven vehicles whose route plans indicated they would rest the animals at a particular place, only three in fact did so.

Could the Commission ascertain:

1. the Member State from which the vehicles came in both of the above incidents, and

2. the steps which are being taken to persuade France and the other Member States to enforce EU law on the need for: (a) route plans to include all the information required by Council Directive 91/628/EEC (1) and (b) transporters to comply with their route plans and give animals the rest periods required by the Directive?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

During the mission of the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) to France in November 1999, the findings at the French port and staging point, to which the Honourable Member refers, concerned transporters whose journeys originated in Ireland. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/27

In its recommendations following this mission, the FVO asked the French authorities to inform the Commission of the action taken to ensure that route plans are properly used and signed. Although the French authorities have informed the FVO that they have addressed several of the recommendations of this report in the time laid down, the issue of route plans was not satisfactorily dealt with and the FVO has asked for further clarification on this point. The Irish authorities have been similarly informed of these findings and a meeting has been scheduled to discuss this issue.

The reports of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) indicate that, in general, the level of priority given to the control of route plans has not been high in many Member States. The central authorities of many Member States do not provide detailed instructions or particular assistance to local authorities in relation to the check of the route plans. The FVO has made it a priority to assess the control of route plans, during its missions in the field of animal welfare during transport and to make recommendations to the Member State concerned and to the Commission where appropriate.

Finally, the Commission has recently adopted a report on the implementation in the Member States of the Community legislation on the protection of animals during transport (1). This document is submitted to the Council and to the Parliament. The Commission intends to present proposals based on the conclusions of this report, which will include initiatives to address the problem of insufficient enforcement of the travelling time limits.

The failure of Member States to enforce essential provisions of the current Directive, Council Directive 95/ 29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 90/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport (2), also constitutes a breach of Community Law which the Commission may, in appropriate cases, pursue under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The Commission will consider taking action under Article 226 in the above case unless it is satisfied that adequate action has been taken by both Ireland and France to ensure respect of the Directive.

(1) COM(2000) 809 final. (2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(2001/C 174 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3240/00 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Fléchard firm’s involvement in adulterated butter fraud

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.

1. Can the Commission confirm that information from the competent judicial authorities in France and Italy shows that the Fléchard firm played a key role in the marketing of adulterated butter? C 174 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

2. Is it true that the damage to the Community budget arising from this butter fraud can be expected to amount to at least € 45 million?

3. What consequences has this had for Fléchard?

(a) Was the firm placed on the blacklist (Regulation No 1469/95)?

(b) Were all payments to the firm from the Community budget halted? If so, when? If not, why not?

(c) Has the firm been asked to repay export refunds or other forms of aid wrongly paid to it? If so, when and what amount? If not, why not?

4. Does the Commission stand by its position (letter of 5 July 2000 from Commissioner Schreyer/ D(2000)408) that it cannot provide any information on the payments made to Fléchard from the Community budget?

5. Does the Commission not consider full information to be necessary in view of the severity of the allegations made against the above firm?

(2001/C 174 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3478/00 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2000)

Subject: Payments to the firm Fléchard

According to reports in the press, the firm Fléchard is once again involved in a case of fraud in connection with manipulated butter. Early in 1992 allegations had already been made regarding the firm’s involvement in the fraudulent diversion to Poland of butter intended for the former Soviet Union.

In a letter delivered to me by an usher on 5 July 2000 the Commissioner responsible for budgetary matters invoked the provisions of the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission to justify her refusal to disclose to me what sums Fléchard has received from the Community budget in recent years.

Is the Commission now prepared to answer the following questions:

Is it true that Fléchard received the following sums in Community aid for exports to third countries: 1996: FF 29 129 659 (2 069 tonnes of butter); 1997: FF 105 747 713 (6 931 tonnes of butter); 1998: FF 72 907 357 (3 932 tonnes of butter).

If so, since when has the Commission been in possession of this information?

If not, what are the correct figures?

Can the Commission also state what sums have been paid to the firm in connection with food aid?

Finally, if appropriate can the Commission state what sums in processing aid the firm has received from the Community budget?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3240/00 and P-3478/00 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

Investigations into adulterated butter are being conducted by the authorities of the Member States, in cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). No final conclusions have yet been drawn as to 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/29

whether the firms under investigation were involved in fraud. It is up to OLAF to keep Parliament informed of operational developments in its regular contacts with the institutions pursuant to Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning OLAF investigations (1).

The Commission would point out that only the authorities responsible in the Member States may take measures against a firm deemed to be unreliable (including suspension of the payment of amounts due for current operations) and enter that firm’s name on the black list under 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 EAGGF Guarantee Section and Commission Regulation No 745/96 of 24 April 1996 laying down detailed implementing rules (2). OLAF receives the relevant reports from the Member States.

The Commission would stress that the aid in question constitutes expenditure managed directly by the Member States, whose task it is to reclaim any sums unduly paid. At this stage, OLAF reports that no steps have yet been taken at national level to recover the aid. First, the exact quantities of ineligible products and their final destination (whether covered by aid or not) must be determined. For the same reason the loss to the Community budget has not been quantified.

In the letter referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission pointed out that it had no access to the detailed information held by the national payment agencies which fell outside the scope of its inspection powers and that under the Community rules such information had to be treated in confidence. In particular, data on individual firms might be covered by business secrecy. Here the Commission would also refer to the provisions on protecting the confidentiality of personal data, as laid down in Article 8 of Regulation 1073/1999.

The Commission will not fail to inform Parliament of the action taken on the investigations under way, in accordance with existing arrangements.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999. (2) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995; OJ L 102, 25.4.1996.

(2001/C 174 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3242/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Civil war in Sudan

The long-running civil war raging in Sudan has taken on a more international dimension as, in addition to the Sudanese Government and the revolutionaries, multinational companies and foreign governments have become involved. The objective of all those involved is the territory with abundant oil deposits located in the southern region of the country. To date the UN’s policy on the war in Sudan has not helped to bring about peace but has contributed to maintaining the violence and tension. During the cold war period the UN supported the Sudanese Government, while after the end of the cold war and because of the growing Islamic movement, it has supported the revolutionaries, who are mainly situated in the southern region of the country.

Recently, diplomatic signals have been observed from the UN with regard to a policy being applied which will put an end to the bloody conflicts caused by the oil deposits. This policy will be based on the model of the peace process being attempted in Sierra Leone, linked to the embargo on diamonds from that country. Certain elements in Washington are expressing the wish that European Union countries should collaborate in this initiative.

In view of the above, and given the danger that the fighting will spread on a larger geographical scale within the African continent, and given the constantly increasing importance of oil for the economies of the EU countries, is the Commission aware of Washington’s actions on this issue and what initiatives does it intend to take to encourage a gradual peace process in Sudan, with the aim of a conclusive end to the civil war? C 174 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The Commission follows closely the political situation in the Sudan and in particular the civil war between the Sudanese government in Khartoum and southern rebel groups, the most important of which is the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement. After 17 years of civil war it can be safely stated that there is no military solution. The conflict has clear ethnic and religious implications. Economic issues like sharing Sudan’s oil wealth play an ever growing role.

Although it has been impossible to maintain a normal level of cooperation with the Sudan due to the political situation, the Commission continues to be present in the country and to play a major role in the field of humanitarian assistance. More than € 200 million have been made available for this purpose during the last ten years. At the same time, the Commission is participating in the renewed political dialogue between the Community and the government of the Sudan, which will soon come to the end of its first phase. Together with a number of Member States it is an active member of the Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Partners Forum (IPF) that supports IGAD’s efforts to mediate in the Sudanese internal conflict.

The Commission strongly encourages the peace process, not only by providing political and moral support to IGAD but also in its direct relations with the conflicting partners. It subscribes to the call for an immediate cease-fire agreement under international supervision and to the demand for a stop to the provision of arms to either side. The Declaration of Principles, adopted by both parties in the North-South conflict, is considered the basis for a lasting peace, in particular as far as the right of self-determination is concerned. Together with Member States, the Commission has been cooperating with the United States on this matter. However, this has not always been successful given differences in the analysis of the process of change in Khartoum.

(2001/C 174 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3263/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Reciprocal defence guarantees in the EU

During a visit to Latvia on 10 February 2000, the Commission President Romano Prodi stated that any attack or act of aggression against an EU Member State was an attack or act of aggression against the EU as a whole.

Does the Commission consider, therefore, that the Member States are bound by reciprocal defence guarantees?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The Commission regrets that some comments on this issue have been taken out of context. In discussions with Lithuanian President Adamkus, the President of the Commission affirmed that membership of the Union gave a ‘sense of belonging’ and that this was in a real sense an effective guarantee of security. What the President of the Commission said during his visit to Latvia was that membership of the Union represents the enhancement of national economic and political security through membership of the world’s largest trading bloc, largest aid giver and largest provider of technical assistance to the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. So, there should be no confusion between the sense of security brought by the membership of an enlarging Union and the kind of territorial security commitment provided by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Western European Union (WEU) treaties, which were not part of the discussions. The use of the word ‘attack’ had no military significance. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/31

It may be helpful to distinguish between two component parts of the overall European security and defence equation territorial defence and Petersberg tasks. Issues of territorial defence should, of course, be raised with Member States themselves. Military implications of individual Member States’ policy in the defence area fall squarely into the national domain. As to a territorial security commitment, such as that provided by article V of the NATO Treaty and article 5 of the WEU Treaty, this concerns only those EU Member States which have signed those treaties. In addition, territorial defence does not form part of ongoing discussions within the framework of ESDP.

The Union’s stated aim is to be ready to support action within the framework of Petersberg tasks. All Member States agree on this and are ready to contribute.

There is, of course, an umbilical link between the military and non-military dimensions of conflict prevention, conflict resolution and crisis management. It is in these areas that the Union, its Member States and the Commission are increasingly active.

(2001/C 174 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3266/00 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Support for the arts in the EU

Can the Commission give details of Community legislation providing for EU subsidies for all types of schools and academies of music (both public and private) in the Member States? What Community programmes are in force which provide for financial aid to such institutions?

Which Community initiatives provide subsidies for projects to promote the book sector? Are there plans to provide aid for the publication of major works of European and world literature, such as the ancient Greek tragedies, and to subsidise pioneering projects such as the translation of ancient philosophical, historical and scientific texts into all the official languages of the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2000)

The Community action programme in the field of education, Socrates, subsidises transnational activities initiated by institutional partnerships involving at least three participating countries. In principle, the Comenius action on school education is open to all establishments recognised as schools by the participating countries. A detailed list of eligible institutions appears in the programme application guide. None of the Socrates actions is exclusively concerned with the arts.

The ‘Culture 2000’ programme, which is the single financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation within the Community established by Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 (1), is designed, inter alia, to promote cultural dialogue and mutual knowledge of the culture and history of European peoples and to encourage creativity and the transnational dissemination of culture.

The objectives of the framework programme are to be achieved through actions which are either vertical (concerning one cultural field) or horizontal (associating several cultural fields).

In the case of books and reading, the vertical approach of the Culture 2000 programme is intended, in particular: ‘to improve awareness and the distribution of literary creation and the history of the European people through supporting the translation of literary, dramatic and reference works …’. C 174 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

As regards support for certain types of project, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the 2001 project priorities are to be announced under the call for programme proposals to be published in the Official Journal during November 2000.

(1) OJ L 63, 10.3.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3279/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Arrest of priest in Turkey

The Turkish newspaper, Milliyet, reported on 6 October 2000 that the previous morning the police had arrested the Syro-Chaldean priest, Yussuf Akbulut, at the Holy Church of the Virgin Mary at Diyarbakir in full view of visiting tourists. The police confiscated the tourists’ cameras, took the priest into custody and then brought him before the State Security Court. The priest’s crime was a statement he had made to the newspaper, Hurriyet, on 4 October in which he said that ‘a great many Syro-Chaldeans were also massacred together with the Armenians’. What steps will the Commission take to secure the immediate release of the priest?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

The Commission can confirm that Mr Akbulut was interrogated by the Diyarbakir Security Department. He stayed in the Security Department for 8 hours and was then released. Subsequently the priest was indicted for ‘inciting hatred and enmity among people’ according to Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code. The first hearing at the Diyarbakir State Security Court will take place on 21 December 2000.

The Commission will raise this matter with the Turkish government in the framework of the political dialogue.

(2001/C 174 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3289/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Measures against caffein

According to researchers from John Hopkins University in the USA, caffein is added to soft drinks because of its addictive properties and not, as the manufacturers claim, to enhance flavour.

In addition to their addictive effect, such soft drinks are a major source of sugar, and tend to replace healthier products in the daily diet. Sugar intake causes damage to teeth in particular and is a factor in making people overweight.

Is the Commission considering measures against this on grounds of consumer protection (Article 153 of the EC Treaty) or public health (Article 152)? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/33

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of the concern that has been expressed regarding the caffeine content of certain food products. The matter has been discussed with the Member States and the Commission would be favourable to the labelling of drinks containing a significant amount of caffeine, bearing a mention to alert consumers to the presence of this substance. A proposal for a relevant measure will be prepared in 2001.

The Commission is also aware of the relationship between consumption of certain nutrients like sugar and health. There is scientific evidence that a high frequency of daily sugar intake seems to have an adverse effect on dental health. This subject has been covered in the report of the Eurodiet project co-financed by the Commission and has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Commission is currently preparing a Communication on an action plan on nutrition and a proposal for a Council Recommendation on European dietary guidelines. Actions for consumer education and information on the above issues will be a prominent part of those proposals.

(2001/C 174 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3296/00 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of motor boat skippers’ licences

At present varying provisions are in force in the Member States regarding the use of motor boats. In Germany, for example, a pleasure boat licence is required for persons wishing to skipper a motor boat with an engine of 5 HP or more, whereas this provision does not exist in (for example) the Netherlands, Sweden or the United Kingdom.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to avoid distortions of competition, particularly in the tourism sector? When will the rules be harmonised at a European level?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2000)

The Commission is aware that there are differences between Member States’ legislation concerning any requirement for a driving licence for using propeller driven motor boats with an engine of 5CV and above.

Without underestimating the internal market dimension of the issue raised, the Commission is of the opinion that the differences in requirement mentioned have essentially a local and regional impact.

In these circumstances and considering the present work programme of the Commission essentially focused on maritime safety for merchant vessels, the Commission does not envisage, in the short term, to address the question of harmonizing licences for this type of boat. C 174 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3327/00 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Consumer protection and unfair commercial practices and sales methods

In Germany some 100 000 people have been the victims of organised mass fraud under dubious trustee model funding schemes. Intermediary sales organisations are used to hold out the offer of purchasing real estate (condominiums) and shares in closed-end real estate funds with high tax advantages and high returns based on 100 % financing and guaranteed rents. However, they fail to deliver.

This poses the following questions:

1. Is the Commission aware of the mass indebtedness of deceived purchasers as a result of ’100 % financed real estate purchase’ (housing and financing in the same package) via agreements between banks, trustees and vendors, and is this an infringement of European consumer law?

2. Does the Commission take the view that these unfair practices are also an infringement of the principle formulated by the Commission, and acknowledged by the other EU bodies, of guaranteeing unreservedly the economic and legal interests of consumers in the EU and of counteracting the problem of debt overload of consumers as a result of ‘snowball’ sales (1)?

3. What action does the Commission intend taking to regulate the practices of legally independent sales organisations with questionable methods towards consumers (aggressive approaches to deals, misleading or inaccurate information, failure to honour promises made in advertisements)?

4. What is the Commission’s view of the question of the law of obligations and liability with regard to violation of the banks’ duty of care (banks as lenders and at the same time as a party to the investment through financing agreements between the bank and the sales organisations and through financing contracts)?

5. What opportunities are available to consumers who are highly indebted as a result of trustee model financing to enforce their right to compensation through the courts?

(1) See the Communication from the Commission of 2 December 1998 Consumer policy action plan 1999-2001 (COM(98) 696) and resolutions of the European Parliament and the Council on this communication. See also Decision No 283/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999 establishing a general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

1. The Commission was not aware of the extent of the business practices mentioned by the Honourable Member. Given the information available, it does not seem, that, these practices are covered by existing Community consumer protection law. Possibly, these practices could involve cases of misleading advertising according to Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States, concerning misleading advertising (1). However, this Directive leaves Member States, to a large extent, room for implementation and specific complaints should therefore be addressed to competent authorities in the Member States concerned. From the information available, an infringement of Community consumer protection law cannot be presumed.

2. and 3. Practices like the ones mentioned by the Honourable Member do certainly damage economic and legal interests of consumers. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/35

In its ‘Consumer Policy Action Plan 1999-2001’ (2) the Commission undertook to examine the feasibility of a general framework on fair trading. In line with this commitment, the Commission is preparing a communication on this issue, which will be submitted to the Community institutions in a few months. However, it is not clear from the information available, if the incriminated practices would fall under the scope of such a general framework on fair trading.

In any case, even a general framework to trade fairly does not necessarily prevent criminal practices. The practices as described by the Honourable Member could indeed involve criminal behaviour.

4. The possible contractual liability in these cases is a matter of German private law and not regulated by Community law.

5. The concerned consumers could consult legal advice or contact consumer associations for advice or support according to German law.

(1) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984. (2) COM(98) 696 final.

(2001/C 174 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3337/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Attacks on press freedom in Austria

On Monday, 9 October 2000, as was reported in the most respected European newspapers, the journalists of the State-run Austrian television service, ORF, spoke out with one voice against the massive pressure being exerted by senior leaders of Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party (FPÖ) and their intolerable attempts to censor the station’s editorial staff and management. One of the main culprits has been the head of the FPÖ parliamentary group, Peter Westenthaler, who within the space of a single day intervened on as many as 22 occasions in an attempt to obstruct the journalists’ work, influence the subjects covered and the format and scope of reports, and demand ‘counter-reports’ whenever the television news was not to his liking.

Furthermore, according to Profil magazine, the management of the State television service has opened an internal investigation to discover why the text of news items was leaked to politicians before the programmes concerned had even been broadcast. Lastly, another source has revealed that two police- officers have been implicated in a criminal plan to ‘physically punish’ the television presenter Josef Bronkal for his severe criticism of Jörg Haider’s party.

In the light of the statement issued on 12 September 2000, in which the 14 Union governments announced that they were lifting the diplomatic sanctions imposed on Austria but at the same time pointed to the need to keep an especially close watch on Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party, does the Commission not believe that the Union institutions should roundly and unambiguously condemn the continuing blatant attacks on freedom of the Press, and hence democracy, being mounted in Austria?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The Commission always attaches great importance to democratic principles, including freedom of the press, especially in the Member States. Nevertheless, any measures that may be called for by the incidents deplored by the Honourable Member must be taken by the Austrian authorities. In the present state of Community law, such measures do not come within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the conditions for the application of the Union Treaty provisions concerning the violation of fundamental rights have not been met in this case. C 174 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3346/00 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Revision of the Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament (Anastasso- poulos Report)

The European Parliament is awaiting the Council’s common position on the revision of the Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament.

Will the French Presidency be seeking a decision on this matter?

Which Member States have particular problems in this respect?

(26 February 2001)

The Council attaches great importance to the procedure for the election of Members of the European Parliament, laid down in Article 190(4) of the Treaty. After receiving the Parliament’s Resolution of 15 July 1998, the Council undertook the examination of a draft act relating to the election of members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage. In the same context, the Council considered the question of the exact dates for the European vote.

Many aspects have been agreed, as stated in a letter to the President of the European Parliament on 22 May 2000. On other points, and particularly on possible amendments to Annex II of the 1976 Act, the dates for the elections to be held in 2004, and incompatibilities, the Council is continuing to seek agreement.

The Honourable Member may be assured that the Council is making every effort to resolve the matters still outstanding and to reach agreement on the arrangements to be covered by the procedure laid down in Article 190(4).

(2001/C 174 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3347/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Visa requirement for Slovakian citizens on entry to Belgium

A Slovakian citizen who wishes to travel to Belgium must apply for a visa. Slovakia’s successful efforts to become a member of the European Union are to be welcomed and must be comprehensively supported.

It is therefore vitally important to ensuring progress with EU enlargement to the east for any adverse effects to be counteracted at an early stage or not allowed to arise at all.

To make entry by a Slovakian citizen subject to a visa requirement could be characterised as discrimination.

Does such a procedure not amount to a racist act against the Sinti (gypsy people of German origin)? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/37

(8 March 2001)

1. As Community law stands at present, and in the absence of total harmonisation on the issue of visas, it is for Member States to determine whether nationals of Slovakia, a third country not on the common list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the Member States’ external borders, are/are not subject to a visa requirement.

2. However, on 26 January 2000 the Commission submitted to the Council, on the basis of Article 62(2)(b)(i) of the TEC, a proposal for a Regulation listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement. Slovakia is one of the third countries whose nationals the Commission proposes to exempt from the visa requirement. The European Parliament was consulted by letter dated 16 March 2000 and delivered its Opinion on 5 July 2000. At its meeting on 30 November and 1 December 2000, the Council reached political agreement on the content of the Regulation, advocating, inter alia, that Slovak nationals be exempt from the visa requirement. It was also agreed that the European Parliament should be re-consulted, given that the original text of the Commission proposal had been substantially amended.

3. It must be pointed out that visa policy does not distinguish between ethnic groups but is based on citizenship of the countries in question.

(2001/C 174 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3348/00 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(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 Council 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?

(8 March 2001)

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

2. In the statement it made on the local elections in Albania in the OSCE’s Permanent Council and in the Council of Europe, the Union deplored the serious irregularities and incidents noted in the first and second rounds of balloting, especially those which affected the voting of a substantial number of Greeks in Chimara.

3. As Albania is a country eligible for a stabilisation and association agreement, its performance in respecting democratic principles, human rights and the rights of minorities is an important criterion for future developments in its relations with the European Union. On the basis of a Commission feasibility C 174 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

study on the possibility of negotiating a stabilisation and association agreement, the Council concluded on 24 January 2000 that Albania needed first to resolve certain economic, political and institutional weaknesses. Since adaptation to the structures of the Union is a strategic goal for the government in Tirana, the Union has considerable leverage to help improve the situation of minorities in Albania. The Albanian authorities are certainly aware of this.

4. Moreover, in the Final Declaration of the Zagreb Summit, which brought together the EU and the Western Balkan countries on 24 November, Albania undertook to respect the rights of persons belonging to minority groups. In Zagreb the Union announced its decision to step up cooperation with Albania and to specify what reforms needed to be carried out. The Council has set up an EU-Albania high-level steering group which will assess progress, recommend the necessary reform measures and provide advice and guidance in all areas of concern set out in the 1999 Commission feasibility report, namely macro- economic stabilisation and accelerated structural reforms, strengthening of security and public order and improvement of governance and law enforcement (such as public administration reform, judiciary, rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities). The group may look at any other issue relevant to the stabilisation and association process. The Council will thus be able to monitor closely the Albanian government’s implementation of concrete measures in these areas.

5. The European Community spent € 18,8 million between 1993 and 1999 on financing democratisation and human rights projects in Albania or in a regional framework encompassing Albania.

6. However, in a Presidency declaration on behalf of the European Union of 1 December 2000, it was pointed out that the European Union sees the increasing use of violence in the pursuit of political aims as a worrying development. The European Union therefore made a forceful appeal for the rule of law to be respected and made any movement by Albania towards a closer relationship with the European Union dependent on respect for institutions and legality, non-recourse to violence and a spirit of tolerance and dialogue.

(2001/C 174 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3360/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Conditions in Greek slaughterhouses

On 1 October 2000, three slaughterhouses in the Greek province of Achaia, which did not meet the required hygiene standards, were closed by order of the Commission. In view of the role played by slaughterhouses in food hygiene and consumer health, will the Commission state to what extent it is satisfied with the progress made in modernising slaughterhouses in Greece, and its view, in general, of developments in this sector for which it also provides funding? What sum was approved for the modernisation of slaughterhouses, how much has been disbursed, and what results have been achieved?

Can the Commission also say to what extent Greece complies with the following directives:

93/118 (1) and 96/43 (2) on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat,

97/12 (3) on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine, 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/39

97/76 (4) with regard to the rules applicable to minced meat, meat preparations and certain other products of animal origin,

97/78 (5) and 97/79 (6) laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries.

Has Greece taken implementing measures to comply with each of the above directives? If so, does it apply them correctly? If not, has the procedure for infringement of Community law been initiated and what stage has it reached in respect of each of the above directives separately?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15. (2) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1. (3) OJ L 109, 25.4.1997, p. 1. (4) OJ L 10, 16.1.1998, p. 25. (5) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9. (6) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carries out regular inspections in the Member States in order, inter alia, to verify compliance with Community health regulations governing slaughterhouses.

An inspection visit to poultry slaughterhouses in Greece revealed shortcomings in this connection. The FVO subsequently inspected Greek pig, beef and veal slaughterhouses in September 2000. The Commis- sion will decide what action to take to ensure the correct application of Community law in the light of the corresponding report, which is currently being finalised.

The Commission closely monitors the transposition of Community Directives into national law, particularly in the veterinary field. Greece’s failure to notify national implementing measures in respect of the directives referred to by the Honourable Member led it to initiate infringement procedures under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The procedures covering Directives 97/76/EC and 97/78/EC, which had reached the reasoned opinion stage, were discontinued after the Greek authorities took appropriate transposing action, but those in respect of Directives 97/12/EC (formal notice in 2000) and 97/79/EC (reasoned opinion in 2000) are still in progress. In the case of Directives 93/118/EC and 96/43/EC, the Commission was obliged to initiate infringement procedures pursuant to Article 228, owing to Greece’s non-compliance with Court judgments delivered in 1998 and 1999. These are currently at the reasoned opinion and formal notice stages respectively.

One of the principal objectives of EU funding for slaughterhouse modernisation is, of course, to ensure conformity with Community health standards. According to the Commission’s information, total aid for ‘meat’ slaughterhouses to the end of 1999 under Council Regulation (EC) No 951/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (1) was €36,8 million, of which the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (Guidance Section) contributed €17,8 million for the corresponding programming period (1994-1999). By September 2000, 28 of the 100 slaughterhouses targeted had been modernised, representing a 28 % success rate (in terms of project completion). This is obviously a disappointing outcome, particularly in view of the overall weighted average processing and marketing results for Greek agricultural products under the aforementioned regulation and especially as operations and payments may extend into 2001.

Consequently, whilst recognising that the special nature of this sector inevitably makes investment in slaughterhouse modernisation a slow and relatively difficult undertaking, the Commission considers that Greece is significantly behind in this process.

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997. C 174 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3366/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Avoiding tax by spreading high incomes over different Member States

1. Is the Commission aware that highly paid residents of Member States of the European Union have the opportunity of having their income paid in different Member States so that in each individual Member State they have a relatively low income and consequently, as a result of a progressive tax rate, are assigned at a low tax bracket?

2. Can the Commission confirm that this system of salary split has been used for some time by senior managers of major international companies who allegedly work in a different country every day of the week, and that it is now being used to an increasing extent by other highly paid executives of the firms in question as a means of obtaining personal tax relief?

3. Does the Commission agree that the option of spreading a tax liability over different Member States can only be justified if work is demonstrably being performed in different Member States, and that it should not result in persons benefiting from greater tax relief than the one to which they would have been entitled in one Member State?

4. Do all Member States make it obligatory for residents to state on their tax returns taxable income in other countries, with details of the amount per country, and is it possible to use this information as a way of counteracting unintentional tax immunity?

5. What does the Commission intend to do to preclude future abuse of existing schemes, for example, by harmonising the tax systems of Member States in such a way that tax concessions that are currently granted are offset by:

(a) increasing each tax base to a proportion of the grand total of the income received in different Member States, or

(b) levying in one Member State a sum equal to the improperly obtained tax concession and subsequently spreading it over the Member States concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

The ‘salary split’ described by the Honourable Member is the result of arrangements made under bilateral tax treaties between Member States on the sharing of the tax base and avoiding double taxation when taxpayers are involved in cross border activities. These bilateral tax treaties are as a rule based on the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) model double taxation convention.

As regards directors’ remuneration, Article 16 of the OECD model convention states that: ‘Directors’ fees and other similar payments derived by a resident of a Contracting State in his capacity as a member of the boards of directors of a company which is resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State’.

Concerning income from employment, Article 15(1) of the OECD model convention states that: ‘Salaries, wages and other similar remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of an employment shall be taxable only in that State unless the employment is exercised in the other Contracting State. If the employment is so exercised, such remuneration as is derived therefrom may be taxed in that other State.’

Where a taxpayer’s income is taxed in a Member State other than his state of residence, Member States, under these bilateral tax treaties, essentially apply one of two methods to avoid double taxation: the credit method (income taxed in the source state is included in the taxable income in the state of residence but foreign taxes are credited against residence state taxes) or the exemption with progression method (income 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/41

taxed in the source state is excluded from the taxable income in the residence state but may be taken into account in calculating the amount of tax on the remaining income in the residence state).

In certain circumstances, it is possible, as the Honourable Member suggests, that where a Member State applies the exemption method to employment income derived by a resident from other states, the salary split results in a level of taxation which is lower than if the income were earned only in that Member State.

In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, direct taxation falls in principle within the competence of the Member States, subject to respect for the provisions of the Treaty. It is therefore primarily for the Member States concerned to address any problems of tax avoidance under domestic and treaty rules. The Honourable Member raises however a further point requiring Community involvement. The lack of effective exchange of information between Member States may lead to a level of taxation below that which would be due under the tax rules of a Member State. This question is touched upon in a report of the Ad hoc working party on tax fraud of 22 May 2000 (FISC 67), which was approved by the Ecofin Council of 5 June 2000. The recommendations in the field of administrative co-operation and mutual assistance contained in the report include the ‘Stepping up of information exchange between Member States regarding in particular the following situations … income paid to delocalised taxpayers, particularly sports personalities, artists and multinational business executives’. The Council called on the Commission to submit possible proposals based on all the recommendations unanimously agreed.

The Commission is at present considering the steps which could be taken to give effect to the recommendations made by the Ad hoc working group on this subject.

(2001/C 174 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3382/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Criteria used by the Commission for allocating fishing opportunities

In its reply to priority Written Question P-2974/00 (1) in which I enquired as to the criteria used by the Commission to set reference periods for the allocation of fishing opportunities, the Commission once more demonstrates, as on various occasions over recent months, its total contempt for the European Parliament, and particularly its monitoring of the executive by means, inter alia, of parliamentary questions. In view of the fact that the reply not only does not contain the slightest specific information on the matter raised, but also that it can only be interpreted as a further sign of the Commission’s impertinence and arrogance vis-à- vis the European Parliament, I once again ask the Commission:

With regard to the key question of the setting of reference periods, which could mean the loss of significant fishing opportunities for certain fleets, together with the loss of income that this entails, will the Commission state whether this is a purely discretional matter that is decided on at whim on a case-by-case basis? Are there any objective criteria in this area, as could be inferred from the Commission’s previous reply?

Likewise, are the ‘historical maximum’ years included in these reference periods on the basis of specific criteria, or according to the nationality of the fleet which stands to benefit?

If it is the case that the Commission has complete discretion in this area, does it not agree that in order to create a minimum of transparency with regard to the parties concerned, there is no reason not to make public the criteria on which its decisions are based?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 223. C 174 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

Decisions on reference periods are, in principle, purely at the discretion of the Commission when the latter is drawing up its proposal. However, the Commission’s discretion is constrained by the fact that attempts are always made to reflect historical performance by each Member State concerned in a rational and equitable manner. In most cases, the reference period refers to the last five or ten years for which data on landings or fishing effort are available. Obviously, the choice of reference period may result in apparent advantages to one or more Member States to the apparent detriment of others. If historical performance by each Member State has remained stable or approximately so within the reference period, there is little problem. However, many track records are highly variable from year to year within each or some Member States. This gives rise to greater and sometimes insuperable problems in finding an equitable solution on the basis of the available data alone. In such cases the Commission uses its discretion to propose what it hopes will be an acceptable solution.

On at least one occasion, the Commission proposed a reference period of ten years and derived an allocation system on this basis, but deviated from a straightforward presentation of the ensuing result to permit recognition of historical fishing activities thirty years previously by one Member State.

Within any chosen reference period, there will always be at least one year of maximum value. Such historical maximum years are de facto included in the data indicating track record in any reference period. If, therefore, the Commission proposal for allocation of fishing opportunities is based on an average of the track record, across the reference period, such an historical maximum for each Member State will be included when computing such an average. Rather than a being a specific criterion, inclusion of such an historical maximum is simply a consequence of the arithmetic procedure involved in computing an average value. Of course, this does not mean that the universal historical maximum value for a Member State will necessarily be included in or excluded from the chosen reference period.

On some occasions, the Commission has proposed that only the historical maximum for each Member State within the chosen reference should be considered. This concept was considered acceptable by Council. The Commission never includes a historical maximum year within a reference period according to the nationality of the fleet which stands to benefit.

The proposals of the Commission put before Council are accompanied by full information, sometimes verbal and sometimes written, of the methodology by which the proposal was derived. Ministers are at liberty to pass this information to citizens of their respective Member States. The Commission would have no problems in offering the same information to Parliament. The Commission is always prepared to consider changes to its proposal in the light of comments from Council.

(2001/C 174 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3383/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Planned directive with harmful effects on regional airlines

Regional air traffic has flourished in Europe since the sector was opened to competition in the 1980s. Growth in regional airlines has been distinctly faster than in the major airlines. For example, last year 68 million people flew with the 80 regional airlines belonging to the European Regional Airlines Organisation (ERA), 10 % more than the previous year. The major airlines grew by only 5 % during the same period.

At the moment it is relatively convenient to fly with regional airlines, but operators in the sector are afraid that changing rules and rising tariffs may pull the rug from under their feet. There is a danger that the EU will not take any notice of the small airlines and that they will be left out in the cold in the EU’s decision- making. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/43

The review of operating and air traffic control fees currently at the planning stage in the Commission would mean a 50-80 % increase in current fees for small aircraft. At the same time the Commission’s original plans for a review of slot allocation (allocation of aircraft take-off and landing times) are raising questions among the small airlines. At the same time, the small airlines make additional capacity available for busy airports and offer flights on more varied routes which the major airlines regard as unprofitable.

1. Is the Commission aware of the possible harmful effects of the proposed new directive on regional airlines?

2. Is it possible that the new proposals are manipulating the market and seeking to improve still further the competitiveness of the major airline groups at the expense of the regional airlines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2000)

The directive mentioned by the Honourable Member refers properly to an initiative of the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol).

In March 1999 Eurocontrol’s enlarged committee for route charges set up a task force on the study of possible pricing mechanism in support of the ATM 2000+ strategy. The task force will study a possible pricing mechanism to promote the best use of airspace capacity.

Eurocontrol’s central route charges office conducted a lot of simulations such as a simulation of a two-part tariff with different formulas, and prepared an evaluation on the impact on type of flights, types of aircraft, representative city pairs, users per nationality and user organisations. Some of these simulations suggest that users of smaller aircraft would be substantially affected. Work is still going on and the Commission follows developments with attention.

As the Honourable Member will be aware, the Community is not at present a full member of Eurocontrol. It is, however, in the process of acceding to the organization. Furthermore the Commission is preparing legislative initiatives to develop a Community air traffic management policy. These two developments should make it possible for the Community to play a more active role in this discussion.

Concerning the review of slot allocation, the Commission is currently studying how best to revise the existing Community rules (Council Regulation (EEC) 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports) to respond to the increasing congestion at European airports and the growing gap between available airport infrastructure and demand for air services. In order not to delay further a proposal that has been awaited since 1997, a set of ideas for a future revision was discussed with industry and Member States in July 2000.

The role of regional airlines has been duly considered in the course of this exercise. Accordingly, small airlines, usually operating regional routes within the Community, would continue to benefit from measures allowing Member States to reserve slots for regional services at Europe’s congested airports. Also, small airlines with relatively thin slot portfolios would benefit from new entrant status to fly regional services and other intra-Community routes, while new entrants would be given priority in the allocation of slots. Finally, small airlines should be given the opportunity as new entrants to be allocated slots freed up by big companies to fly routes within or outside the Community. Thus, a series of measures should ensure that small airlines with new entrant status would be able to get good slots for commercially viable services and promote their competitiveness.

Following this discussion, and in order to take into account all possible competitive, economic, international and public interest considerations, the Commission invited Member States to give their views on the issue so as to come forward already early next year with a proposal. C 174 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3384/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council (6 November 2000)

Subject: Opportunities for internet companies in the People’s Republic of China

According to press reports the Chinese government has issued, within the space of a week, forty new regulations concerning Internet companies operating in China. The new regulations limit foreign investments and also require the detailed filtering of ‘subversive material’. The regulations threaten to close down any firm which does not possess the licence required in the country.

According to the Chinese official news agency Xinhuan, Internet service providers are required to retain information about the material they provide, and about all their customers, for 60 days. If necessary this information must be sent to the Chinese authorities.

Business operators have 60 days to send private data about their activities to the Chinese ministry of information in order to obtain an operating licence. Firms without such a licence will be fined or closed down altogether.

1. How does the Council of the European Communities propose to act to protect the human rights of Chinese citizens, and in particular the freedom to transmit information?

2. The Chinese government is threatening to close down all Internet service providers which do not have the above-mentioned licence. Does the Council consider that this provision jeopardises the business activities in China of operators from EU Member States?

3. How does the Council propose to take account of these new Chinese regulations in its WTO negotiations with China?

Reply (26 February 2001)

The Council, like the Commission, will be keeping watch on implementation of the new Chinese regulations applying to Internet companies operating in China to ensure that there is no discrimination against European undertakings. Human rights violations, including unjustifiable restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information, could be raised in the course of the EU-China dialogue on human rights.

China has undertaken, in the context of the negotiations for its accession to the WTO, to consider the gradual opening-up of its market to all telecommunications services, including the Internet. Like the Commission, the Council is endeavouring to ensure that China will abide by the commitments entered into in the WTO context in all areas.

(2001/C 174 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 November 2000)

Subject: Opportunities for internet companies in the People’s Republic of China

According to press reports the Chinese government has issued, within the space of a week, forty new regulations concerning Internet companies operating in China. The new regulations limit foreign investments and also require detailed filtering for ‘subversive material’. The regulations threaten to close down any firm which does not possess the licence required in the country.

1. How does the Commission of the European Communities propose to act to protect the human rights of Chinese citizens, and in particular the freedom to transmit information?

2. The Chinese government is threatening to close down all Internet service providers which do not have the above-mentioned licence. Does the Commission consider that this provision jeopardises the business activities in China of operators from EU Member States?

3. How does the Commission propose to take account of these new Chinese regulations in its WTO negotiations with China?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Commission is aware of China’s recent introduction of new regulations governing the operations of Internet companies within China and shares some of the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will monitor the implementation of the new regulations. Any infringements of human rights that come to light particularly with regard to the publication of news items could be raised, as appropriate, in the framework of the EU-China human rights dialogue.

The rules appear to place a large responsibility on some internet-related operators to monitor either the behaviour of their customers or the legality of the content that they may be hosting. It remains to be seen how the cost of such monitoring will be met. The Commission will in any event check that the new regulations are carried out in an objective and transparent manner, so that they do not discriminate against Community operators.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations have led China to commit itself to open its market progressively for all telecommunications services. With regard to internet access or hosting services for example, their supply by joint ventures partly held by foreign operators should be possible immediately upon accession in a number of areas, with a limit upon the foreign participation in the joint venture. There will be no limit on the areas and foreign participation will be allowed up to 50 %, two years after China’s WTO entry.

The Commission will, together with other partners, endeavour to ensure that China adheres to its WTO commitments in all areas.

(2001/C 174 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3387/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Persuading people to travel short distances by air on routes with frequent rail services

1. Is the Commission aware that, in the Netherlands, the airline Air France advertises discounts for frequent travellers on the Amsterdam-Paris route? Anyone who flies on the route five times is entitled a free sixth flight.

2. Is an advertising campaign of this kind compatible with the major investments made in the construction of high-speed railway lines in the past 20 years, which, thanks to the provision of fast and frequent trains from city centre to city centre, afford an alternative means of transport almost as quick as flying, thus rendering air travel superfluous for passengers on short and middle-distance routes of up to 1 000 km? C 174 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

3. Does not the Commission agree that, not least on account of the necessary restrictions on land use for airports and on the noise they generate, it is desirable to discourage people from flying and to promote rail travel, and that this particularly applies to the route between Amsterdam and Paris, whose airports are running out of capacity despite their expansion, while moreover there is at least one train every hour on the route as a whole and while on the section between Brussels and Paris the high-speed line was completed several years ago?

4. Is the Commission aware of any other cases in which, despite the existence of a high-speed international rail service, airlines are seeking to maximise their market share?

5. What practical measures will the Commission adopt in order to discourage the use of aircraft to travel distances under 1000 km and to improve the competitive position of the railways?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the specific discount scheme, advertised by Air France, for travellers on the Amsterdam-Paris route. The described pricing policy appears to be compatible in the context of a liberalised transport market, where prices are established by the normal functioning of the market mechanism.

Such advertising campaigns are normal commercial practice compatible with the principle of freedom to provide transport services and the principle of free choice of transport mode. The decision whether or not to offer transport services between different origin-destinations is taken by the transport companies offering those services.

The Commission is fully aware of the capacity and environmental problems at a number of airports and has addressed those problems in its communication ‘Air Transport and Environment’ (1), in which it highlighted the role of other transport modes, in particular the alternatives which high-speed rail can offer to ease pressure on ATM-systems and to facilitate the situation at congested airports. In this respect, the Commission will continue to accelerate its efforts to make rail transport more competitive and better integrated, facilitating replacement of shorter flights by rail transport.

On the one hand the Commission is of the opinion that efforts to optimise market shares are normal practice in competitive markets. On the other hand, the Commission believes that an harmonisation of the conditions of competition between different transport modes is necessary with a view to fair competition. Other cases exist where passengers have the choice between rail transport and air transport (e.g. London- Brussels, Paris-Brussels) and where airlines and railways are both trying to optimise their market shares, taking into account the underlying cost structures. This is the consequence of a market-driven process whereby the decision to offer transport services is taken by the rail and airline companies concerned. At the same time decisions on launching intermodal cooperation are also taken by the service providers themselves, as has been the case for the Brussels-Paris and Frankfurt-Stuttgart routes.

The rail transport and air transport sector are not only competitors but also complementary elements in the transport chain. In that light the Commission will endeavour to establish the necessary conditions for a balanced development of the different transport modes and intermodality, making the best possible use of their comparative advantages. This involves in particular a framework for fair competition and measures which promote the integration of different modes of transport, such as common reservation systems, common security rules, integrated baggage handling and compatible ticketing systems.

The forthcoming white paper on transport policy will address a range of measures with a view to a better integration of rail transport in the logistics chain.

(1) COM(1999) 640 final. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/47

(2001/C 174 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3395/00 by Freddy Blak (PSE) and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Use of evidence of previous convictions for recruitment purposes

Investigations carried out by the Shop and Office Workers’ Union (HK) in Denmark have revealed that the Danish police have been producing increasing numbers of extracts from criminal records. Between 1997 and 1999 the figure rose from 87 970 to 125 250 a year, an increase of 40 %. The reason is that employers are increasingly requiring ‘clean’ criminal records for staff they recruit, regardless of the job to be undertaken and the type of offence involved. The authors of this question see no reason why a drink- driving conviction should prevent somebody working as a shop or canteen assistant.

Does the Commission agree that this practice means that many criminals are not being reintegrated into society after they have completed their sentences, which conflicts with the desire to increase employment in Europe?

Does the Commission agree that extracts from criminal records should be obtainable only when the request is justified by the nature of the job and the nature of the offence?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

The Commission is of the opinion that the reintegration of prisoners into society, and thus also into the working process is a very worthy goal. It is also in the pursuit of this goal that the Commission has, in its Communication to the Council and the Parliament on ‘Mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters’ (1) insisted that the measures to be taken in this field shall also lead to improvements for the convicted person (2).

While Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3) (‘data protection directive’) excludes from its scope any processing of data that is done in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Community law, such as those provided for by Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union and in any case processing operations concerning public security, defence, State security (including the economic well-being of the State when the processing operation relates to State security matters) and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law (Article 3, Paragraph 2), data processing by private entities, such as prospective employers, in principle falls under its scope. Article 8, Paragraph 5 stipulates that the processing of data relating to offences, criminal convictions or security measures may be carried out only under the control of official authority, or subject to derogations which may be granted by the Member State provided that suitable specific safeguards are provided under national law.

However, even when the processing of criminal convictions data is allowed, Member State’s legislation must foresee that such processing must comply with all the requirements laid down by the Directive, in particular the principles of proportionality and purpose limitation (Article 6). In application of this principle, the processed data must be relevant for the purpose for which it is processed.

At international level, the 1996 International labour organisation (ILO) Code of Practice on the protection of worker data (4), which is not a legally binding instrument, but one that makes recommendations in order to provide guidance on the protection of workers’ personal data, does not exclude the collection of personal data concerning a worker’s criminal convictions, but it clearly restricts it. The collection is allowed subject to two conditions: the data is directly relevant to a particular employment, the collection must always be undertaken in strict conformity with national legislation. C 174 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

The Commission has announced in its Social Policy Agenda (5) that it will consult the social partners on possible future Community action in relation to data protection in the employment context.

(1) COM(2000) 495 final. (2) See the Communication’s sub-chapters 9.1. on ‘Custodial Penalties’ and 9.4. on ‘Alternative Sanctions’. (3) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995. (4) Code of practice on the protection of worker’s personal data, Doc MEWP/1996/5. (5) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, COM(2000) 379 final.

(2001/C 174 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3398/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Overcharging by mobile oeprators

In the light of recent studies showing European mobile operators overcharging for call termination by at least 40-70 %, which resulted in fixed operators subsidising mobile operators by at least € 4,5 billion in 1999, what immediate initiatives and actions is the European Commission considering to:

assist national regulatory authorities in setting cost-oriented mobile interconnection charges where European law requires this; and

promote best practice in ceiling rates for termination of calls from fixed to mobile networks based on existing LRIC models, or on the cost of mobile-to-mobile termination?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Community law requires that the charges for terminating calls on a mobile network should be cost- oriented if the mobile operator has significant market power on the national market for interconnection (Directive 97/33/EC on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of open network provision (ONP) (1), Article 7(2)).

It is for the national regulatory authority (NRA) in each Member State to decide which mobile operators fall into this category. To date, NRAs have notified the following mobile network operators as having significant market power in the national market for interconnection:

Spain Telefónica Móviles, Airtel France FT Mobiles, SFR Ireland Eircell Italy TIM, Omnitel Austria Mobilkom Finland Sonera, Radiolinja Sweden Telia 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/49

The Commission has issued a recommendation on interconnection in a liberalised telecommunications market Part 1: Interconnection pricing (2) which recommends that, where cost orientation is imposed, interconnection charges should be calculated on the basis of long run average incremental costs (LRIC).

The recommendation also indicates ‘best current practice’ interconnection charges for call termination on fixed networks. However the cost structure of mobile networks is different to that of fixed networks, and the ‘best current practice’ interconnection charges in the recommendation do not apply to call termination on mobile networks.

The Commission has issued a call for tenders for a study on cost structures in mobile networks, and the results of this study will be published and made available to national regulatory authorities during 2001. On the basis of the study results, the Commission will consider whether it needs to take further action.

The Commission is in parallel assessing a complaint of a fixed operator against a number of mobile operators for alleged charging of excessive prices. Since the opening of the proceeding most of the operators concerned have decreased their fixed to mobile termination rates.

(1) OJ L 199, 26.7.1997. (2) OJ L 73, 12.3.1998.

(2001/C 174 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3402/00 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Intercultural management in the Commission

With the development of international competition and the European market, intercultural aspects of management are increasingly an area for study. The structure of the European Union means that it relies heavily, like the business world, on confidence between partners. Areas of potential misunderstanding thus needs careful management.

1. Bearing in mind the world of business and its experiences, as well as research into international and intercultural management, can the Commission say whether, in managing fifteen nationalities which engage daily in negotiating specialised or sensitive subjects, it takes account of the problems arising from the intercultural aspect, a source of both enrichment and tensions?

2. Does the Commission, which for decades has been a veritable test bed for this phenomenon, a melting pot of multicultural encounters, have studies available on the subject?

3. At the level of the Commission, as in economic life, an error of analysis or assessment, or quite simply a misunderstanding, can have serious consequences (failure of projects, financial costs, cost in manpower, etc.).

Has the Commission ever tried to calculate the cost of intercultural misunderstandings?

4. Has the Commission made a study of the causes and consequences of problems experienced by its staff (in order to isolate the intercultural factor) with a view to making its administration more efficient? Has the Commission, in the light of its experience, thought about methods of intercultural management and ways of managing difference?

5. Since the aim is to achieve clear, unhampered communication within the group, does the Commis- sion organise training programmes like those offered in the business world to expatriates, managers and workers in multinational teams with the aim of making them aware that cultural points of reference are not absolutes, so that they will acknowledge difference more readily and collaborate more effectively? C 174 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (8 January 2001)

The Commission is clearly aware of the specific challenges posed to the work of the European Institutions by the cultural diversity within the Community. The diverse cultural background of the staff is also considered to be an asset in terms of meeting the needs and expectations of citizens of the EU because it obviously reflects the various cultures within the Community. Consequently, the Commission attaches importance to the training of its staff in relation to these issues.

There are no specific studies on this issue by the Commission, and neither is there an estimate of costs that could be caused by misunderstandings due to cultural differences. An estimation of any such costs would clearly have to be based on precise and reliable analysis of the causes and consequences of misunderstandings. It is doubtful whether such an analysis is feasible in practical terms.

There is no specific study on problems for staff resulting from the multicultural background of the working environment. Nevertheless, the multicultural factor is addressed on the basis of facilitating the integration of staff who are working abroad from their home countries and the Commission consequently provides various useful social services. Furthermore, the main aspects of the multicultural working environment are to be addressed in a publication which is currently in preparation and will be published early in 2001: This six page brochure demonstrates the importance of coping with cultural diversity and its consequences in the working environment. It refers to the obstacles (stereotypes, misunderstanding, negative attitudes, etc) to be avoided, and it recommends some guidelines for behaviour which could help to improve the quality of the intercultural relationship, where that is necessary.

The Commission has for several years organised training on the issue of cultural diversity and intercultural communication and co-operation. As well as regular special courses dedicated to this subject, the multicultural nature of the organisation is a feature that is taken into account in the design of all management and behavioural training in the Commission. The Commission’s white paper of March 2000 (1) stressed the importance of training that is related to working in a multicultural environment, to managing diversity, and to the Commission’s obligation to help staff to develop their potential in the multinational environment.

A new project entitled ‘Optimisation of cultural diversity’ has recently been proposed by the training department and the social policy unit which will be of benefit to all staff.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.

(2001/C 174 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3407/00 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council (8 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. Does the Council not consider that it is necessary to condemn and penalise such reprehensible conduct, which has clearly racist anti-Italian overtones, and which has been going on for far too long in Germany, where Italian citizens have also been physically attacked by gangs of neo-Nazis?

2. Does the Council not also believe that the violation of Community laws on the free movement of persons and workers should be condemned? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/51

(8 March 2001)

1. The Council has no knowledge of the events described by the Honourable Member. In any case, the questions raised concern compliance with Community rules on free movement. They are a matter for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties.

2. With regard to the question of racism, the Council would draw attention to the Joint Action of 15 July 1996 adopted by the Council concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia (1).

(1) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996, p. 5.

(2001/C 174 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3412/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Support for information on EMU in Sweden

In 1998 the Commission paid a contribution of € 84 317 to the Sweden in Europe Foundation (answer to my question E-1694/00 (1)).

The Sweden in Europe Foundation is a body with strong party political links and the aims it is working for include Swedish membership of the EMU. In the interests of democracy and pluralism will the Commission consider paying a financial contribution to the ‘No to the EU’ popular movement, and its political campaign against Swedish membership of the EMU?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 102.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

While it is correct, as the Commission informed the Honourable Member, that a grant of € 84 317 was made to the Sweden in Europe Foundation, this occurred in 1998, before any partnership agreements had been signed with the Swedish public authorities.

The Commission does not reject a project a priori, provided that it satisfies the conditions for eligibility and the criteria for award and that the information disseminated is presented in an objective way, which is in keeping with Swedish tradition.

Two agreements were signed in 1999 and 2000, since when the Commission’s policy has been to award no further direct grants to external institutions or organisations.

(2001/C 174 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3417/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Recruitment of staff for the Commission IT Directorate

According to Svenska Dagbladet of 18 November 1999 there is a clear link between the nationality of the head and key senior staff in the Commission’s IT directorate. C 174 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Under its French Director-General Verrue, in November 1999 more than one in five senior posts in DG XIII were occupied by French nationals. It also turns out that staff of other nationalities have not moved up the hierarchy as fast as the French have.

There are fears that with French occupants in senior posts in the IT Directorate, French undertakings such as Alcatel, Bell and France Telecom will have a greater voice in IT, telecommunications and communications matters.

Does the Commission share these fears, and what is it doing to ensure the more even distribution among the Member States of senior posts in DG XII?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The Commission acts solely in the interest of the service and without regard to nationality when appointing officials. This principle is guaranteed under the staff regulations. Furthermore, the Commission thinks that the highest premium should be given to merit and that balanced representation of all nationalities of the Union at all levels of the institution’s staff hierarchy is essential in order to reflect the cultural richness and the cohesion of the multinational public service of the Union.

Officials of the Commission are undertaking their professional duties in full respect of staff regulation which states ‘an official shall carry out his duties and conduct himself solely with the interests of the Communities in mind; he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government, authority, organization or person outside his institution’.

The Commission would furthermore like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member, to the newly published ‘Code of good administrative behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public’ which states that:

Staff shall always act objectively and impartially, in the Community interest and for the public good. They shall act independently within the framework of the policy fixed by the Commission and their conduct shall never be guided by personal or national interest or political pressure.

(2001/C 174 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3423/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Fuel tax charges in Greece

In July 2000 the European Union published a very interesting outline of tax charges on various products in the Member States, entitled ‘Excise Duty Tables’ (issued by the Taxation and Customs Union Directorate- General). This document includes a reference to fuel prices in Greece, showing that in the category of ‘gas oil used for industrial or commercial purposes’ Greece levies duty of € 252,55/1 000 litres, while the minimum duty under Council Directive 92/82 (1), adopted on 19 October 1992 is € 18/1 000 litres. The same applies to the category ‘gas oil used for heating purposes’, where in Greece it appears that a tax of € 252,55/1 000 litres is levied. Finally, the situation in the category of ‘liquid petroleum gas and methane’ is similar: the directive referred to above suggests no minimum tax, while Greece levies € 13,69/ 1 000 kilos.

Could the Commission state whether these data, as presented in the document referred to above, are really correct, and give its view on the level of fuel taxation in Greece, particularly in view of the fact that the Greek Government consistently maintains that fuel tax charges in Greece are among the lowest in Europe, and that there is no way to reduce them? According to Eurostat’s data, this statement is not true. Given that tax on industrial fuel oil is the fourth highest in the world, the question arises as to how any improvement in the international competitiveness of Greek industry, which is in any case the worst in the EU, may be achieved. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/53

In addition I would like the Commission to give a general assessment of fuel taxation in the European Union and its effect on the growth rate and international competitiveness of European economies, at a time when the USA is enjoying a faster growth rate, perhaps partly because taxes on liquid fuel in that country are clearly lower than in Europe.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 19.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission publishes excise duty tables, in order to provide up-to-date information concerning the rates applied by the Member States on mineral oils, alcoholic beverages and manufactured tobacco products.

As is correctly mentioned in this publication, Greece applies the same rate of excise duty on both gas oil used as a propellant and gas oil used for industrial and commercial uses, mentioned in Article 8(3) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (1), which is of € 252,55/1 000 litres. This rate is in line with Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils (1), which introduced a harmonised specific excise duty (applied to quantities rather than values) the level of which represents the minimum rate to be applied by each Member State. Community legislation allows Member States to apply in practice rates that may either exceed by far these Community minimum rates or be equal or very close to them, in order to take into account specific national policy considerations.

For gas oil used as motor fuel and gas oil used for heating purposes Greece applies rates of € 252,55 and € 18,71 (2) /1 000 litres respectively, which are very close to the respective Community minimum rates of € 245 and € 18/1 000 litres. These rates are indeed among the three lowest rates currently applied by the Member States. However, for liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and methane, used for heating purposes, Greece applies a rate of € 13,69/1 000 kgs while the Community minimum rate is fixed at € 0/1 000 kgs.

For gas oil used for the industrial and commercial uses mentioned in Article 8 (3) of Council Directive 92/ 81/EEC, Greece applies a rate of € 252,55/1 000 litres while the Community minimum rate is € 18/1 000 litres. Greece also applies a rate of € 139,56/1 000 kgs on heavy fuel oil for which a Community minimum rate of € 113/1 000 kgs is fixed.

Community legislation and in particular Article 8 (3) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC gives the possibility to each Member State to apply reduced rates of taxation on gas oil, LPG, methane and kerosene, used under fiscal control for certain industrial and commercial uses, provided that the rate charged is not less than the minimum rate set in Directive 92/82/EEC. No prior Community authorisation is necessary.

With reference to the impact of mineral oil taxation on the competitiveness of Greek industry, analysis carried out for the Commission indicates that the implementation of the excise duty changes, included in the Commission proposal for a Council directive restructuring the taxation of energy products (3), when combined with recycling of the additional revenues through reductions in social security contributions, would have small positive impacts on gross domestic product, employment, and the balance of trade. Moreover, with respect to the potential gap in competitiveness between European economies there is firstly no evidence that the countries with the highest excise duties on mineral oil are the least competitive in Europe. In addition, it should be recalled that taking a very selective view by focussing on the level of mineral oil taxation does not do justice to the complex nature of competitiveness. Indeed the impact on competitiveness of replacing excise duties by other taxes is in general uncertain and would depend on the details of any such switch. C 174 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

One should not forget that the current level of Community excise duty rates on mineral oils has remained unchanged since 1 January 1993. Finally, concerning the request for a general Commission assessment of the effect fuel taxation has on the growth rate and the international competitiveness of European economies as compared to the United States, the Commission notes that the Community is considerably more efficient in its energy use than the United States, at least in part due to the positive incentives for fuel saving offered by the higher level of fuel taxation in the Community.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992. (2) This rate is valid for the period from 16.10.2000 to 27.4.2001; outside this period the normal rate of € 252,55/ 1 000 litres is applied. (3) COM(97) 30 final.

(2001/C 174 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3434/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) and Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Protection of Italian journalists in the Middle East freedom of the press

Following the interview given by the Italian Prime Minister, Massimo D’Alema, in which he criticised the Jewish community in Israel, further statements by the RAI correspondent in Jerusalem against the activities of the free press in the Middle East are a source of deep concern. The letter sent by the RAI journalist, Riccardo Cristiano, to the Palestinian authorities’ semi-official daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida, reporting that the pictures of the lynching of the two Israeli soldiers were not shown by Italian State television represents a serious attack on the freedom of those sections of the press which are not anti-Israeli.

The statements by a leader of Italy’s main governing party and the attitude shown by the Italian State television correspondent simply contribute to fuelling anti-Semitic feeling in the European Union.

What action does the Council intend to take to help guarantee journalists’ freedom of activity, to protect their independence from political parties and to prevent the rise of hatred against Jews living in Europe?

(26 February 2001)

1. The Council would draw the Honourable Members’ attention to the reply given to Written Question E-3089/00 concerning an attack on a Jewish teacher by a group of neo-Nazi skinheads.

2. As regards equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, on 29 June 2000 the Council adopted a Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1).

A proposal for a Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and a proposal for a Decision establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006) are being examined by the Council and will shortly be adopted.

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/55

(2001/C 174 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3442/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Italian gene food ban

The Commission has submitted a draft Decision requiring the Italian government to cancel its decree of 4 August 2000 banning the marketing and use of four genetically engineered maize products notified under Articles 3(4) and 5 of the Novel Food Regulation 258/97 (1).

Italy has stated that in its opinion these products are not substantially equivalent and therefore should be the subject of a full safety assessment and authorisation procedure.

In the draft opinion of the rapporteur for the Scientific Committee on Food (Professor Grunow) he states that ‘additional evidence for safety would be considered desirable if the products would undergo a re- evaluation’ and explains that the current guidelines would require a different approach to that originally applied by the UK competent authority and the Scientific Committee on Plants. He says indeed that ‘the Committee points out that the ACNFP has not distinguished between total and partial substantial equivalence as it has been done in the SCF Guidelines for the Assessment of Novel Foods’ and that ‘in contrast to the ACNFP the Committee would apply these Guidelines’.

Will the Commission please explain:

1. Why these comments were suppressed in the final published opinion of the SCF?

2. Why, in the interests of precaution, the Commission has not ordered a full re-evaluation of the dossiers?

3. Whether, in the light of continuing public concern about the use of GMOs in the food chain and advances in biochemical and toxicological testing, the largely discredited substantial equivalence concept, which simply tests for compositional analysis, should now be abandoned?

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

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

1. Draft opinions are prepared for scientific debate by the scientific committee on food. They may undergo modification before final adoption and cannot be taken as expressing the views of the scientific committee on food. In this particular case all members, including the rapporteur of the initial draft, supported and adopted the final text published as the opinion of the scientific committee on food.

2. The products in question have undergone safety assessments carried out by the British advisory committee for novel foods and processes (ACNFP). Furthermore, in its opinion of 7 September 2000, the scientific committee on food concluded that ‘the information provided by the Italian authorities does not provide detailed scientific grounds for considering that the use of the novel foods in question endangers human health’.

This is in accordance with the report provided by the Istituto Superiore di Sanitá which concludes, that, in the present state of scientific information, there is no evidence that consumption of derivatives of the four genetically modified organisms (GMOs) poses a risk to human or animal health.

The Commission is not aware of scientific documentation identifying potentially hazardous effects, which could form the basis of a re-evaluation. C 174 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

3. The concept of substantial equivalence comprises a whole range of scientific considerations, and not only compositional analysis. It is considered to be a useful element in risk assessment of novel foods.

In the context of the review of the Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997, concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, which is foreseen for next year, the Commission intends to reconsider whether it is appropriate that genetically modified (GM) derived foods and food ingredients benefit from the notification procedure.

(2001/C 174 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3450/00 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Liberalisation of the Community market for LDCs

On 10 October 2000, the Council welcomed a Commission initiative seeking to abolish customs duties on unlimited quantities of products from the least-developed countries (LDCs).

The proposed exemption from customs duties and quotas of all the products from the world’s least- developed countries would result in the abolition of restrictions on access to the Community market for such sensitive products as bananas, rice and sugar.

With respect to those three products, liberalisation is scheduled to be carried out in three stages over a three-year period as follows:

20 % cut on 1 January 2001,

50 % cut on 1 January 2002,

80 % cut on 1 January 2003,

total exemption on 1 January 2004.

If that proposal were adopted as it stands, it would have a direct and adverse impact on traditional produce from the ultra-peripheral regions and, in particular, on the overseas territories. For example, production on Réunion, which is an integral part of the European Union, is subject to much heavier welfare costs than the LDCs. If such exemption were actually introduced, my island would be placed in a very difficult situation compared with Madagascar or the Comores Islands.

What measures does the Council intend to take in order to protect Community producers of rice, bananas and sugar?

(26 February 2001)

Firstly, the Council would underline that the proposal for a Regulation to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least-developed countries is currently being examined by the technical bodies of the Council which deal with trade policy; a decision on this proposal will be taken by the Council at a later stage.

This proposal stems from the Community initiative to improve access to the market for the least advantaged economies, already included in the new Partnership Agreement with the ACP countries signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000.

Article 37(9) of that Agreement stipulates that in 2000 the Community will start a process, which, by the end of multilateral trade negotiations and at the latest in 2005 will allow duty-free access for essentially all products from all LDCs. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/57

The Council would also point out that the Community is the largest importer worldwide of products from the LDCs, and that already more than 99 % of trade with those countries benefits from duty-free access, under either the Lomé Convention or the generalised system of preferences.

As regards the provisions relating to Community producers of bananas, rice or sugar, reference should be made to the Regulations on the common organisation of the respective markets (1).

As regards bananas, the Council would point out that one of the objectives of that CMO is the marketing of Community products at remunerative prices which guarantee an adequate income to producers. This regime provides for a range of structural measures and also establishes a compensatory aid scheme for possible loss of revenue by Community producers. Furthermore, additional aid is granted for certain producing regions where average production income is significantly less than the average Community income.

In the proposal amending the CMO for bananas, which it submitted in November 1999, the Commission noted that one of the objectives of the proposed transitional regime was to enable Community banana- producing regions to make appropriate adjustments to a freer market, and that appropriate use of the resources allocated to Member States from the Structural Funds, within the existing overall objectives of the Community Structural Funds, could have an important role to play in this process.

As regards rice, the Regulation which is currently in force provides for an intervention price system for the Community which guarantees a financial safety net for producers, national base areas for which compensatory payments to producers are set per cultivated hectare with higher amounts laid down for French Guiana, as well as a separate base area for metropolitan territory; specific provisions on imports are laid down for the French overseas department of Réunion for its paddy rice and white rice supplies.

The proposal amending the CMO for rice, which the Commission submitted to the Council in June 2000 and which is still under examination, provides for the raising of the current import duty to the level of the fixed tariff provided for in the Community’s GATT list. According to the Commission, this would increase Community preference.

As regards sugar, current rules provide for a system of production quotas by Member State and by category of product based on sugar, minimum prices for beet, intervention prices for sugar and specific intervention prices for sugar in deficit areas within the European Union; this scheme is intended to guarantee a stable and regular income for sugar producers and manufacturers.

Additional aid is also granted for the refining of raw cane sugar produced in the French overseas departments, with a view to restoring price equilibrium between that sugar and imported preferential sugar, for which no import tariff is applicable under the ACP scheme. To ensure optimal supply to refineries, the quantities of sugar from the overseas departments and of preferential sugar intended for direct consumption are taken into account in a Community supply estimate.

The new proposal for reform of the CMO for sugar, submitted to the Council by the Commission in October 2000, and currently under examination, aims marginally to amend the current rules; in this context, the special character of the outermost regions of the Community is in any case taken into account.

The Council will not fail to take into consideration the opinions of the European Parliament on each of the sectoral proposals mentioned above.

Furthermore, the Council can assure the Honourable Member that in deciding on the LDC proposal, it will examine the possible impact of that proposal on the Community producers concerned very closely, and will bear in mind the need to ensure consistency between the proposed liberalisation measure and the sectoral reforms which are currently under examination.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 (OJ L 142, 12.6.1993) for bananas, Regulation (EEC) No 3072/95 (OJ L 329, 30.12.1995) for rice, and Regulation (EEC) No 2038/1999 (OJ L 252, 25.9.1999) for sugar. C 174 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3459/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Elections in Albania and the Greek minority

Serious irregularities in the second round of elections in Himara were confirmed in the OSCE’s interim statement, issued on 16 October 2000 in Tirana by observers from the OSCE and the Council of Europe. The statement reports that ‘in Himara, where there is a Greek-speaking minority, the end of the campaign at local and national level was marked by nationalistic rhetoric …’, and continues ‘on election day … the situation was marked by some serious irregularities ranging from intimidation of commission members, to one case of violence in which a ballot box was destroyed, to verified evidence of fraud in at least three other voting centres’.

When the Council has examined these allegations:

1. How will it intervene directly to reinstate a climate of full respect for the democratic rights of the Greek minority?

2. Will the Council working group which has undertaken the revision of the ‘Action Plan for Albania and the neighbouring region’ submit a report to Parliament on the situation of minorities in Albania, particularly the Greek minority, so that this may be taken into consideration during the legal revision of the proposals for regulations concerning financial assistance to Albania?

3. Does the Council intend to request that elections be held again in those areas where cases of fraud were detected?

(8 March 2001)

1. As Albania is a country eligible for a stabilisation and association agreement, its performance in respecting democratic principles, human rights and the rights of minorities is an important point of reference for future developments in its relations with the European Union. Since adaptation to the structures of the Union is a strategic goal for Albania, the Union has considerable leverage to help improve the situation of minorities. It is determined to step up its cooperation and to specify the reforms to be accomplished, including in the field of human rights. The Union has also noted the commitments entered into by Albania during the visit by the Secretary-General at the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Georges Savaidis, on 17 November 2000 and the commitment made, during the Albanian Prime Minister’s talks with the Greek Prime Minister, Mr Constantinos Simitis, on the issue of ‘minority zones’ and minority rights, to expeditiously promoting a review, according to European standards, of Albanian legislation on the rights of persons belonging to the Greek minority, with the addition that the Albanian government will also seek the advice of European experts in this respect.

2. The Council has not yet undertaken a revision of the Action Plan for Albania and the neighbouring region, which it only adopted on 13 June of this year. It is currently reviewing implementation of the measures contained in the Action Plan, including those under point 123(f) (measures to stimulate respect for human rights and minorities).

3. The Council has noted the Preliminary Statement published on 16 October 2000 by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the final report of the OSCE/ODIHR of 11 December 2000 and the report of the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of 10 November 2000 concerning the second round of local elections in Albania, together with the comments contained therein concerning serious irregularities and fraud which occurred during the elections in the Himara region. In the declaration made by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on 1 December 2000 it is stressed that the European Union sees the increasing use of violence in the pursuit of political aims as a worrying development. The European Union therefore made a forceful appeal for the rule of law to be respected. The desire of the Albanians to move towards a closer relationship with the European Union implies observance of shared fundamental values, chief among which are respect for institutions and legality, non-recourse to violence, and a spirit of tolerance and dialogue. The Council understands that the ODIHR was mandated by the international community to monitor the elections and make recommendations. It is therefore for the 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/59

ODIHR, where appropriate, to make recommendations along the lines proposed by the Honourable Member. States are, moreover, bound by the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security to follow recommendations contained in the final reports addressed to them.

(2001/C 174 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3460/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Peace initiative in the Middle East

In view of:

the recent European Parliament resolution (1) condemning ‘the provocative action of Mr Ariel Sharon’ which resulted in the bloody events that cost so many lives and ‘the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli army’, and calling for the ‘setting up of a committee of inquiry’ into the events,

the Berlin declaration made in 1999 by the 15 Member States on the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State, and

UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 on the status of Jerusalem,

can the Council say whether the European Union’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr J. Solana, who participated in the Sharm el-Sheikh talks in Egypt:

1. Requested the creation of a committee of inquiry, as proposed by Parliament?

2. Backed a solution which would be compatible with the UN resolutions and the declaration by the 15 Member States referred to above, as far as the Palestinian issue is concerned?

(1) Texts approved on 5.10.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3492/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Community measures to stop war in the Middle East

Once again a dramatic, bitter and bloody conflict has been going on in the Middle East for several weeks. Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting battles for which no end is in sight. President Clinton and the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan are working to safeguard peace in the future and to eliminate the flashpoints of war, the victims of which include Israelis and, even more, Palestinians.

What practical steps has the European Union taken to assist the work of Clinton and Kofi Annan (apart from the empty words uttered in Biarritz)?

In the context of the MEDA programme the operation of which seems to be paralysed by unjustified bureaucratic delays there is scope for structural as well as humanitarian measures. How does the Council intend to harness this programme, and the relevant funding, as a force for peace? C 174 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3460/00 and E-3492/00

(8 March 2001)

The Council continues to support a settlement negotiated on the basis of the fundamental principles established in the framework of Madrid and Oslo and subsequent agreements, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. From the beginning, the Council has lent its support to the efforts of the United States to relaunch negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Since the beginning of the clashes, the EU has not ceased to work for an end to violence and for dialogue to be taken up again at the highest level. The EU’s Special Envoy, Ambassador Moratinos, has remained in the region almost permanently, in close contact with the Parties, to facilitate the search for an end to the crisis. Following the negotiations held in Paris on 4 October 2000 under the aegis of the Presidency, the Secretary-General/High Representative went to the region to help prepare the ground for the Summit held in Sharm el Sheikh on 17 October, in which he was an active participant.

At that Summit, which brought together Mr Arafat, Mr Barak, President Clinton, President Mubarak, King Abdullah II of Jordan, the UN Secretary-General and the Secretary General/High Representative, a decision was taken to create a commission to establish the facts about the violence in the Palestinian territories. The Secretary General/High Representative will participate in the work of this commission, alongside the former Turkish President Suleiman Demirel, the Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs Thorbjørn Jagland and former United States Senators George Mitchell and Warren Rudman. The Council welcomes the fact that the commission has begun its work. It has noted Israel’s decision temporarily to suspend its participation in the commission and would urge the Parties to resume their discussions as quickly as possible, since the outcome originally planned for the end of March 2001 should provide a positive contribution to the Peace Process.

The Council has just adopted the new MEDA II Regulation. It aims to support the efforts which Mediterranean partners, including the Palestinians, are making to reform their economic and social structures. For the period 2000-2006 it will be worth € 5,350 thousand million. It will make possible a substantial simplification of procedures, leading to speedier disbursement.

The possibilities for humanitarian intervention are rather a matter for ECHO, the European Community Humanitarian Office. In July, humanitarian aid operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria received funding of € 8,5 million and in September a sum of € 3,545 million was given for assistance to southern Lebanon.

Moreover, the Union supports the Palestinians with major financial aid programmes outwith the MEDA programme, particularly in the framework of Community financial and technical cooperation with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for 1999-2003 (Regulation (EC) No 2840/98), and also specific actions financed under other budget headings, its contribution to UNRWA and the bilateral programmes of its Member States, all of which make the Union the principal donor to the Peace Process.

(2001/C 174 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3477/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Cable pipes through the Brabantse Wal special protected zone

In July of this year 24 cable pipes were laid in the frontier park ‘De Zoom Kalmthoutse Heide’ (part of the Brabantse Wal). They are to be used as protective sheaths for optical-fibre cables which have still to be installed. Heavy equipment was used in the laying, with the result that substantial areas of greenery were destroyed and the peace of the area was disturbed. The Brabantse Wal is designated a special protected zone under the Wild Birds Directive. The role of the local authority of Woensdrecht appears to be confined to ex post monitoring of the work carried out. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/61

Does the Commission share the view that the cable pipes in question should not have been laid through the frontier park, particularly as bordering the park there is a paved path which could have been used as an alternative route for the pipes?

Does the Commission also think that the local authority of Woensdrecht should at least indicate a form of compensation to restore the damage caused?

Does the Commission share the view that the Dutch authorities should improve the way in which they communicate to local authorities the significance and the substance of the Wild Birds Directive to prevent a repetition of this sort of incident?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

The Commission was not aware that 24 cable pipes had been laid in the frontier park ‘De Zoom Kalmthoutse Heide’ (part of the Brabantse Wal) in July 2000.

The Brabantse Wal was designated as a special protection area (hereafter ‘SPA’) under the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) (hereafter ‘Directive 79/409/EEC’).

Pursuant to Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (2) (hereafter ‘Directive 92/43/EEC’) the obligations under Article 6(3) and 6(4) of that Directive apply to SPAs.

According to Article 6(3) any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a SPA shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site. The national authorities shall agree to the project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the site and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

According to Article 6(4) if, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, the project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

The cable pipes as such are not likely to have significant effects on the SPA. The destruction of greenery could have had significant effects within the meaning of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC. This depends on the circumstances of the case. However, the Commission has not received specific information about this. If there were no significant effects the authorities are neither obliged to consider alternatives nor to demonstrate that there were imperative reasons of overriding public interest nor to take compensatory measures under Article 6(4).

In first instance it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that Community law is complied with at all levels. Since compliance is a matter for the Member States the Commission is unable to recommend how this should be done.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. C 174 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3481/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Substandard road construction funded by the second Community Support Framework

In reply to my question E-1912/99 (1), the Commission acknowledged that there were widespread problems with substandard road-building in Greece funded by the second Community Support Framework.

Will the Commission say whether it has any further information concerning the extent of substandard workmanship in all the projects funded in Greece by the second CSF? Is the Commission satisfied with the measures taken by Greece to remedy this? If not, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that this tremendously important issue is dealt with?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the supplementary answer to Written Question 2783/99 of Mr Alavanos (1) regarding the substandard workmanship in work part-financed under the Community Support Framework for Greece during the 1994-1999 period.

Concerning specifically the Athens-Corinth and Athens-Yliki sections of the PATHE motorway, where construction defects prevented the Ministry of Works from proceeding to the final acceptance of the projects, the Greek authorities have just informed the Commission that the contractors are obliged to repair the structural defects discovered in the work at their own expense before the end of the year 2000. The Ministry of Works will then proceed to the final acceptance of the projects, and will impose fines for irregularities in the layer of asphalt in the sections concerned.

Following the recommendations of a committee of experts and scientists created on the initiative of the Ministry of Works to assess this problem, the final repairs to the layer of asphalt in these sections will be carried out under a new contract for which the call for tender will be published at the beginning of 2001.

(1) See page 2.

(2001/C 174 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3494/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Arrest and intimidation of Syriac Orthodox clerics in Turkey

Yusuf Akbulut, a Syriac Orthodox priest in Diyarbakir, is quoted in the 3 October 2000 edition of the Hürriyet newspaper as saying that he considered a US House of Representatives committee to have been right to recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915 and later years. Under the heading ‘The traitor within our midst’, the following day’s Hürriyet reported that Akbulut had promptly been arrested by the police and released after questioning. It was also reported that the State Security Court had decided to detain Akbulut, who was held and questioned for two days. According to Hürriyet, he is now awaiting prosecution for subversive activities and treason.

A plea for help has also been made by the two Syriac Orthodox bishops, Yusuf Cetin and Samuel Aktas, who say that the Turkish State is trying to force them to sign a document containing a denial of the fact that Assyrians and Syriacs were also murdered in 1915 and later years. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/63

Intimidation and harassment of these clerics constitutes disregard for minority rights. Turkey is a candidate for EU membership.

Is the Council monitoring the minority rights situation in Turkey, and have the Member States reacted to the above-mentioned events in Turkey?

(26 February 2001)

The Council is monitoring the minority rights situation in Turkey. Minority rights are part of the priorities and objectives of the 2000 Accession Partnership which has been proposed by the Commission and which is being discussed in the Council. The Council recalls that respect for and protection of minorities is one of the Copenhagen political criteria for EU membership.

The Council has not reacted to the event referred to by the Honourable Member. Neither have Member States informed the Council about any reactions on their part.

(2001/C 174 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3499/00 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Provocative statements by Turkish Minister

Turkey’s Minister for Internal Affairs, Mr Sukru Sina Gurel, stated on 11 October 2000, during the ceremony to re-open the ‘University of the Aegean’ (‘Ege University’) that ‘Turkey does not consider its accession to the EU to be conditional upon either a solution to the Cyprus issue or the settlement of Greek-Turkish differences’. To reaffirm his position, the Turkish Minister also referred to the ‘two letters which the Turkish Prime Minister sent to the EU immediately after the Helsinki European Council last December’, in which Mr Ecevit stresses Turkey’s reluctance to accept any preconditions or terms for its accession to the EU. The Turkish Interior Minister also added that ‘everyone must accept the existence of two states in Cyprus’ and called on the EU ‘to resolve the problem of racism in its Member States before rushing to criticise Turkey’.

What is the Council’s position on the statements which the Turkish Minister for Internal Affairs has aimed at the EU, given that they create an anti-European climate in a country applying for accession and fly in the face of the Helsinki Summit decisions which require Turkey to conduct itself in a manner befitting a European state and to consolidate good neighbourly relations with Greece? Furthermore, does the Council accept the Turkish Minister’s accusations of racism in the EU when Turkey stands charged with the extermination and expulsion in the 20th century of Greek Cypriots, Asia Minor Greeks, Armenians, and recently, Kurds living on its territory?

Moreover, as the preamble to the Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states: taking inspiration from its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal principles of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

Will the Council say what the European tradition in the above spheres has in common with the conduct of the current Turkish regime a state classified as a ‘candidate for accession’ which persecutes its citizens for their religious and political beliefs, and tortures and imprisons anyone who opposes its objectives?

(8 March 2001)

1. At its meeting in December 2000 the Council reached political agreement among the Fifteen on the text of the draft Framework Regulation and the draft Council Decision on the principles, priorities, C 174 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership for Turkey. The solution to the questions raised remains strictly within the framework of the Helsinki European Council conclusions, which form the defining basis for relations between the European Union and Turkey in the context of the pre-accession process. In the short term, the Cyprus issue and, in the medium term, the issue of the settlement of territorial disputes are referred to in the abovementioned decision as elements of the political dialogue and political criteria. It is clear that the political dialogue must not ignore any of the issues which will have to be dealt with in the context of new partnership relations between the EU and Turkey.

2. Furthermore, the Accession Partnership indicates the priority areas for Turkey’s membership preparations. It should therefore be equally clear and moreover, this is explicitly stated in the draft Decision that Turkey must address all issues identified in the Regular Report. Turkey is expected to adopt a national programme for the adoption of the acquis on the basis of its Accession Partnership. That programme does not form an integral part of the Partnership, but its priorities should be compatible with it. The Council has, in that respect, taken note of the European Commission’s recent progress report on Turkey in which the reforms in Turkey necessary for EU accession are clearly set out.

3. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Helsinki European Council reaffirmed that compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of accession negotiations.

(2001/C 174 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3502/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Compensation for criminal injuries

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce legislation regarding harmonisation of criminal injury compensation schemes, or the setting of minimum criteria thereof?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The situation of crime victims in the Union has been addressed on several occasions in the Parliament and by the Commission. In 1998 it was discussed in the Council and victims’ rights were included in the Vienna Action Plan on Freedom, Security and Justice (1). The plan suggests that a survey of compensation schemes and an assessment of the feasibility of taking action within the Union are issues that should be addressed within five years.

Following this, the Commission presented a Communication to the Council, the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee in July 1999 (2).

The importance of the issue is reiterated in the conclusions of the European Council of Tampere (point 32) that focus on the protection of victims of crime, in particular on their access to justice and their rights to compensation for damages, including legal costs.

Following the conclusions of Tampere, the Commission attended a Union experts’ seminar in Umea, Sweden, organised by the incoming Swedish Presidency in October 2000. The aim of the seminar was to address the issue of compensation for crime victims from different angles in order to form a basis for subsequent strategic considerations and initiatives. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/65

Taking into account the conclusions of the seminar and ongoing discussions with experts, the Commission will present a green paper on the subject in 2001, as indicated in the updated version of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of ‘Freedom, Security and Justice’ in the European Union (3).

(1) OJ C 19, 23.1.1999. (2) COM(1999) 349 final. (3) COM(2000) 782 final.

(2001/C 174 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3503/00

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Number of European Commission officials working on the cancer programme

1. Following up on your reply to my question P-2798/00 (1) regarding the WHO Report on Influence of the Tobacco Industry, in which the Commission replied that at this moment in the Cancer Programme the Commission employs in addition to the head of the service and his deputy one A official, one part-time B official and one part-time national expert, can the Commission confirm that on 10 September 1993 the cancer programme employed a total of 32 officials?

2. If so, can the Commission explain the decrease in the number of officials in this programme within seven years from more than 30 to less than five, when at the same time this programme had a priority in the work of the Commission as is shown by the legislative initiatives taken by the Commission?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

It is not appropriate to make the kind of comparison the Honourable Member seeks to make. In the early 1990s, the only public health programmes managed by the Public Health Directorate were the cancer and aids programmes. Since then, programmes relating to health promotion, drugs, health monitoring, rare diseases, injuries prevention and pollution related diseases have been adopted and required management by that same Directorate.

Moreover, until the summer of 1999, the Public Health Directorate benefited from the support of a technical assistance office (TAO), comprising around 30 staff. The contract with the TAO was not renewed last year, in accordance with the Commission’s overall approach to TAOs.

The Public Health Directorate was integrated into the new Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection on 1 October 1999. The resources allocated to work on the cancer programme have not been decreased since then. Indeed, during 2000, additional external personnel have been added on a temporary basis to assist with the programme’s budgetary management. C 174 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3513/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Commission’s Standing Group on Seeds

Can the Commission say why the Standing Group on Seeds, which comes under the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Product Quality and Health, has not held any meetings since 28 April 1999?

On what specific date does the Commission intend to convene the Standing Group on Seeds and what subjects does it intend to discuss with the sector concerned?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that, as foreseen in Action 81 of the white paper on food safety, it is working on the preparation of a legal basis for a consultative committee on food safety (1). It aims to improve involvement of all stakeholders in the Community food safety policy by streamlining the existing consultative committees and their permanent groups including the advisory standing group on seeds. Such preparations, unfortunately, take time.

In the meanwhile, the Commission is also planning to organise a meeting of the existing standing group on seeds by February/March 2001. The main item of the agenda will be the outstanding issues for the amendments of the current seed Directives.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2001/C 174 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3515/00 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Emergency measures to offset the additional burden of increased energy costs

France, Belgium and the Netherlands have taken emergency measures to offset the huge additional burden imposed by increased energy costs.

The Commission is therefore asked to answer the following questions:

1. What specific form do these emergency measures take?

2. Are the measures that have been adopted compatible with the EC Treaty or do they contravene European competition law?

3. Does it plan to intervene?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Like Belgium, France and the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom have adopted or are planning to adopt emergency measures to offset the additional burden of increased energy costs. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/67

According to the information currently available to the Commission, the measures for the road transport sector are as follows:

(a) France has provided for a reduction in the form of a special reimbursement in the domestic duty on petroleum products (TIPP) for road haulage vehicles of over 7,5 tonnes and passenger transport vehicles which have more than 9 seats, from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001. From 2002, the French Government will fully reimburse annual TIPP increases, amounting to around + FRF 0,07 (approximately € 0,01) per litre of gas oil. From 2001 France also plans to repay to road haulage operators the extra VAT collected by the State since oil prices increased. In addition, in a letter dated 17 October 2000 France requested the extension of all reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty mentioned in Council Decision 1999/880/EC (1).

(b) The Netherlands will grant all road transport operators a further reduction in the excise duty on diesel used by commercial vehicles, from 1 January 2000 until 31 December 2000, also in the form of a special reimbursement. With regard to Council Decision 1999/880/EC (1), the Netherlands have requested the extension of the reduced rates of duty on diesel until 31 December 2002 and the differential rates of excise duty on liquid petroleum gas (LPG) used as fuel for buses and coaches until 31 December 2005. From 1 January 2001 the Dutch Government will also lower the rate of excise duty on diesel with a low sulphur content, reducing its price at the pump.

(c) In September 2000 Italy adopted a Decree-Law which, from 1 September 2000 until 31 December 2000, provides for a further reduction in the rate of excise duty on diesel for road haulage operators with vehicles over 3,5 tonnes, public companies running local transport operations and taxis. With regard to Council Decision 2000/446/EC (2), Italy has also requested the extension of the reduced rate of excise duty on diesel used by road transport operators until 31 December 2002.

(d) For certain types of heavy goods vehicle Belgium has arranged for road tax to be paid at the end of a given period, no longer in advance, changed the annual tax on insurance contracts and abolished the general fee for vehicle registration and re-registration.

(e) In October 2000 Spain adopted a Decree-Law introducing emergency measures in the agriculture, fisheries and transport sectors. For the latter, provision is made for aid in the form of tax reductions for investments in satellite navigation and location systems and equipment to facilitate the access of disabled persons to road transport vehicles, and for retirement incentives for people aged between 60 and 65 working in the transport sector. In addition, aid for the purchase of less polluting and safer vehicles is being considered.

(f) According to the information available, the United Kingdom plans to introduce, in its 2001 budget, a reduced rate of excise duty on diesel with a low sulphur content, tax reductions for the least polluting alternative fuels, the modulation of road tax according to vehicle CO2 emissions, and temporary reimbursement of road tax for heavy goods vehicles. For the period 2001-2004 the British Govern- ment plans to set up a fund to promote innovation, modernisation and reduction of the environmental impact of the road haulage system.

Although the Commission recently submitted to the Council for approval a proposal extending some of the abovementioned derogations, including those concerning the excise duty on fuel, the proposal’s provisions are without prejudice to the application of Article 87 of the EC Treaty. Therefore, to prevent any distortion of intra-Community competition, the Commission is also carefully examining each dossier C 174 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

in the light of the European rules on state aid. The procedure provided for in Article 88 of the Treaty might be initiated for some of these measures.

(1) Council Decision of 17.12.1999 authorising Member States to apply and to continue to apply to certain mineral oils, when used for specific purposes, existing reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, OJ L 331, 23.12.1999. (2) Council Decision of 17.07.2000 authorising Italy to apply reductions in excise duties on certain mineral oils used for specific purposes, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3517/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Inntrepeneur Beer Tie

A number of public houses in the UK are let under an Inntrepeneur twenty-year lease, which imposes an obligation on those tenants to buy their beer from a supplier nominated by Inntrepeneur (what is known as the ‘Beer Tie’). The validity of the Inntrepeneur Beer Tie was the subject of a large number of complaints to the Commission by tenants and tenants’ groups who felt that the Beer Tie infringed the Union’s rules on competition under Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the Consolidated Treaty. In November 1997, the European Commission rejected Inntrepeneur’s application for an individual exemption in respect of the beer tie on the basis that it was unreasonable. The European Commission decided against publishing a formal decision to that effect on the grounds that it was not necessary to do so since Inntrepeneur had withdrawn its application for an exemption and that the tenants who had suffered damages as a result of the imposition of the unlawful beer tie would have an adequate remedy in the national courts.

Hundreds of Inntrepeneur’s tenants have pursued their claims in the English courts, and their claim for a remedy in damages for the imposition of the ‘Beer Tie’ in the past has been referred to the European Court of Justice by the Court of Appeal in the test case Crehan -v- Courage. However, they have been prevented from pursuing two other important aspects of their claim by a decision of the House of Lords taken on 16 July 1999 to refuse leave to appeal in two other cases Inntrepeneur -v- Langton and Passmore -v- Morland. In the Langton case, the tenant was seeking a ruling (inter alia) that the principle of effective remedy under European law entitled a tenant to be permitted to set off any claim for rent arrears against a claim against the landlord. In the Passmore case, the tenant sought a ruling on the interpretation of Article 81(2) which provides that ‘any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void’. In that case, the landlord was arguing that ‘automatically void’ meant void only so long as the economic circumstances giving rise to the infringement of Article 81 remained in existence, whilst the tenant argued that the clear and obvious meaning of ‘automatically void’ was that the restriction was void, and could never be resurrected irrespective of any change in circumstances. Is the Commission aware of the legal reasons given the House of Lords for non-referral, and does the Commission propose to refer the cases itself?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

In the cases to which the Honourable Member refers, the House of Lords did not refer any question to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 234 (ex Article 177) of the EC Treaty because it refused leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the House of Lords was not seised of the case. As a matter of English law, the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords does not state reasons for granting or refusing leave to appeal. As a result, the Commission does not know of the reasons why the House of Lords refused to consider the matter of the appeal and of a preliminary reference, if such a reference had been requested in the Petition of the Appellants. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/69

The Commission has no power to refer a case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the circumstances described in the question. According to Article 234 of the EC Treaty, only a court of a Member State may make such a reference.

The sole power which the Commission has is to investigate the matter with a view to bringing proceedings against the United Kingdom under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. In its answer to Written Question P-1191/00 by Mr Kirkhope (1) the Commission stated that it was in fact investigating the matter.

Finally, it should be noted that a series of questions have been referred to the Court of Justice by the Hovrätten för Västra Sverige in case C-99/00 (2) which raise the issue of the compatibility with Article 234 of the EC Treaty of a system whereby leave to appeal is necessary before a case is heard by the supreme court.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 96. (2) OJ C 149, 27.5.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3522/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Animal meal

In the face of the growing risks of infection with BSE and the implications this may have for human health, does the Commission not consider it essential to prohibit the use of animal meal in feed?

Such a ban would ensure greater protection for consumers, and would be possible to implement as it would only be necessary to step up European production of oil protein crops, releasing certain land set aside?

Does the Commission intend to put forward proposals to that effect, and how does it intend to respond to concerns about food safety on the part of consumers, who are increasingly rejecting the use of such meal?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Members’ concern in this area.

The Commission put forward a proposal prohibiting the feeding of all processed animal proteins, including animal meals, to all farmed animals, for a transitional period of 6 months.

This proposal was adopted by Council Decision 2000/766/EC (1).

This Decision may be adapted by the Commission before the 30 June 2001 to the situation of each Member States in the light of the results of Commission inspections and the incidence of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000. C 174 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3523/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) and Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Infringement proceedings against Italy for failure to transpose Directive 97/67/EC correctly

In its reply P-2132/00 (1) the Commission states that the infringement proceedings initiated against Italy are intended to safeguard the open competition arrangements existing on the Italian postal services market prior to the entry into force of Decree 261/99. However, the legal basis for the assertions made by the Commission appears extremely shaky.

The distinction between products freely available on the open market and those which may be withdrawn from that market within the bounds of what is necessary in order to ensure the provision of a universal service at prices which all users can afford is based on an assessment of ‘added value’, which is determined with reference to the price-limit criterion. That criterion, which is referred to in the relevant Community legislation and which has been adopted by all the Member States, has been completely overlooked by the Commission.

1. Does the Commission agree with the above assertion?

2. Would it not agree that the concept of ‘special service’, which has not yet been incorporated into Community law, has no place among the grounds for the infringement proceedings? Given that it only appears in the proposal for a second directive, how can it be a criterion for judging whether the law has been infringed? Can anyone be held liable for failure to comply with a requirement that does not yet exist?

3. Can the Commission provide information on the outcome of the investigation into the alleged state aid granted by the Netherlands to TPG?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 155.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

On 21 December 2000 the Commission has concluded the proceedings the Honourable Member refers to by adopting a decision under Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty (IP/00/1522). In this Decision, the Commission concludes that the extension of the general letter mail monopoly, by means of Article 4(4) of the Italian Decree 261/99, into the neighbouring and competitive market for guaranteed day or time- certain deliveries offered as part of the hybrid electronic mail service, without any objective justification, is prohibited as such by Article 86(1) in conjunction with Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission has been extremely careful to define the market for guaranteed day or time-certain deliveries as precisely as possible. The Commission differentiates between conventional postal delivery services and services that offer a guarantee as to the day or time on which the correspondence is delivered. The conventional delivery service is governed by general delivery targets which never specify the exact day or exact time of delivery. Guaranteed day or time-certain deliveries and the conventional delivery services are thus not interchangeable. The added value of time or day certain deliveries may, in principle, be reflected in a price above the basic tariff. This does not, however, imply that the service must be sold at a minimum price that is five times above the basic tariff.

There is no objective justification for applying the monopoly price threshold to this service. Competition with respect to time or day certain deliveries does not jeopardise the public postal operators financial equilibrium. As the public postal operator does not at present provide day or time-certain deliveries, it will not suffer any loss of revenue, which it would have otherwise gained on this market. In addition, demand for the service is highly specialised. The revenue to be gained from delivering time-sensitive mailings exactly on a pre-arranged day or time is small when compared with the investment necessary in order to organise such deliveries. Furthermore, time-sensitive deliveries are a new service which creates additional mail volume. Therefore, they do not replace or attract away demand from conventional (reserved) 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/71

deliveries and consequently will not reduce the conventional mail volume and the revenue generated by the public postal operator in the reserved area. The Commission thinks that its Decision strikes the appropriate balance between the need to ensure the financial equilibrium of the public postal operator on the one hand and the need of Italian businesses for time sensitive mailings on the other hand.

The Decision of 21 December is concerned exclusively with the application of the competition rules and not about the Postal Directive. The Decision addresses particular competition issues raised by the Italian Decree 261/99. Without prejudice to the political discussions in the Parliament and Council on a new Postal Directive, the Commission is under a duty to take all action which it considers necessary in order to safeguard the competition rules (see, e.g., Case T-266/97 Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV, at paragraph 75).

The Commission has started an informal investigation by addressing a request for information to the Dutch authorities. The Dutch authorities replied by providing the requested information. The Commission is currently examining the information received, with particular reference to the economic result achieved in the reserved area and to the extra costs related to the provision of the universal service.

(2001/C 174 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3529/00 by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Deaths and murders of illegal immigrants in southern Italy

Dead illegal immigrants dumped by roadside

The bodies of six illegal immigrants, presumably Kurds, have been dumped by the roadside in southern Italy. It is assumed that they died of asphyxiation and that the smuggler decided to get rid of his morbid cargo. The head of one of the dead had been squashed, as if the lorry had run over it. This is only the latest in a long series of deaths and murders which occur weekly in southern Italy, the main conduit from Albania and Montenegro of illegal immigration to northern and western Europe.

With reference to the above report in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica of 18 October 2000, and in view of the fact that the number of people who have died at the EU’s external borders has risen since the start of the 1990s; given, moreover, that the majority of EU Member States are making increasing efforts (from a financial and technical point of view) to protect borders:

Can the Council confirm this and similar reports, and what is its own assessment of such occurrences?

How many investigations into deaths have been instituted in this connection, and what has been their outcome?

What concrete measures does the Council intend to take in order to prevent more and more people dying as they attempt, perhaps illegally, to enter the European Union?

(8 March 2001)

1. The Council has no information or statistics which would allow it to reply to the questions put by the Honourable Member. It also draws the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the investigations into the events which he mentions, the prosecution of those responsible for criminal acts committed in such circumstances and the adoption of preventive measures are matters falling within the competence of the Member States.

2. As regards the measures which it has taken and is continuing to take in the fight against illegal immigration, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question P-1391/00 put by Mr Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou. C 174 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Contestation of Greek sovereign rights by Turkey

During the NATO exercise ‘Destined Glory’, Turkey ‘closed’ its airspace to all NATO aircraft originating from the Athens FIR (flight information region). This unprecedented action caused Greece to withdraw from the exercise, since it represented an escalation in Turkey’s attempts to contest Greek sovereign rights. During the conclusion of the European Union-Turkey ‘partnership’, does the Council intend to set out clear and explicit preconditions to Turkey regarding respect for EU borders and the implementation of the provisions of the Helsinki European Council’s decision making provision for a peaceful process for settling the differences between Greece and Turkey?

(8 March 2001)

On 4 December 2000, the Council reached a political agreement on the partnership for the accession of Turkey. The question of the peaceful settlement of disputes is included, in accordance with the Helsinki conclusions and in the context of the political dialogue, amongst the priorities and intermediate objectives, under the heading of enhanced political dialogue and political criteria.

(2001/C 174 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Peace process in the Middle East

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

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

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The constructive interventions of Mr Burg and Mr Qurie at the Parliament on 5 September were a positive contribution to the process of reconciliation among their peoples, thereby fostering the hope for a swift 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/73

end to the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Commission appreciates and supports similar beneficial interventions from all parties. Against the background of what appeared to be an approaching negotiated settlement, the current wave of clashes is particularly saddening.

It remains mostly for the parties themselves to negotiate to find workable peaceful solutions. There is no valid alternative to peace. Thus the Commission is convinced that an agreement that satisfies the vital needs and legitimate concerns of Israelis and Palestinians can and must be found.

The necessary first step is to restore calm on the ground, allowing for a fruitful resumption of negotiations in turn leading to a lasting peace agreement. The Commission is ready and willing to support the implementation of such an agreement through all mechanisms at its disposal.

(2001/C 174 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3534/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Aid to countries of South and Central America

Can the Commission detail the financial assistance given to each of the countries in South and Central America over the last five years? What percentage of this money has been directed towards assistance to the African communities in each of these countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2001/C 174 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3546/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Education

The final declaration of the World Education Forum commits the international community to ensuring ‘that no countries seriously committed to education for all will be thwarted in their achievement of this goal by a lack of resources.’

As one of the world’s major donors to the education sector, how does the Commission plan to work with southern governments, and other bilateral and multilateral donors, to agree procedures for financing national Education Action Plans?

Does the Commission agree that a specific ‘sign off’ process needs to be developed for agreeing to fund National Plans, and how will it contribute to ensuring that such a process is developed?

Does the Commission agree that the EU budget should include increased earmarked funds for aid to education, on an annual basis, to demonstrate that the EU will deliver on its commitments? In addition, will the Commission propose such an increase to the budgetary authorities in the future? C 174 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The Commission is committed to the overall principle contained in the final declaration of the WEF concerning aid to countries seriously committed to education for all.

It has to be stated that under the current regulations development aid from the Commission is allocated according to country strategies, National Indicative Programmes and the guidelines adopted for the programming process.

Bearing this in mind, the Commission is ready to support national education action plans aimed at achieving the post-Dakar targets. As decided in the Framework for Action adopted at Dakar, the Commission looks forward to monitoring with partner countries, and all donors, progress towards the 2015 targets and intermediary objectives. It will work with the United Nations organisations, with non- governmental organisations (NGOs), and with partner countries to advocate and promote the objectives laid down by the Forum.

More specifically, the Commission intends to strengthen co-operation with southern countries and other donors, particularly with Member States, in order to assist in developing National Action Plans (NAPs). Such co-operation will take place at central level through enhanced complementarity and co-ordination in the framework of the new development programming. Accordingly, the Commission recently organised a meeting with the experts in education from the Member States, aiming at better co-ordination of their positions on the implementation of the Dakar Framework for Action. The group will be further strengthened in the future so as to participate more actively in the Education for All process.

In the same context, the Commission has participated recently in the first meeting of the Working Group set up by Unesco to implement the Dakar Framework for Action. With this purpose in mind, it coordinated its position with the Member States regarding the objectives and content of the group.

At country level the Commission intends to co-operate with governments in developing, when comparative advantage is evident, agreed procedures based on a sector-wide approach, on participation of civil society and in close coordination with all donors.

The Commission considers that new ‘sign off’ processes do not need to be developed when a financing process already exists for the whole education sector or a sub-sector and is considered as valid, even if it is not specifically defined as a National Action Plan (NAP). Nevertheless, in particular cases, the need for a specific funding process for a NAP should be recognised, but always in the framework of national development and sectoral policies and planning.

No commitment has been made by the Community to set up a mechanism to mobilise resources towards the ‘Education For All’ objectives. Notwithstanding, in their joint Declaration of 10 November 2000, the Council and Commission stressed that continuous support to social sectors is consistent with the approach developed in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Programmes (PRSPs). Therefore, basic education remains a priority for the Commission in programming and implementing its aid to developing countries.

Within this context, the Commission is willing to examine a contribution to any initiative taken by the World Bank for the benefit of developing countries involving monitoring or implementation of national plans in support of basic education.

A certain flexibility is needed to react to recipients’ priorities and to work in a complementarity manner with other donors. This being said, the Commission is ready to report, ex-post, on how commitments and disbursements have developed in line with broad community priorities. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/75

(2001/C 174 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3547/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Excessive increase in the price of paper

Is the Commission aware that, in Italy, the price of glossy paper and of newsprint paper (in particular though not only paper used for newspapers) has gone up on account of the fact that there is no real competition and the market is highly concentrated, being dominated by just a few companies?

What action is to be taken in order to remedy a state of affairs which is damaging not only to the consumers of the product in question but also to the dissemination of information?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Commission is currently carrying out two investigations into the paper industry. Regarding glossy paper and newsprint in particular, it is obviously concerned about the occurrence of significant price increases, which seem to be cyclical. In March 1999, having inspected several companies in the paper industry and having requested information from them, the Commission sent a statement of objections to a number of companies suspected of membership of a cartel. The geographical scale of the market is European.

The Commission is also investigating a possible cartel in another sector of the paper industry (carbonless paper) and at the end of July 2000 it addressed a statement of objections to a number of companies operating on this market, which is also on a European scale.

Apart from those two particular cases, the Commission is systematically performing its supervisory role to ensure that the industry complies with Community law, and in particular the competition rules.

(2001/C 174 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3548/00 by Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) and Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Mediterranean Basic

Does the Commission not consider that, as a matter of particular importance and urgency, the current department within the Directorate-General for Research which is responsible for developing programmes relating to the Mediterranean Basic should be upgraded?

The purpose of such an upgrading should not only be to increase the effectiveness of Community action throughout the Mediterranean (pursuant to the process launched at the Barcelona Conference); it would also reflect the political determination to increase and stimulate Mediterranean cooperation.

It should be emphasised that, in the field of scientific and technological cooperation, the European Community is in a position to cooperate with the countries of the Mediterranean in a way which is of particular importance to the entire economic development of the region. C 174 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

The Commission is in complete agreement with the Honourable Members’ opinion regarding the importance of scientific and technical cooperation with the Mediterranean Basin States, and supports the development of such activities without reservation. It was in this spirit that, in 1999, the Commission launched an entirely new from of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation in the fields of science and technology, INCO-MED, as part of the specific programme on confirming the international role of European research, itself part of the fifth framework programme for research and technological development (RTD). In addition, as part of the MEDA programme, the Commission has launched the Eumedis project to strengthen Euro-Mediterranean cooperation in promoting the adoption of new information and communication technologies across the region.

The Commission continues to reflect on how it can strengthen Euro-Mediterranean S&T activities, in the light of their importance for sustainable development in the Mediterranean partner countries. It was precisely as part of this process of reflection that the Commissioner for Research took part in the informal meeting held at Capri on 29 and 30 September 2000, where he was able to discuss with the Research Ministers of Spain, France, Greece, Italy and Portugal, as well as with their opposite numbers from a number of Southern Mediterranean countries, how such cooperation might be pro-actively developed. The Italian Research Minister informed his colleagues of the conclusions and recommendations that emerged in Capri during the Research Council meeting held on 16 November 2000.

The Commission will ensure that the Honourable Members are fully informed of its proposals for Euro- Mediterranean S&T projects for the years 2001 and 2002.

(2001/C 174 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3552/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Aerial crop spraying and the use of pesticides in Greece

On 29 October 2000 aerial crop spraying to combat olive fly was carried out once again in Corfu, using the pesticide Lebaycid, which contains the particularly toxic and fat-soluble substance Fenthion (included in the list of organophosphorus compounds in List I of Directive 76/464/EEC (1)), thus creating risks regarding public health, disturbance of the ecological balance and the pollution of ground-water. This was done in spite of the 1991 decision by the Supreme Administrative Court to suspend aerial crop spraying and the recommendations by the Greek Ministry of Health that spraying should be carried out from the ground in order to protect public health.

Could the Commission state whether this plant protection product has been given a licence following a detailed examination to verify that it will not have harmful effects on human or animal health, or an unacceptable impact on the environment?

To what extent are the following directives complied with in Greece:

91/414/EEC (2),

97/41/EC (3),

97/73/EC (4),

98/22/EC (5),

98/57/EC (6),

98/100/EC (7),

1999/1/EC (8)? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/77

For each of the above directives, has Greece taken the implementing measures necessary to comply with them? If so, are these being correctly applied? If not, have proceedings for breach of Community law been put in motion, and what stage has been reached for each individual directive?

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23. (2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1. (3) OJ L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 33. (4) OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 26. (5) OJ L 126, 28.4.1998, p. 26. (6) OJ L 235, 21.8.1998, p. 1. (7) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 35. (8) OJ L 21, 28.1.1999, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

The authorization of plant protection products is regulated at Community level by Council Directive 91/ 414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. The Directive sets up a harmonized framework for the authorization, placing on the market, use and control of plant protection products in the Community.

One of the basic principles of the Directive is the development of a Community list of accepted active substances in Annex I to the Directive.

Article 8 (2) of Directive 91/414/EEC provides for a derogation during a period of 12 years (until 25 July 2003) for Member States to continue to authorize plant protection products containing active substances not included in Annex I of the Directive on the basis of the general safety requirements of Article 4 of the Directive and national data requirements. During this period the Commission shall implement a program for gradual examination of the active substances.

Fenthion is one of the active substances currently being evaluated under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1). It is expected that the Commission will be able to adopt a decision on fenthion in early 2001.

The Commission will inform the Parliament and Council by July 2001, as provided in Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, on the progress with the re-evaluation programme.

Greece has transposed Council Directive 91/414/EEC and its amendments into national legislation with the Presidential Order 115/1997. The other Directives mentioned by the Honourable Member are not related to the use of fenthion containing products.

The Commission understands that in Greece aerial applications of pesticides are forbidden in general but in specified cases the ministry of Agriculture can grant temporary derogations. In the specific case a Ministerial Decree established the conditions under which aerial applications against the olive fly could be done. This Decree provided that only in Corfu aerial applications could be performed provided a number of safety requirements were satisfied. This derogation was given because of the particular agricultural conditions prevailing in the island.

In this case, a study on the environmental impact of aerial applications has been performed. The decision to conduct aerial applications was taken by the local authorities on the grounds of the existence of this study and before it was evaluated by the ministry of Agriculture. This was a violation of the existing procedures. The Greek authorities have undertaken to take all necessary actions to prevent a repetition of the incident.

(1) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992. C 174 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3554/00 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Council (15 November 2000)

Subject: Terms and conditions of employment of members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank

According to Article 11(3) of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks, the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board must be fixed by the Governing Council on a proposal from a Committee comprising three members appointed by the Governing Council and three members appointed by the Council.

1. Does the Council have a detailed knowledge of the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board (benefits, salary, social insurance cover, etc.)?

2. Does the Council know 1) whether there are any rules which members of the Board should observe to ensure that confidential information is not used to their personal advantage and 2) whether appropriate enforcement mechanisms exist?

3. Does the Council consider the salaries and benefits paid to members of the Executive Board to be excessive or commensurate with their duties?

4. Given that the ECB is financed from public funds, is the Council willing to make this information available to the European Parliament and the public at large?

Reply (12 March 2001)

As the Honourable Member states in his question, in accordance with Article 11(3) of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, it is the Governing Council which is responsible for fixing the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board. The Council is not involved. In accordance with the same provision referred to above, the Council’s only role is to appoint three members to the Committee on the basis of whose proposal the Governing Council fixes the above terms and conditions of employment. This being so, the Council believes that it is not the institution best placed to reply in detail to the questions put.

(2001/C 174 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3556/00 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission (15 November 2000)

Subject: Application of Community directives to the ECB

Article 36.1 of the relevant Protocol stipulates that the ECB Governing Council shall lay down the conditions of employment of its staff. However, this article is being interpreted very broadly by the ECB’s decision-making bodies, in particular as a means of refusing to negotiate these conditions with the staff’s trade union representatives and to avoid having to apply Community directives.

1. Is the Commission aware of this broad interpretation expressed in ECB internal documents and in a press release issued on 5 October 2000?

2. Does the Commission consider that Community directives, especially the directive on working hours, should apply to ECB staff, as European citizens?

3. If the Commission is prepared to state that such directives apply to the ECB, what measures does it intend to take to enforce them?

4. Will the Commission state what legislation applies to the terms of employment of ECB staff in order to ensure that the fundamental rights of workers and general principles of European law are not violated? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/79

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of the European central bank (ECB) press release dated 5 October 2000 entitled ‘ECB labour relationships and the social dialogue with regard to the ESCB’ and the related more detailed document as of the same title and date.

According to Article 249 (ex Article 189) of the EC Treaty Community directives are addressed to Member States. As far as the employees of the ECB are concerned, the Governing Council of the ECB determines the conditions of employment by virtue of Article 36.1 of the Statute of the European system of central banks (ESCB).

(2001/C 174 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3563/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Refusal of a derogation allowing the Turks and Caicos Islands to export small quantities of rice

An investment of £ 4 million towards the cost of a rice mill was made in the British Overseas Territory of Turcs and Caicos Islands under an EU scheme to help Overseas Territories by allowing them to export high quality milled rice to Europe, but after some pressure from some Member States the limited export quota for the Turcs and Caicos Islands was reduced to almost nothing, even though the long-grain rice grown there does not compete with the short-grain rice grown in Southern Europe. Although a derogation is possible, this has been refused, even though the tiny production levels proposed would fall within the limits of the derogation.

Could the Commission explain the reasons behind the decision not to allow the derogation, which has put sixty people out of work and made it more difficult for these small islands to achieve economic self- sufficiency? Can it indicate whether the refusal to allow a derogation is legal under the terms of the European Treaties, and, if so, what avenues of appeal are open either to the employer whose investment in the mill has been made worthless or to the governor of the Turcs and Caicos Islands?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2001)

The Commission would like first of all to point out that, when the enterpreneurs concerned consulted it well in advance of making their investment, they were told about the risks entailed given the current situation in the Community rice sector. A Commission report to the Council had already gone into these issues back in 1993 (1).

On 21 June 2000, the United Kingdom Government requested a derogation from the rules of origin for rice as laid down in Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories (2).

The purpose of this derogation was to enable the Turks and Caicos Islands to import rice from third countries (Uruguay, China, Thailand and Vietnam) for processing and subsequent export as a finished product (milled rice) to the Community, free of customs duty.

Having examined the application in detail and consulted the other Member States via the relevant committee, on 11 September 2000 the Commission refused to grant the derogation, inter alia because the Turks and Caicos Islands already have the option of supplying their industry with rice originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) for export to the Community duty-free under the existing mixed origin arrangements with those countries. C 174 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

The Commission would also like to point out that its proposal for a Council Decision to replace Decision 91/482/EEC as from 1 March 2001 adopted on 15 November 2000 (3) provides for the current arrangements to be improved in due course by introducing a reserve of 10 000 tonnes within the quota of 35 000 tonnes for the least developed OCT, which include the Turks and Caicos Islands.

(1) COM(93) 555 final, 25.11.1993. (2) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991. (3) COM(2000) 732 final.

(2001/C 174 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Progress in implementing the operational programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training’ under the second CSF in Greece

The third evaluation report of the operational programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training’ (EPEAEK) by ‘European Business Group’, commissioned by the Ministry of Education, mentions deficient planning, lack of the statistical data needed for drawing up detailed organisational charts, slow progress in implementing measures and a lack of coordination between central and regional management.

Could the Commission say whether it agrees with the above report findings? What is its view of EPEAEK’s progress in Greece, given that in the operational programme for the third CSF which has been submitted for the Commission’s approval, the Greek Government is continuing to fund the majority of activities which were also chosen in the second CSF? What is the final amount of funding for this programme, and what was the initial amount, i.e. the amount allocated in 1994?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The findings of the third evaluation report of the ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training’ Operational Programme under the second Community Support Framework for Greece to which the Honourable Member refers, should be examined carefully and as a whole.

In general terms, the Commission would like to underline the strategic and innovative character of the programme. The Commission can confirm that this programme encountered various difficulties, in particular in its starting phase. These shortcomings were mainly due to the innovative and ambitious nature of the programme for Greece combined with a lack of relevant experience and preparedness at the Ministry for Education at the beginning of the 1994-1999 programming period. It is true that lack of statistical data and use of indicators and quantified targets in the area of human resources and soft actions more generally is a weakness. Implementation of measures was slow, especially in the first two years but accelerated thereafter. This delay was one of the reasons for the scaling down of the programme at the mid-term review. Although some cases of poor co-ordination between central and regional management could be mentioned, this could hardly be cited as one of the weakest points of the programme.

The implementation of the programme took off towards autumn 1998. 100 % of available resources have now been committed in the Community budget for both the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Payments amount to about 80 % for the ESF and 88 % for the ERDF. The Commission estimates that all available funds will be taken up by the programme before the final date for payments, which is 31 December 2001. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/81

The initial budget of the programme was € 1 165 million for the ESF and € 221 million for the ERDF. Another € 25 million were allocated to the ESF budget through the deflator. At the mid-term review in 1998 the ESF budget was reduced by € 190 million and became € 1 000 million, while that of the ERDF was increased by € 49 million and became € 270 million. The Community participation was 75 % for both Funds before the mid-term review and became 80 % for the ESF and 55 % for the ERDF since 1 January 1998.

Overall, the Commission believes that, despite the difficulties encountered, this programme of great strategic importance for Greece will be fully implemented and will adequately achieve a good part of the objectives set. The effort should be adapted and strengthened in the next programming period, if Greece is to reduce the distance separating it in this field from more developed Member States.

(2001/C 174 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3567/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: The current system of car taxation and its inconsistency with the Internal Market and free trade

In several Member States the existing taxation system treats imports of cars unfairly, especially when the importer is a private citizen. The taxes levied on imported cars are frequently not based on the real value of the car, especially in cases where the car is a used one. The excessively high taxes act as a barrier to intra-EU trade and prevent the establishment of competitive markets in the European Union. Article 25 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community forbids customs duties on imports and exports between Member States as well as charges having equivalent effect.

What does the Commission intend to do in order to correct the distortions caused by arbitrary car import rules in the Member States? What will the Commission do to achieve transparent car imports which are in harmony with Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

The Commission would refer to the answer it gave to the similar Written Question P-3479/00 from Mr Vatanen (1), in which it informed the Honourable Member that it is concerned about the problems raised in his question and that it is doing its best to ensure full application of Community law in this sphere.

On the subject of the calculation of the taxable value of cars, the Commission has already initiated infringement proceedings against various Member States for their failure to comply in full with the Court of Justice ruling requiring tax to be levied on the real value of the vehicle. There are also infringement proceedings in progress in relation to tax exemptions for the temporary use of a vehicle in a Member State other than that in which it has been registered and to exemptions relating to the transfer of vehicles on changing residence between Member States (Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (2) and Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals). These procedures may lead to the matter being put before the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

As regards Article 25 (former Article 12) of the EC Treaty and the prohibition of customs duties and charges having equivalent effect, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the basis of its action on tax matters is the ban on discrimination contained in Article 90 (former Article 95) of the EC Treaty, not Article 25. C 174 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

In addition to its action on monitoring compliance with Community law, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council in February 1998 on amending Directives 83/182/EEC and 83/183/EEC to adapt them to internal market requirements. The Council has not yet adopted that proposal. Lastly, the Commission is currently preparing an overall communication on vehicle taxation.

The Commission believes that its action will significantly improve the situation of the European citizen in this area.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 133. (2) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(2001/C 174 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3573/00 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Cultural Olympiad

In conjunction with the extremely important winter and summer Olympic Games, from 2000 to 2004 Greece is promoting the institution of the Cultural Olympiad. Can the Commission say what its position is with regard to this institution, whether it intends to fund it and whether a suitable legal basis exists? If so, what appropriations does it propose to allocate?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission welcomes the idea of a programme of European cultural events to accompany the 2004 Olympic Games. However, the Commission has so far neither been informed of any specific programme nor received any application for financial support and cannot therefore, at this stage, voice any opinion on the subject of the ‘Cultural Olympiad’.

The Commission would, however, like the Honourable Member to be aware that it is able to offer support for cultural initiatives within the framework of, and subject to the criteria of, the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, which is the Community’s single financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation, and which is based on Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 174 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/00 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Letter of 23 March 1998 from Commission Member Leon Brittan to Thabo Mbeki concerning the TRIPS agreement

There are reports of long-running conflict between many developing countries and the pharmaceutical industry on the production and/or purchase of low-cost medicines by developing countries. In accordance with the TRIPS agreement, concluded under the WTO Agreement in 1994, and which is binding on all WTO member states, such countries can, in certain circumstances, switch to producing or purchasing low- cost medicines. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/83

1. Is it true that European Commission Member Leon Brittan wrote to South African Vice-President Thabo Mbeki on 23 March 1998 to prevent South Africa from taking up the option under the TRIPS agreement of producing low-cost medicines itself or buying them abroad?

If so, what was the precise content of the letter and what arguments are used to justify such action?

2. Has any other, comparable, action been taken by the European Commission?

If so, what?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

1. The Commission does not oppose the use by World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members of legitimate possibilities offered by the Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) agreement. On the particular issue of compulsory licensing, the Commission acknowledges the WTO members’ right to resort to this instrument, provided that the conditions set out in the TRIPs agreement are respected. A copy of the letter mentioned by the Honourable Member has been forwarded to the Parliament.

2. No.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-2316/00 by Mr E. Meijer (1) and P-2672/00 by Mrs H. Maij-Weggen (1).

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(2001/C 174 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3584/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Damaged British nuclear submarine HMS Tireless, docked in Gibraltar

The British nuclear submarine HMS Tireless has been docked at the British naval base in Gibraltar since 19 May 2000 for repairs to its damaged primary coolant circuit. The British authorities have given conflicting accounts regarding the extent of the damage, whilst the repair period, initially announced as lasting only three months, has now been extended to summer 2001. The Royal Navy prohibits repairs to nuclear-powered submarines in ports with facilities such as those in Gibraltar (Z-class ports) and only authorises such repairs in X-class bases such as those at Devonport and Faslane in the United Kingdom, which have medical equipment, evacuation plans and special machinery. This fact, together with the hypothetical danger of a radioactive leak to public health, has prompted requests from the Autonomous Government of Andalusia and the mayors of the areas of Spain bordering Gibraltar that the submarine be moved back to the United Kingdom.

Could the Council approach the British and Spanish authorities with a request that they provide the inhabitants of the Gibraltar area with precise, ongoing and comprehensive information as to the potential risks, the extent of the damage and the repair plans, that they guarantee permanent monitoring of radioactivity levels in the local water and air and, should the vessel undergo repair in Gibraltar, that they implement a nuclear emergency and evacuation plan, which the Gibraltar area currently lacks?

Could the Council recommend that the damaged submarine be moved back to the United Kingdom, where it could undergo repair at a specialised and safe base? C 174 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Reply (8 March 2001)

The United Kingdom authorities have not referred the matter of the submarine docked in Gibraltar to the Council, which cannot therefore reply to these questions.

(2001/C 174 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3588/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 November 2000)

Subject: Budgetary contributions of Member States

It is noted with regret that the Commission, when asked in Written Question E-2025/00 (1) to indicate the net contributions of each of the Member States for the last financial year, did not list the net contributions as requested, but instead referred to a website which was only available in French and did not, in any case, provide the required information; furthermore, the Commission stated that ‘despite the availability of estimates of budgetary balances by Member State, it is to be noted that there exists no optional way to measure net contributions.’

Could the Commission explain the above statement, and, in particular, identify what other ways it believes exist of calculating net contributions other than subtracting the amounts received from the European institutions from the amounts paid in to those same institutions, and could the Commission, in any event, list in the answer to this question without reference to any website (useful though websites may be as additional sources of information) the financial contributions and receipts of each of the European Union’s Member States for the last two financial years for which figures are currently available?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 170.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (10 January 2001)

The Commission is sending to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament the report on the allocation of 1999 Community operating expenditure by Member State. The Honourable Member will see this is in English.

The Commission has explored the issues related to the definition of budgetary or net balances in its report on the operation of the own resources system, in particular in annex 3 on the concept and measurement of the budgetary balance. The statistical annex of this report also provides data on budgetary balances according to different definitions. This report and its annex is also sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s secretariat.

(2001/C 174 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (22 November 2000)

Subject: Health expenditure in Cuba

Would the Commission give a detailed financial breakdown, including historic figures, on support to the Cuban health sector?

Would the Commission be specific about the nature of that support, for example, did it include funding for infrastructure? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/85

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Community support to the Cuban health sector can be seen in the detailed breakdown of the European Communities humanitarian office (ECHO) assistance to Cuba in the last seven years. More specifically, the sixth global plan consisted of the following elements: food, € 1 253 564; medicine, € 1 047 506; primary products for medicine, € 908 628; hygiene equipment, € 374 275; small medicine instruments, € 759 115; textiles, € 431 201; stomatology products, € 448 755; and others (Admin., contingencies, …), € 1 766 956. As concerns funding for infrastructure, ECHO funding was used, in a limited number of cases, to finance micro-projects aimed at refurbishing hospitals in a very bad shape or to purchase small equipment.

Breakdown of Humanitarian Aid to Cuba, from 1993 to 1999 (In euro)

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Global Plan 9 994 500 15 000 000 8 000 000 8 000 000 7 000 000 7 000 000 Ophthalmic Neuropathy 5 500 000 Infectious diseases 495 000 Medical aid against asthma 480 000 Products for hospitals 500 000 Flooding 330 000 Hurricane/cyclone relief 500 000 350 000 600 000 350 000 500 000 Raw materials for drugs/hygiene 3 510 000 Micro-projects 2 000 000 2 000 000 2 000 000 Rehabilitation of hospitals and supply of humanitarian products 2 000 000 Disaster prevention 350 000 410 000 Total 7 805 000 13 854 500 15 000 000 8 600 000 10 350 000 9 850 000 11 410 000

Source: Evaluation of Humanitarian Aid to Cuba, May 2000.

The non-governmental organisation (NGO) co-financing budget line (B7 6000) has also been used to support the Cuban health sector. In 1999, three NGO co-financed projects in the health sector came to € 1 567 712.

In addition, a programme of support to the economic reforms under B7-3110, currently under discussion, contains provision of € 1 130 000 as assistance for the Ministry of Health/the Ministry of Public Finance for the improvement of the use of resources in the health sector. The support will mainly be in the form of technical assistance.

(2001/C 174 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/00 by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Hydrocarbons research

In the light of current widespread public concern within the European Union regarding the availability and price of petroleum products:

(a) Has the Commission reassessed the relative priorities given to hydrocarbon research? C 174 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(b) How does the Commission intend to utilise the Fifth Framework Programme to enable increased production of hydrocarbons within the European Union by promoting research into improved techniques to maximise extraction of hydrocarbon reserves?

(c) Given the need to increase the efficiency of hydrocarbons utilisation in order to reduce emissions and dependence on oil imports into the European Union what new steps is the Commission taking to encourage research in this area?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2001)

During the first two years of the Fifth framework programme (FP5) the annual Community funding for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons amounted to € 25 million. The annual Research and technological development (RTD) funding from Member States for this sector is estimated to be around € 150 million. Community funding therefore forms approximately 15 % of the overall Community public funding in this area. United States public funding for this sector is USD 200 million per year.

(a) and (b) The average yearly discovery of new oil deposits (at present oil price) during the last 10 years, is around 10-15 % of oil discoveries during the sixties. As the lifetime of oil wells is around 40 years, oil production may be expected to decrease by 2010-2015. Although Europe has a small proportion of total world oil reserves (some 2 % for the European economic area (EEA)), these can play an important strategic role in the Community’s security of supply. To keep up or increase oil production, new oil deposits, where oil extraction is more expensive, could be brought into production. This will require huge investments for oil exploration and production in deep seas and difficult environments, to produce oil, which will be more expensive. As compared to these investments, the Community funding of € 50 million, for the first two years of FP5, can only have a very limited impact. Priority has therefore been given to RTD aiming at cost reduction of other clean non-nuclear energy (NNE) technologies, with zero or low carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions such as renewable energies and fuel cells, where financial resources are often scarce. This is reflected by the midterm revision of the work programme for the Energy part of the Thematic Programme on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (recently approved in October 2000). While, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons is not amongst the priority areas (‘Target Actions’) for 2001 and 2002 for which 60 % of the budget has been allocated, RTD on this topic is however covered in the general part of the programme for which the remaining 40 % funding is available.

(c) The issues related to the dependence on oil imports and reduction of CO2 and pollutant emissions are discussed in the Commission’s green paper ‘Towards a European Strategy for the security of energy supply’ (1). The green paper identifies structural weaknesses in Europe’s energy supply, including dependence on external supplies, in particular of hydrocarbons, and growing demand. These weaknesses are creating risks to Europe’s energy supply which could increase over the coming decades. One of the major weaknesses concerns the transport sector. The transport sector in the Community is almost 100 % dependent on oil, consumes almost 70 % of all oil in the Community, (of which 75 % is imported from third countries) and is the fastest growing consumer of energy. Further, 90 % of the rise in CO2 emissions in the Community from 1990-2010 will be attributable to transport. The green paper sees the need for a European strategy in order to minimize the risks to energy supply, within the framework of enlargement, sustainable development and market liberalisation. One of the focuses for action is the transport sector. As well as demand-side policies, the green paper calls for efforts to develop alternative fuels to hydrocarbons, including hydrogen and biofuels. In this context, the above- mentioned revised work programme includes a Target Action on Clean Transport Fuels which aims at a rapid development of clean biofuels (which have zero net CO2 emissions) and clean fuels derived 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/87

from natural gas (which have lower CO2 and pollutant emissions than oil). This will particularly help to reduce the dependence on oil in the transport sector. This Target Action also includes combustion research aiming at a minimization of pollutant emissions and an optimisation of the efficiency.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2001/C 174 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3598/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: EU Action Plan on Drugs

Can the Commission say what steps it has taken, following adoption of the EU Action Plan on Drugs, to tighten up its internal coordination on drugs and safeguard the transparency and cohesion of the many budget headings allocated to drugs? Can it submit a table showing these various headings for 2000 and 2001? Can it confirm that it intends to carry out an external assessment of all its programmes on drugs, as has just been done for the EMCDDA?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Following the endorsement of the Union Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004) at Feira in June 2000, the Commission is analysing the impact of the Action Plan on its activities over the next five years, both in terms of its priorities and the allocation of its resources. This analysis will also cover the issue of coordination of drug related activities within the Commission.

A table summarising the drugs budget lines has been prepared and a copy is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Commission put great emphasis on evaluation in its Communication of May 1999 on an Union Action Plan to Combat Drugs (2000-2004) (1), and regularly evaluates its programmes. For example, an interim evaluation of the Community Action Programme on the Prevention of Drug Dependence was carried out last year, and North-South Cooperation in the fight against drugs is being evaluated at the moment. As stated in point 2.2.1 of the Action Plan, the Commission intends to organise appropriate evaluations of the Drugs Strategy (2000-2004) at mid-term and on completion and to present them to the Council and the Parliament.

(1) COM(1999) 239 final.

(2001/C 174 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/00 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: The ‘de minimis’ rule

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the objectives of the European funds allocated to education and training are being thwarted by the inflexible rules to protect competition with which firms must comply if they are to obtain such funding. The ‘de minimis’ rule, which fixes a ceiling of € 100 000 over a three-year period for every firm applying for such funds, reflects a narrow view of training as something that benefits only the undertaking involved, disregards its beneficial effects on individual employees’ skills and the community at large and seems to be at odds with the objectives of the European Social Fund in terms of improving the employment market. C 174 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

What measures will the Commission take to make the ‘de minimis’ rule less inflexible, thereby correcting a somewhat skewed view of ‘competition’ and facilitating access to training programmes?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Improving education and training is one of the policy objectives of the European Structural Funds. When funding such measures, the Commission as well as the Member States are bound by the State aid rules, which are designed to avoid distortions of competition.

As far as eduction and training are concerned, it should be pointed out, however, that many measures in these fields do not constitute State aid and can therefore be freely implemented by Member States. This is the case of general measures which directly benefit people and workers everywhere and do not grant an advantage to certain enterprises or sectors. Examples are: schooling and initial training (such as apprentice- ships and day release schemes); the training or re-training of unemployed people, including traineeships in enterprises; measures directly targeted at workers, affording them the opportunity of receiving training unconnected with the firm or industry in which they work (e.g. the ‘learning account’). Other measures do not fall within the scope of the State aid rules because they are open to all enterprises in all sectors without discrimination and without discretionary power for the authorities applying the measure, e.g. general tax incentive schemes, such as automatic tax credits, open to all firms investing in employee training.

For training measures constituting State aid, the Commission has laid down the assessment criteria in a framework on training aid (1). This framework confirms the favourable approach of the Commission towards training measures and allows training aid for general training up to 90 % of the eligible costs. In order to simplify the State aid notification procedures and to facilitate the granting of training aid, the Commission has on 6 December 2000 decided to adopt an exemption regulation for training aid, which takes over the assessment criteria from the training aid framework. As a consequence, training aid measures fulfilling the conditions of this regulation, Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (2), can in future be granted without notification and authorisation by the Commission.

Finally, training measures favouring certain enterprises do not constitute State aid if they remain below the de minimis ceiling (3). On 6 December 2000 the Commission has adopted a regulation codifying the de minimis rule. In this regulation, Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid, the Commission has, in the light of its experience, maintained the threshold of € 100 000 over a three-year. The de minimis Regulation is without prejudice, however, to the possibility that enterprises receive, also for the same project, State aid authorised by the Commission or covered by a group exemption regulation.

The Commission therefore considers that its favourable attitude towards education and training is adequately reflected in the existing rules.

(1) OJ C 343, 11.11.1998. (2) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001. (3) See Commission Communication OJ C 68, 6.3.1996.

(2001/C 174 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3602/00 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Air traffic over the Alps

The Mont Blanc area has been an aviation reference point from the era when pilots navigated by identifying landmarks until today’s sophisticated instrument navigation system. Consequently, many air- 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/89

traffic routes still cross the Valle d’Aosta, and the number of aircraft flying over it every day (estimated at an average of around 350 aircraft crossing the region’s airspace in any 24-hour period) has increased as a result of the huge expansion in air traffic on European and international routes.

Such a heavy concentration of air traffic has serious implications for this small region in terms of atmospheric and noise pollution, and at peak periods the excessive volume of traffic is beginning to make the Valle’s skies resemble the congested airspace around major airports. This is detrimental to the region’s tourist industry, is causing concern among the local population with regard to the environmental problems that could be caused on the ground by discharges of residual combustion products and has safety implications for gliding enthusiasts.

It would be possible to divert this traffic to some extent: the aviation route from Saronno to Passeiry (France) turns to pass directly over the Banko reporting point (i.e. Mont Blanc), at which point it changes its name from B4 to B37, thus cutting right through the Valle d’Aosta; however, if the route went from Saronno to Passeiry without deviating, aircraft would climb further north and the north-eastern area of the Valle would be only marginally affected. It would then be necessary to redefine the aviation routes which, starting from Malpensa airport, head west and currently follow either the Romagnano-Biella-Aosta route or, in the case of heavier aircraft, press on almost as far as Caselle (D17 BLA) before turning towards Aosta and then continuing, depending on the route followed, either to Passeiry in France or St Prex in Switzerland. For some aircraft at least, once they have reached Biella they could be routed either to Adiso (Gran Paradiso), where they would join the A1 route, or to the Cervi checkpoint (Cervino) on the B372 route, or to Biban on the L612 route.

What are the Commission’s views on the foregoing, in the light of the planned review of the subject at European level with a view to improving the balance of the current air traffic system over the Alps?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

In the context of preparatory work to create a Single European Sky, a high level group composed of civilian and military representatives from the Member States was set up last year by the Commission, with the support of the European Council.

Analysis undertaken by the above group has found the current means of organising airspace, regarding control sectors and aviation routes, to be inefficient. This lack of efficiency, one of the main causes of air traffic delays, stems from the fact that national interests have prevailed over European interests in determining the design of European airspace. The group came to the conclusion that airspace should be a common resource to be treated as a real Single European Sky which should be designed and regulated at European level, starting with upper airspace and continuing with lower airspace. The process of designing and managing this airspace should take into account both civilian and military interests.

Regulation on a European level entails reconciling the many issues of public interest involved (safety, impact on the environment) and economic factors. This is the context of the Honourable Member’s question concerning aviation routes through lower airspace covering an area above three European countries: France, Italy and Switzerland.

Member States currently have jurisdiction over this and are working to establish access and departure routes to and from airports, taking into account the existing physical limitations, including minimum flying altitude over the Alps, location of on-the-ground navigation equipment, and a reduction in traffic- flow conflicts as well as limitations regarding airspace reserved for military exercises.

Work carried out by the high level group will help foster a new approach in designing airspace which will give priority to the needs of users and will encourage multilateral coordination in order to increase flight regularity and efficiency and, at the same time, limit negative repercussions such as atmospheric and noise pollution.

The Commission intends to follow up this preparatory work with an action plan to be submitted to the Council and Parliament. C 174 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3607/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Conduct of Spanish road transport authorities towards foreign motorists

The Spanish road transport authorities (Autoridad de tráfico) require foreign as well as Spanish motorists to be equipped with two warning triangles, a series of spare parts (lamps, spare wheel, etc), tools and until recently a spare pair of glasses where appropriate.

Will the Commission answer the following questions in this connection:

1. Are the requirements of the Spanish road transport authorities compatible with the relevant international legal conventions (the Vienna Convention, for instance) and with the reciprocal recognition rules at EU level?

2. What measures does it intend to take should this conduct by the Spanish road transport authorities prove to be in breach of bilateral conventions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2000)

There is no Community legislation requiring the accessories referred to by the Honourable Member to be carried in vehicles.

Rules for vehicles travelling in the territory of Member States differ in this respect from one Member State to another. Despite the lack of harmonisation, the national rules are compatible with Community legislation provided they do not constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement.

That condition is met if the national rules apply only to residents of the Member State or to users of vehicles registered in the Member State. The rules on minimum, sufficient requirements concerning equipment to be carried in vehicles in international traffic are laid down in the Road Traffic Convention signed in Vienna on 8 November 1968, which Spain in particular also signed.

The Vienna Convention provides, for example, that States may require a warning triangle to be carried in non-nationals’ vehicles, but not two triangles.

The Commission is not aware that the Spanish road traffic authorities require vehicles in international traffic to carry all the accessories listed by the Honourable Member. Freedom of movement is one of the Community’s main aims and the Commission will be contacting the Spanish authorities in order to determine the exact nature of the requirements made of vehicles in transit.

(2001/C 174 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3609/00 by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Complaint against three companies in the airport sector

On 6 September 2000 the Commission received a complaint (No 37 957) lodged by four MEPs including myself, against three companies in the airport sector: Bierset Airport development and promotion (SAB), TNT Express Worldwide and GD Express Worldwide. The complaint is also against the Belgian Govern- ment. The subject at issue is the agreement signed on 26 February 1996 between the three Walloon Region companies, which infringes a number of the Treaty’s provisions, particularly in the area of competition law. Since the agreement substantially affects the Walloon Region’s airport policy, especially 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/91

on the amount of airport taxes and their possible adjustment to take account of the ‘polluter-pays’ principle, there is an urgent need for the Commission to state its views on this complaint. Can the Commission say what steps it has taken to investigate the case, and what date it has set for completing its investigation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

On the competition issue, the complaint lodged by the Honourable Member is based firstly on Article 81 (former Article 85) of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 86 (former Article 90), and secondly on Articles 87 and 88 (former Articles 92 and 93).

As regards the aspects relating to Articles 81 and 86, the Commission has begun its examination of the complaint. On 14 December 2000 it sent a letter to the complainants, including the Honourable Member.

As regards the ‘state aid’ aspects (Article 87), the Commission sent a request for information to the Belgian authorities. On the basis of their reply, it should be in a position to undertake a preliminary examination of the complaint. It is unable at this stage to prejudge the possible outcome of the examination.

(2001/C 174 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3613/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Action to combat trafficking, exploitation and sexual abuse of children

Trafficking, exploitation and sexual abuse of children are increasingly becoming transnational problems. The cruelty of the crimes committed in this respect and the slowness of judicial procedures in many Member States in tackling such cases are a source of deep concern.

The European Union has so far focused on the relationship between paedophilia and the Internet and has ignored other far more important aspects. For instance, Title IV, point B of the Joint Action on combating trafficking and sexual exploitation of children stipulated that the Council should, by the end of 1999, assess the fulfilment by Member States of their obligations under the Joint Action with regard to improving judicial cooperation and approximation or revision of national legislation on action to combat trafficking, exploitation and sexual abuse of children. In its reply of 28 September 2000 to Written Question P-1748/00, the Council states that it has not fulfilled this obligation and that ‘that examination will be carried out in the near future according to the rules laid down in the Decision. Consequently, the Council is not yet in a position to verify Member States’ legislation in this area’.

When will the Council fulfil its obligation to carry out this assessment? Why has it not yet done so? What obstacles did it encounter? Does the Council not consider that its failure to carry out the assessment renders the Joint Action meaningless? Is there some reluctance within the Council? What further action does the Council intend to take to apply Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which includes action to combat trafficking in persons and offences against children among the measures aimed at creating an area of freedom, security and justice? C 174 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(26 February 2001)

The Council would draw the Honourable Members’ attention to the reply given to Written Question E- 3089/00 concerning an attack on a Jewish teacher by a group of neo-Nazi skinheads.

As regards equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, on 29 June 2000 the Council adopted a Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1).

(1) OJ C 63, 4.3.1997, p. 2.

(2001/C 174 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3615/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: ECJ judgment in Case C-205/98 tolls levied on goods vehicles using the Brenner motorway

The European Court of Justice ruled on 26 September 2000 that the Federal Republic of Austria had infringed European Treaty provisions prohibiting discrimination by reason of its introduction or structur- ing of tolls on goods vehicles using the Brenner motorway.

The Commission is asked:

1. The decision by the European Court of Justice applies exclusively to goods transport. To what extent does this judgment also have implications for bus traffic using the Brenner motorway and for tolls levied on bus traffic?

2. Subsequent to the most recent increase in charges for bus traffic using the Brenner motorway, a price adjustment has been applied as at 1 December 2000. The effect is to raise the price of the 10-day and monthly toll discs by 16,27 %, while the annual toll disc will increase by 32,56 %. Does the European Commission consider those increases, and the discrepancies in the percentage increase, as appropriate?

3. Does the Commission consider this action as also amounting to an infringement of the ban on discrimination?

4. What action will the European Commission take where necessary to counteract infringements of the ban on discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2001)

1. The decision by the Court of Justice applies exclusively to goods transport and has no implications for bus traffic using the Brenner motorway and for tolls levied on bus traffic.

2. and 3. While value added tax on tolls has to comply with the rules of the Sixth VAT Directive of the Council 77/388/EEC such as interpreted by the Court in several recent judgements (1), there is no Community legislation aimed at harmonising tolls on buses as such. These tools therefore need only respect the basic principles of the EC Treaty, amongst which is the overall requirement of non- discrimination on grounds of nationality. The information supplied by the Honourable Member does not indicate the presence of any such discrimination. In addition, the discrepancies in the percentage increase 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/93

mentioned between the 10-day and monthly toll discs on one hand and the annual toll disc on the other do not raise any suspicion of indirect discrimination either. The Commission has therefore no reason or legal basis for investigating further the increases or the discrepancies in the percentage increase.

4. Whenever the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty it follows the procedure defined in the EC Treaty itself (Articles 226 and 228 (ex Articles 169 and 171)) for this purpose.

(1) Judgements of 12.9.2000, cases C-276/97 and four others, Commission v. France and four other Member States and judgement of 18.1.2001, case C-83/99, Commission v. Spain (not yet published in the ECR).

(2001/C 174 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3618/00 by Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Combating paedophilia and ‘sex tourism’

Every day, and in every country of the world, serious crimes are committed against children. Furthermore, the problem of paedophilia has become more widespread in recent years. But, as the law stands, the Community institutions have no powers to deal with criminal matters and so it is up to the Member States to ensure they have effective and deterrent laws to combat paedophilia. Meanwhile, the Internet is playing an increasingly frequent role in the commission of such crimes.

In view of the foregoing:

1. What progress does the Council expect to achieve in terms of greater ‘communitarisation of the third pillar’ (i.e. bringing matters relating to justice and home affairs within the ambit of the European Union) to ensure increased and more effective judicial and police cooperation, particularly with regard to crimes involving paedophilia?

2. What is the Council’s position with regard to placing all European paedophiles on a register with a view to monitoring their movements and exploiting the networks established to facilitate police cooperation at international and European level for the purpose of crime prevention in addition to law enforcement?

3. What new measures are being drawn up in the field of international cooperation to abolish the anonymity enjoyed by Internet sites and oblige those operating electronic data communication networks to record and keep the data which would make it possible to trace material involving the dissemination of, or trade in, child pornography to be traced back to those responsible?

(26 February 2001)

The Council is awaiting important initiatives from the Commission to strengthen judicial cooperation on crimes against children.

The Honourable Member will agree, however, that, as the initiatives mentioned in the reply to Written Question P-1748/00 on the trafficking and sexual exploitation of children show, the Council’s proceedings have made it possible to strengthen considerably the means of combating trafficking in human beings and crimes against children.

The Council has received no initiatives relating to the placing of all European paedophiles on a register. This controversial subject has not been tackled hitherto in Council Working Parties.

As regards work in progress in international bodies, we should mention the draft European Convention on Cyber-Crime, which is under examination in the Council of Europe. C 174 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Finally, on 29 May 2000 the Council adopted a Decision to combat child pornography on the Internet on the basis of an initiative of the Republic of Austria. (1)

Article 6 of that Decision on which the European Parliament has been consulted provides for the Council to examine the extent to which Member States have fulfilled their obligations pursuant to Joint Action 97/ 154/JHA, and the extent to which the measures proposed in the Decision have proved effective.

The Honourable Member will note that the Council made the following statement when that Decision was adopted:

The Council welcomes the opinion of the European Parliament, published as “Legislative Resolution on the initiative of the Republic of Austria with a view to adopting a Council Decision to combat child pornography on the Internet” (2). In addition to the amendments which have been incorporated by the Council in the Decision, the opinion raises a number of important issues relating to substantive criminal law and criminal procedure. The Council, mindful of the urgency to take immediate measures against child pornography on the Internet, declares its willingness to examine such questions in the light of the Joint Action 97/154/JHA of 24 February 1997 and on the basis of proposals which are expected in the future.

(1) Council Decision of 29 May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet (OJ L 138, 9.6.2000, page 1). (2) European Parliament document 10317/1999 C5-0318/1999 1999/0822(CNS).

(2001/C 174 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3629/00 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Notification of bird species on the ‘Natura 2000’ information form

According to expert opinions, 14 species of birds which should have been included on the Natura 2000 information form for the Mustavuori-Östersundom area in Finland have been omitted from the form. Their exclusion is justified by stating contrary to the expert opinions that these species occur only rarely. If an interpretation of the regulations which contradicts environmental expert evidence is deemed to be admissible, this is likely to lead to a conclusion which conflicts with the objectives of the birds and habitats directives.

How does the Commission monitor the Member States to ensure that they do not, by their interpretations, neglect to include on the Natura 2000 information form bird species occurring in SPAs (Special Protection Areas), as prescribed in the habitats and birds directives? This matter is linked to the official decisions pending in Finland on the project for a major harbour at Vuosaari, particularly with regard to the definition of the borders of the Mustavuori-Östersundom Natura 2000 area and the effects of this harbour on this Natura 2000 area.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Referring to Article 4(3) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1), Member States have to send the Commission all relevant information to ensure that the most suitable territories in number and size have been classified as special protection areas.

If mistakes are observed in the standard data forms, for example in connection with complaints, the Commission will ask Member States to correct the information.

In the case referred to in the question, the Commission has made the same observation, which is based on experts’ statements. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/95

The Commission has requested a correction in the database.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2001/C 174 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3632/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Western Sahara

The Settlement Plan adopted in June 1990 by the UN Security Council with a view to holding a referendum for the self-determination of the people of the Western Sahara, the proclamation of a cease- fire by the parties involved, impartial and objective measures to identify those entitled to vote and the organisation of structures to enable the Sahrawi people to be consulted in future have not yet been implemented.

There appears to be little prospect of an early referendum in view of the points of disagreement that emerged at the exploratory meeting held in London on 14 May 2000, at which the interested parties outlined their respective positions. Would the Council state, therefore, whether any progress has been made towards resolving the situation? Does the Council consider that the EU should encourage the efforts of the international community by launching a Europe Maghreb dialogue with a view to hastening the achievement of a political and lawful solution to the conflict?

With reference to the fate of the prisoners who were snatched from their families over 25 years ago and have been used as means of exerting pressure or as bargaining counters, could the Council explain what role the EU should play in order to bring to an end this ongoing and premeditated abuse of human rights?

Could the Council shed light on the misuse of funds provided up to now by the EU to assist the communities involved?

(8 March 2001)

1. The Council fully supports and encourages the UN’s efforts to resolve the conflict in the Western Sahara, while not claiming to take the UN’s place in doing so. It is convinced that the process initiated in this context, particularly the direct talks between the Parties, is the best or even, the only, means of succeeding, and that the current deadlock can only be resolved by means of a frank and open dialogue on all the aspects of the conflict between the Parties involved.

2. The Council’s ambition is to create a climate of trust between the Parties, which is necessary for a lasting settlement in the context of stabilisation of the region. Whatever the solution, it should be based on full observance of democratic principles and human rights, and encompass the worrying issue of Moroccan refugees and prisoners, particularly those in urgent need of medical care. In this connection, the Council fully supports the efforts made in this respect by the International Committee of the Red Cross and encourages all the Parties concerned to make every endeavour to find a solution rapidly to this humanitarian problem. As for the return of refugees in accordance with the principles laid down by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, this is a decisive element of the UN settlement plan.

Regarding the European Union’s humanitarian commitment, the Union is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to the Saharan refugees via the ECHO programme. Aid amounting to about € 20 million managed by the Humanitarian Aid Office has been earmarked for the period 1999 to 2001. C 174 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3634/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Measures to tackle energy prices rising as a result of liberalisation, privatisation and competition

1. Is the Commission aware that the option announced for firms and individual consumers of obtaining their electricity from different producers in the same country, or in different countries, appear to be difficult or not feasible because high-voltage network have insufficient capacity and because of price agreements required in the past to protect previous investments?

2. Is the Commission also aware that the priority enjoyed by the largest firms in the right to free purchase from new electricity suppliers and the fact that medium-sized firms will have to wait until 2002 and individual consumers until 2004 mean that the latecomers will have to pay a higher price than privileged early arrivals for what will become a more scarce form of energy?

3. Can the Commission confirm that in practice this form of liberalisation means that for many customers, in particular the great majority of domestic users, prices will rise rather than fall?

4. Does the Commission agree that liberalisation and privatisation of the energy sector is a particular disadvantage to individual consumers because of their unequal position on the market, and that consideration should therefore be given to stopping and reversing this trend, as is now the case in the state of California?

5. What does the Commission intend to do about the impending shortage of electricity, the price increases and the unequal position of the different groups of customers on the electricity market?

Source: The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant of 4 November 2000.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

1. The Commission is aware of the fact that the possibilities of companies to import electricity from abroad is limited in some Member States due to the fact that not enough interconnection capacity is available to satisfy all import demands.

The Commission is concerned about the effect this situation has on the development of competition on the internal market. It is, therefore, working with the national regulators and the Member States to ensure that the available capacity on the interconnectors is allocated to the market parties in a non-discriminatory and transparent way. The Commission is also urgently looking into the compatibility of the existing reservation agreements on various interconnectors with the competition rules. Should these agreements be in violation of Articles 81 and 82 (ex Articles 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty, they are to be considered void. This could potentially reduce the current scarcity on various interconnectors.

2. and 5. The Commission is aware of the Dutch timetable for the opening of the electricity market to which the Honourable Member refers. However, the Commission has no grounds to believe that electricity will become scarce when further consumers receive the possibility to choose their supplier in 2002 and 2004 respectively.

3. The Commission cannot confirm the statement of the Honourable Member that a gradual approach towards market opening leads to a rise in electricity prices. The Commission does note however, that households profit the most from falling electricity prices in Member States that have chosen to give all consumers free choice of supplier, as for instance in Germany and Finland. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/97

4. The Commission agrees with the statement of the Honourable Member that the position of consumers on the internal electricity market is unequal due to the fact that the degree of market opening differs from Member State to Member State. It is the Commission’s intention, in this respect, to make proposals which would lead, within the appropriate period, all consumers throughout the Community to be able to choose their supplier, thus profiting from the benefits of market opening in terms of lower prices and better service.

(2001/C 174 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Concentration of ICT firms in large cities with a shortage of electricity

1. Can the Commission confirm that Amsterdam, Frankfurt, London and Paris are favourite locations for ICT firms, not least because of their optical-fibre cable connections?

2. Can the Commission also confirm that to maintain thousands of websites in cyberspace, to forward millions of e-mails and to link mobile phones with the Internet these firms need data hotels and telecom switches as large as sports halls full of computers each of which consumes, for computing and cooling purposes, as much electricity as a town of 20 000 inhabitants?

3. Is the Commission aware that new firms requesting adequate connections to the electricity grid in the cities referred to above face a wait of up to three years?

4. What can the Commission do to spread this ‘new economy’ over locations with a serious shortage of high-quality modern job and provide an adequate supply of electricity?

Source: The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, 3 November 2000.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

1. The location of ICT firms is influenced by a whole range of factors. Some of these apply to all firms, e.g. the tax situation, the physical infrastructure and the origin of the firm’s founders. Factors specific to ICT firms include the availability of skilled labour, the proximity of universities specialising in technology, and network connections, particularly their speed and cost. Taken together, these factors lead a great many firms to set up in Europe’s main cities. However, nothing leads the Commission to suppose that the four cities the Honourable Member refers to are particularly favoured by ICT firms.

2. The energy consumption of telecommunications equipment is changing constantly. Thanks to technological progress, equivalent performance is requiring ever less energy, with equipment taking up ever less space. This unfortunately makes it impossible to calculate the energy consumption and space requirement of an unspecified set of activities.

3. The arrangements for connection to the electricity grid, and the obligations placed on distribution companies, are laid down by the Member States, whose competent authorities are responsible for monitoring this, without reporting to the Commission, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. C 174 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

4. Article 11 of Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1) stipulates that distribution system operators must maintain a secure, reliable and efficient electricity distribution system in their area, with due regard for the environment. They must not discriminate between system users or classes of system users.

The Member States have transposed the Directive into national law and must see that it is enforced.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2001/C 174 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3636/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Introducing the high-speed Internet: delays, resistance and incompetence

1. Is the Commission aware that the application of new technology for improving and speeding up the use of the Internet is running into delays as a result of the poor quality of broadband Internet supplied by cable companies for TV connections, the problems surrounding the allocation of frequencies for the wireless local loop and the opposition of telephone companies to the introduction of digital subscriber lines?

2. Can the Commission confirm that the failures, delays and obstacles referred to in question 1 are the result of conflicting interests of different companies with different owners which, although interdependent through the shared use of each other’s exchanges, transmitters and cables, are unable to cooperate properly because the growth of one may mean the decline of another?

3. Does the Commission know whether these problems are peculiar to the Netherlands, or whether they are characteristic of what happens in other Member States, too?

4. What potential does the Commission see for intervening or mediating if free competition between companies proves incapable of finding a speedy solution to these problems

Source: The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, 26 October 2000.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The Commission is aware that the application of new technologies to provide users with better and faster Internet access and services can be delayed due to regulatory impediments. That is why the Commission has taken action to remove barriers to companies making investments to provide higher speed Internet services. The major recent initiative has been the regulation on local loop unbundling.

A deadline has been set by the new Regulation on unbundled access to the local loop (including both fully unbundled and shared access) as of 1 January 2001, hence permitting new entrants to use the network of the incumbent to roll-out digital subscriber line (DSL) technologies. The notified operators need to have a Reference Offer ready on that date to make the facilities available. The Commission intends to enforce the obligations in the Regulation and is already closely monitoring the situation in all Member States. Some Member States, including the Netherlands have already introduced full unbundled access ahead of this date. Bitstream access, (i.e. the provision of DSL services while using the equipment of the incumbent operator), is to be provided already under non-discriminatory terms. The Commission understands that operators in the Netherlands are discussing amongst themselves the problems in relation to the introduction of DSL services, either via full unbundled access to the local loop, via shared access or via bitstream access and the telecommunications regulatory authority has issued a consultation paper on collocation. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/99

The newly proposed package of directives which have followed the regulatory Review is also an important step in promoting competition, choice and innovation in Internet access and services. The move towards a lighter authorisation scheme (to replace the existing licensing directive) and a pro-competitive regulatory framework for all networks will encourage investment in different types of technologies. In this context, Internet access via cable TV networks and via wireless local access are also important.

With respect to cable, Commission Directive 1999/64/EC of 23 June 1999 amending Directive 90/388/ EEC in order to ensure that telecommunications networks and cable TV networks owned by a single operator legal entities (1) requires that telecommunications networks and cable TV networks owned by a single operator must be separate legal entities, thereby giving additional incentives to cable TV networks to compete and provide Internet services. Currently, cable TV networks upgrades are under way in the Netherlands, but the capacity of Internet access will be dependent on the number of users served.

Regarding fast Internet access via wireless local loop, (also known as fixed wireless access systems), the Commission encourages the award of fixed wireless access licences by Member States, but does not set any deadline. The licensing procedure will have to be in line with the Directive 97/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (2) and with the provisions in the EC Treaty. It is understood that the start of the licensing procedure for fixed wireless access licences has been postponed by the Dutch government in order to take into account a legal challenge by two operators concerning possible preferential rights to part of the frequency spectrum.

The situation seems to be more satisfactory with respect to the development of backbone Internet capacity in Europe, as there appears to be considerable investment underway in this area. New interconnection and bandwidth exchanges are also opening, although regulatory delays may be occurring here too. These and related issues are treated in the Communication on the Organisation and Management of the Internet (3) that is available at: http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite/Organisation/COM(2000)202.doc

An overview of the situation concerning local access networks throughout the EU can be found in the sixth implementation report, ‘Sixth Report on the Implementation of the Telecommunications Regulatory Package’ (4). It illustrates that each member state presents some peculiarities with regard to the exploitation of the different new technologies for high-speed Internet, but the basic concerns are broadly similar.

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999. (2) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997. (3) COM(2000) 202 final. (4) COM(2000) 814 final.

(2001/C 174 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3638/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: The pesticide Rotenone as a possible cause of Parkinson’s disease

1. Is the Commission aware of reports, for example in the online news service Nature Science Today and in the Financial Times (both 6 November 2000) to the effect that scientists think long-term exposure to the pesticide Rotenone is a possible cause of Parkinson’s disease? C 174 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

2. Is the Commission aware that this insecticide is based on a natural vegetable product which, in contrast to synthetic pesticides, is itself degraded and has accordingly been regarded hitherto as safe and environmentally friendly, but which in rats can result in major brain deformities and impaired use of the legs/paws?

3. Is the Commission also aware that Rotenone is popular with amateur gardeners, people who work in the farming sector and who use the product to kill unwanted fish in fish-breeding ponds and lakes and that potentially there may be significant numbers of victims?

4. What does the Commission intend to do to regulate the use of this insecticide, or to modify the labelling provisions in such a way that users are made aware of the possible risks?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2001)

1. The Commission is aware of various scientific reports raising doubts about the safety of the pesticide rotenone and showing that acute exposure to the chemical leads to Parkinson like symptoms in rats. The cause(s) of the disease and the role of genetics in its onset are still unknown. A research project funded by the Commission is currently investigating the interactions between environmental exposures (in particular chemicals) and genetic factors in the origin of Parkinson’s disease. Results are expected in 2003.

2. to 4. Rotenone is a natural plant extract. In certain Member States it is authorised for use in agriculture and horticulture as an insecticide. The marketing and use of plant protection products in the Community is regulated by Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991, on the placing of plant protection products on the market (1). The Commission is responsible for the evaluation of the active substances used in plant protection and for decisions on whether to include them in a positive list (Annex I of the directive) of substances whose use may be allowed in the Community. The Commission will inform, later this year, both the Parliament and the Council of the progress on the re-evaluation programme. Rotenone has not yet been evaluated at Community level because the first priority of the Commission in setting up a work programme on the revaluation of existing active substances was to evaluate synthetic chemical substances. Therefore, at this stage, Member States continue to be responsible to ensure that plant protection products containing rotenone are not authorised unless they establish that, inter alia, such products have no harmful effect on human health, having regard to all normal conditions under which they may be used. The Commission will however inform the Member States about the new information. The Commission, in the light of the views of the Member States and other interested parties, may also propose to include rotenone as a priority in its next phase of the review programme for existing active substances, or take action in the framework of Directive 79/117/EEC of 21 December 1978, prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain active substances (2).

The use against undesirable fish is within the scope of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (3). Being an existing active substance it will be evaluated according to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (4) if industry commits to submit relevant information for the evaluation of the risks for human health and the environment. Any information arising from this evaluation relevant to the use of rotenone in other areas will of course be taken into account by the Commission. In case no such commitment is communicated to the Commission, rotenone will be withdrawn from the market. Up to this Community evaluation, existing national rules will continue to apply.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. (2) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. (3) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998. (4) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/101

(2001/C 174 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3641/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Building of a motorway in the Braga district

Inhabitants of the Moreiras, Trandeiras and Celeirós areas in the Braga district (Portugal) have sent to the European Commission, through the ad hoc committees’ spokesman, José Mendes Rodrigues, a statement complaining about the planned route for the Braga Sul/Celeirós-Trandeiras/Moreiras section of the A11 motorway, which AENOR is currently seeking to build and which will have extremely harmful consequences and will be prejudicial to urban communities.

It is quite clear, from the statement submitted and also from my own experience of having visited the area on 2 November 2000, that the protest is perfectly justified.

1. What is the Commission’s position on the statement submitted to it on behalf of the inhabitants of the Moreiras, Trandeiras and Celeirós areas in the Braga district?

2. Has any provision been made for Community funding of the Braga Sul/Celeirós-Trandeiras/Moreiras section of the A11 motorway, to be built by AENOR?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The Commission must inform the Honourable Member that the complaint in question, recorded under No 2000/4982, has been carefully analysed in the light of the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 (2).

In accordance with Article 4.1 and Annex I to said Directive, motorway projects shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5-10. Under Article 3 the environmental impact assessment will, in accordance with Article 4-10, identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, the direct and indirect effects of any project on various environmental factors, such as human beings, flora and fauna, soil, water, air, climate and the landscape. Under said Articles the Member States are required to provide a complete range of information on the project in order to enable its main effects on the environment to be identified and assessed. Finally, under Article 8, the information in question must be taken into consideration in the development consent.

The Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member that, in the light of the analysis referred to above, it judged it necessary to draw the attention of the Portuguese authorities to the course being followed by the impact assessment procedure being applied to the project in question, and to request explanations in this area, since the complaint revealed certain doubts as to compliance by said authorities with all of the conditions imposed by the Community provisions referred to above when authorising that same project;

The Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member with regard to any possible Community funding of the section of motorway A11 in question that, so far, the Portuguese authorities have not lodged any request for funding under the Cohesion Fund or under the European Regional Development Fund. Indeed, according to the information received the project will be funded by the company holding the franchise (AENOR S.A.).

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. C 174 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3644/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: EU responsibility for ferry services

Since the EU decision to abolish duty-free sales was carried out, the ferry service between Umeå (Sweden) and Vasa (Finland) has become uneconomic. The shipping company has now decided to drop the route. This is a direct result of the EU decision on duty free sales. The decision is affecting the entire region in various ways. Damage has been caused to the environment as much traffic is forced to take a detour of hundreds of kilometres. Cooperation between the affected regions in Finland and Sweden is made more difficult. Many people commuting on a weekly basis to work in the other country can no longer do so at a reasonable cost. Tourism and many other industries are likely to be hard hit.

The question is now what responsibility the EU will take for the results of its own policy. How does the EU plan to help, financially in particular, so that the ferry service can continue? Why have services in the southern Baltic been allowed to continue with duty-free sales while it was banned between Umeå and Vasa? How is this compatible with the EU’s own rules on fair competition?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission always recognised the decision to abolish duty-free sales for intra-Community travellers, unanimously taken by the Council, might have an adverse impact on the Kvarken region, affecting the ferry traffic between the county of Västerbotten in Sweden and the Ostrobothnian counties in Finland (1). It therefore undertook to identify means by which Member States could address such problems. The result was a paper prepared by the Commission, clarifying the various Community instruments available to Member States to address possible consequences of the abolition of duty-free sales (2). The use of such instruments however depends on the Member State concerned. The national or regional authorities must assess the difficulties and identify what measures may be appropriate to overcome them.

It should be noted that when a ferry is going to or coming from a third country, duty-free sales may continue notwithstanding the Council’s decision to abolish such sales within the Community. This also applies when the ferry has a stopover outside the fiscal area of the Community (3). To maintain duty-free activities, it is however required that the stopover is not of a purely token nature and that the passenger really has the opportunity of making purchases on land.

It has been possible to continue duty-free sales in the southern Baltic Sea partly due to the geographical situation, with the Baltic countries close by, and partly due to the special status of the Åland islands, which are considered to be outside the fiscal territory of the Community. This status was granted upon request by Finland during the accession negotiations.

With regard to support for the Kvarken area as a whole, the Community’s regional policy comprises the Interrreg Community initiative, the aim of which is to encourage cross-border co-operation throughout the Community. For the period 2000-2006, Finland and Sweden, in co-operation with Norway, have submitted a programme proposal under this initiative for the Kvarken-Mittskandia area which is currently under consideration by the Commission. The proposal includes actions to examine infrastructure and 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/103

communications across the Kvarken and also between Sweden and Norway. The proposal is expected to be approved in the coming weeks, which would allow projects to be submitted to the programme early next year.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council concerning the employment aspects of the decision to abolish tax- and duty-free sales for intra-Community travellers, OJ C 66, 9.3.1999. (2) Commission staff working paper clarifying Community instruments available to Member States to address possible consequences of the abolition of intra-Community duty-free sales on 1 July 1999 (SEK(1998) 1994). (3) Commission notice concerning the VAT and excise rules to be applied from 1 July 1999 by suppliers of goods on board ferries and aircraft or in airports to passengers travelling within the European Union, OJ C 99, 10.4.1999).

(2001/C 174 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3656/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Difference in treatment under Spanish tax law

With regard to the taxation of real property owners, Spanish tax law makes a distinction between Spanish citizens and persons who do not have Spanish nationality. This means that EU citizens who are not resident in Spain but possess real property there have to pay income tax as well as wealth tax to the State. Persons ‘no residentes en España’ (non-resident in Spain) have to pay income tax once a year at the rate of 2 % above the cadastral value. The wealth tax for persons ‘no residentes en España’ is also payable once a year, the basis of assessment for this tax being the value of the property at the date of purchase.

In addition, when real property is sold in Spain a distinction is made between residents and non-residents for the purposes of profits tax. Vendors of real property who are not resident in Spain are taxed at a standard rate of 35 % on their capital gain whilst the rate of tax for vendors resident in Spain is only 20 %.

This gives rise to the following questions:

1. Is the difference between the treatment of EU citizens who own real property in Spain but are not resident there and real property owners who are resident in Spain compatible with the prohibition on discrimination on the ground of nationality, which is an established fundamental freedom?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take if this difference in treatment is incompatible with the prohibition on discrimination, not justified on objective grounds and does not comply with the principle of proportionality?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the tax arrangements applicable to European citizens owning property in Spain but not resident there were examined in Written Question E-1380/99 by Mr Swoboda (1), and would refer him to the answer to this Question.

As a general rule, Spanish legislation levies income tax and wealth tax on non-rented property which is not a main residence; profits on a sale form part of the income of the year of sale. The chargeable events and taxable amounts are identical for residents and non-residents; however, there are differences in the rates applied and personal allowances.

The annual notional income from this type of building amounts to 2 % of its rateable value (Law No 40/ 1998 on individual income tax, Article 71(1), BOE 10.12.1998, and Law No 41/1998 on non-residents’ income, Article 23(5), BOE 10.12.1998). For residents such income is added to their worldwide income which is taxed on a sliding scale up to a marginal rate of 48 % (39,6 % for the State and 8,4 % for the C 174 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

autonomous regions (Law No 40/1998, Articles 50 and 61); up to the 1998 tax year the rate could be as high as 56 %). However, for non-residents, a general flat-rate amount of income tax (25 %) applies (Law No 41/1998, Article 24(1)(a)). In the Commission’s view non-residents are only put at a disadvantage if their worldwide income, hypothetically subject to Spanish tax in the same way as that of residents, does not attain a marginal rate of 25 % (for 2000 such a rate applies for a taxable income of PTE 2 142 000 (€ 10 684). In such an unlikely event, the Commission would consider that the Spanish authorities should only apply the amount of tax that would be payable by residents.

The profits (defined in Law No 40/1998, Articles 31 and 32) earned by non-residents on the sale of property in Spain which is not a main residence are taxable in Spain (Law No 41/1998, Article 12(1)(g)) at a standard rate of 35 % (Law No 41/1998, Article 24(1)(f)). However, a rate of 18 % applies to profits earned by residents who were owners for more than one year (Royal Decree 3/2000); if the building is sold during the first year, profits are taxed according to the sliding scale referred to above. In such a case the conditions mentioned above would have to apply (in 2000, a marginal rate of 35 % is attained at a taxable income of PTE 4 182 000 (€ 20 859) for the Commission to conclude that non-residents were being treated less favourably. However, it does consider that there is clear discrimination as a different flat rate is applied. It has brought this to the attention of the Spanish authorities and reserves the right to initiate formal proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty if legislation is not brought into line with the requirements of the Treaty.

The sliding scale for property tax applies equally to buildings owned by residents and non-residents. However, residents receive a basic allowance of PTE 18 000 000 (€ 89 783). This would only discriminate against non-residents if their assets outside Spain were worth less than that amount.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3661/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Coastal fishing in ACP countries

Would the Commission outline what measures it is taking to ensure that Community fishing vessels, operating under EU-ACP fishing agreements, respect the needs and rights of small-scale, coastal fishing communities in ACP countries and do not damage the local ACP fisheries sector?

What action is the Commission taking to improve the capacity of ACP countries to patrol the waters under their jurisdiction, so as to control the activities of both Community and ACP fishing fleets and thereby prevent overfishing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for her question and informs her that, in order to avoid clashes with small-scale traditional fishermen, protocols to fisheries agreements specify fishing zones for the Community which differ from those for local vessels. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/105

As for improving the capacity of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries to control fishing activities, the Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that, since 1997 the majority of fisheries agreements concluded between the Community and third countries (namely ACP countries) stipulate that an important part of the financial compensation paid in exchange for fishing possibilities be devoted to ‘targeted actions’, amongst which are monitoring, control and surveillance activities, including the setting up of satellite based vessel monitoring systems.

(2001/C 174 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council (28 November 2000)

Subject: The EU’s White Paper seminar in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000

The Commission has drawn up a first white paper on youth policy. A hearing on the subject for young people in Europe was organised in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000.

Responsibility for the event in Paris was shared between the Commission and France’s Ministry of Youth and Sport. According to sources, the practical arrangements could be described as little short of chaotic. Hotel reservations went astray, and many delegations had to look for hotels for themselves late at night.

Although the official speeches constantly stressed taking account of the needs of special groups, no account whatsoever had been taken, for example, of the needs of the disabled or those with special dietary requirements.

The meeting rooms for the working groups were too small, and there were not even enough chairs for all the participants. The original intention was that the hosts should make the travelling arrangements, but those for the Finnish participants, for instance, ultimately had to be made at short notice by the Finnish organisation CIMO. As the Sunday flights were fully booked, the whole of the Finnish delegation had to leave in the middle of the working groups’ reporting session on Saturday afternoon.

What will the Council do to ensure that similar organisational problems do not arise during further white paper preparations?

Reply (8 March 2001)

With regard to the preparations for the European youth seminar in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000, the Council would draw the Honourable member’s attention to the fact that it is only responsible for the organisation of meetings held under its Rules of Procedure: Ministerial Councils (Article 2) and meetings to prepare for them (Article 19 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure).

The Council invites the Honourable Member to address any questions concerning the organisation of discussions in preparation for the White Paper on youth policy to the author of the White Paper, the Commission.

(2001/C 174 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3663/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission (27 November 2000)

Subject: The EU’s White Paper seminar in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000

The Commission has drawn up a first white paper on youth policy. A hearing on the subject for young people in Europe was organised in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000. C 174 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

What will the Commission do to ensure that similar organisational problems do not arise during further white paper preparations?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Commission and the French Presidency shared the work of organising the gathering held in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000, which brought together 650 people from 31 countries.

As far as the logistics are concerned, the French Presidency was responsible for, among other things, accommodation, meals, local transport and the organisation of evening activities. The Commission provided interpreting services, chose the organisers of activities and, at the request of the Presidency shortly before the meeting, arranged the transport to Paris.

Certain delegations encountered difficulties with accommodation. It has to be said, in defence of the French Presidency, that the availability of accommodation of an acceptable standard and at an acceptable price was particularly limited during this period in Paris. The French Presidency also made considerable efforts to ensure that the problems encountered were sorted out as soon as possible.

As far as disabled people or persons with special dietary requirements are concerned, it did not always prove possible to give them all the attention that they deserved. The size of the event and its complexity can explain this situation but do not justify it.

The site chosen had to meet strict requirements: more than ten meeting rooms, an amphitheatre with a capacity of 650 people, location close to the accommodation, 40 interpreting booths to cover the 11 Community languages, a large area for meals, adequate security arrangements, and all at an acceptable cost to the Community budget.

The Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie was the only site that met these requirements in Paris. This site is recognised for its quality and for its ability to stage events, especially for young people.

The rooms for the workshops had been arranged depending on the choice of each young person and his language skills, following a survey conducted before the gathering. Certain last-minute changes in Paris, which were made at the request of the young people themselves, may have upset the arrangements or even led to a temporary lack of space.

As far as transport to Paris is concerned, the Commission asked the network of national agencies of the Youth programme to arrange this aspect of the gathering. In spite of the tight deadlines, they agreed to do so. This is true of the CIMO in Finland, in particular. The Commission is nevertheless aware of the problems that the late booking caused for the Finnish delegation.

Young people will also be involved in the other consultations that are currently in progress, and a number of them will be invited to a seminar in Umeå, where the results of the various consultations will be presented. The Commission, together with the Swedish Presidency, will make sure that the problems observed in Paris, which were largely the result of the innovative nature of the event, are rectified and do not recur at the Umeå seminar. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/107

(2001/C 174 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3665/00 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Safeguarding jobs in firms which have been beneficiaries of state and Community aid

Under the provisions of Article 136 of the EC Treaty, the Member States should aim to promote employment, improve living and working conditions, offer social protection and establish dialogue between management and labour with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion. These objectives are also included in the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers.

However, in Europe, despite Parliament’s adoption last year of a number of resolutions for the benefit of workers, firms which are in no economic difficulty but which, in several cases, have doubled their shareholders’ profits (most recent cases include Renault Vilvoorde, Michelin, Goodyear, Carrier, Miliani and Telecom), are increasingly resorting to mass redundancies and lay-offs. Their strategic market-oriented decisions (relocation, restructuring plans, privatisation etc.) are proving to be socially irresponsible and are penalising particularly the weaker categories, such as older workers and women.

This kind of approach should not be allowed in firms which have received state aid (tax relief, access to special funding, employment incentives, etc) and have benefited from European funds.

In the light of Directives 75/129/EC (1) (as amended by Directive 92/56/EC (2)) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies and 94/45/EC (3) on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees, not to mention the Commission proposal on a general framework for informing and consulting workers, what measures does the Commission intend to take in order to oblige firms to act in a way conducive to employment?

(1) OJ L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29. (2) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 3. (3) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

In keeping with the responsibilities conferred upon it by the EC Treaty, the Commission seeks to ensure that Community legislation is properly applied, including the directives mentioned by the honourable member and the rules on state aid.

It should, however, be pointed out that it is primarily the responsibility of the national authorities to ensure compliance with the national provisions transposing the directives on informing and consulting employees.

The Commission feels that the rapid adoption of its Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (1) would facilitate concerted efforts on the part of the social partners to restructure companies and would, in general, promote the process of change and the adaptation of European industry to changing market conditions.

With regard to state aid, only certain categories of aid (particularly employment and regional aid) may be contingent on the creation or maintenance of jobs. By contrast, other types of aid, particularly rescue and restructuring aid, may require the company concerned to make staff redundant so that it remains viable and the remaining employees can be kept on. Aid of this kind can be accompanied by aid to promote training measures, advice and practical help for finding a new job, retraining and vocational training and assistance for workers wishing to embark on a new career. The Commission systematically delivers a favourable opinion on measures of this kind.

(1) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999. C 174 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3666/00 by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Children in Romania

Romania is currently undergoing one of the greatest human tragedies inherited from the Communist era: over 65 000 abandoned children are still living in orphanages. This is the result of Ceausescu’s absurd law on abortion, in force for 24 long years (1965-1989), which made it compulsory for people to have at least four children. Some 3000 of these abandoned children are now HIV-infected or suffering from serious disabilities, partly because they were ‘vaccinated’ by the same syringes.

With reference to the 2000 report on Romania, could the Commission therefore shed light on the current status of the financial assistance granted by the European Union to this applicant country with a view to alleviating this tragedy?

Could the Commission also promote an awareness campaign on the topic of adoptions in the EU Member States, with a view to streamlining national laws and encouraging Community-wide coordination and exchange of information, so as to provide real help to these defenceless children?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

In its 2000 Regular Report on Romania’s progress towards accession (1), the Commission states that despite recent developments in the reform of the child protection sector in Romania, further work is necessary. The organisational and administrative capacity of the County Councils, which are now responsible for funding and managing childcare institutions, has to be strengthened, as the success of the reform will depend on the capacity and commitment of these bodies. There is also a general need to integrate childcare policies and social welfare systems in such a way as to assist families, prevent abandonment and address the problem of street children in major cities.

Since the early nineties, the Commission has provided technical and financial assistance to the child protection sector in Romania. In 1999, following a request for assistance from the Romanian Prime Minister, the Commission allocated Phare and European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) funds (€ 11,75 million in total) for urgent direct assistance to some 200 childcare institutions in Romania to improve the living conditions of children. The Commission and the Romanian authorities recognise, however, that assistance should now concentrate on the structural reform of the child protection sector, and have as its primary objective the reduction of institutionalisation (i.e. the abandonment of children to public institutions). To this effect, the Commission has granted € 25 million from Phare for a child protection programme which the Romanian authorities are now starting to implement.

The Phare Child Protection Programme has the following components:

the creation and development of community integrated child welfare projects at local level, with special emphasis on preventing child abandonment and institutionalisation;

the restructuring of the residential care institutions;

technical assistance (using Member States’ expertise through ‘twinning’, i.e. the secondment of a national expert to the government of Romania) to facilitate co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection services (at central and local level) with childcare departments (at central and local level), in order to ensure that Romania’s overall social protection policies are effective in providing support to families with children at risk, and preventing abandonment and institutionalisation of children; 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/109

a national public awareness campaign aimed at preventing abandonment of children and their reintegration into (natural or foster) families.

As to the matter of international adoption, the Commission noted in the 2000 Regular Report that Romania has ratified the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-country Adoption in 1994. A number of signatories of the Convention have expressed their concern with current adoption practices in Romania. The main concern is that legislation on adoption appears to allow considerations, other than the best interest of the child, to influence decisions on adoption. The Commission has drawn attention to the fact that this system risks having a negative effect on efforts to reform the child protection system in Romania.

(1) COM(2000) 710 final.

(2001/C 174 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3670/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Need for an environmental impact assessment of a project in Puerto de Grau (Castellón, Autonomous Community of Valencia)

Written Question E-2194/00 (1) to the Commission criticised the fact that approval had been given to a special plan drawn up by the Castellón port authority to build a number of commercial properties and a multi-cinema complex in the area known as Muelle de Costa without the appropriate environmental impact assessment having been carried out. If such properties were constructed the town of Castellón would be virtually closed off from the sea and the landscape would be affected as a result.

In its reply of 7 September 2000 the Commission announced the launch of an investigation with the Spanish authorities aimed at clarifying whether there had indeed been a failure to comply with Community environmental legislation, and in particular whether the project might have required a statutory impact assessment.

Is the Commission already aware of the substance of the special plan drawn up by the Castellón port authority?

Will it give details of the state of play with regard to its investigation and the reply received from the Spanish authorities?

Does it not take the view that the said plan constitutes a serious breach of Directive 97/11/EC (2) (amending Directive 85/337/EEC (3)) which, in paragraph 8(b) of Annex 1, includes trading ports and piers for loading and unloading amongst the installations which are subject to environmental impact assessment?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 84. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The Commission has not yet received a reply from the Spanish authorities regarding the project in question, but the time limit for this has not yet expired.

The Commission contacted the Spanish authorities in order to obtain information which might point to incorrect application of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2). C 174 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member in Written Question E-2194/00 (3), the plan is to build a number of commercial properties and a big cinema complex in Puerto de Grau, Castellón.

This type of project is listed in point 10(b) of Annex II to the said Directive (urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks) and therefore, under the terms of Article 4(2), it must be made subject to an impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 if the Member State concerned considers that its characteristics so require.

On the basis of the information currently available, the Commission does not consider that the project falls under Annex I, point 8(b) (trading ports, piers for loading and unloading connected to land and outside ports (excluding ferry piers) which can take vessels of over 1 350 tonnes).

The Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is observed in the case in question.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (3) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 84.

(2001/C 174 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3671/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(28 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.

Would the Council support a proposal by the Commission to 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 Council 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.

(8 March 2001)

The Council shares the opinion of the Honourable Member. It considers that a solution to the problem of the blind spot in the field of vision of drivers of motor vehicles is among the measures which could make a major contribution to a reduction in the number of road accidents. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/111

On 26 June 2000 the Council adopted a Resolution on the improvement of road safety (1) which enlarges upon the priorities indicated by the Commission in the communication it submitted in March 2000 in the context of the second Community action programme promoting road safety in the European Union for the period 1997 to 2001.

In its Resolution, the Council invited the Commission to submit seven legislative proposals as quickly as possible and to continue work on a number of investigative and information measures. The legislative measures include the one referred to by the Honourable Member, namely to amend Directive 71/127/EEC in such a way as to increase the field of lateral and rear visibility of vehicles, thus reducing blind spots.

The Council is awaiting a proposal from the Commission along those lines and will certainly accord that proposal due priority.

(1) OJ C 218, 31.7.2000, p. 1.

(2001/C 174 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3675/00 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Special scheme for access to Portuguese universities for the families of EU officials

In its answer to my Written Question, No E-2898/98 (1), the Commission stated on 30 November 1998 that pursuant to an amendment to the law (1998) there is no longer any special preferential scheme for access to Portuguese universities for the families of EU officials.

Is it true that this legal situation has been changed once more to the detriment of school-leavers from the European School who do not have a parent employed by the European Union? If so, in the light of the principle of equal opportunities laid down in European law, what is the Commission’s opinion with regard to this situation as it affects both the Portuguese citizens who are the victims of this discrimination and school-leavers from the European School who are nationals of other EU Member States?

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 135.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2001)

With regard to Portuguese universities’ treatment of school-leavers from the European Schools, the Commission would like to refer to the declaration by the Schools’ Board of Governors of 15 October 1997, pertaining to Mr Machado’s petition No 263/96. According to this declaration, the European Baccalaureate awarded by the European Schools is the same qualification for all pupils, with no breakdown into categories.

Article 5-2 of the Convention of 12 April 1957 states that holders of this qualification enjoy all the benefits associated with the possession of a secondary school leaving certificate or diploma in their own country and may apply for admission to any university on the territory of the contracting parties with the same entitlements as nationals of that country with equivalent qualifications.

In general, it should be remembered that the organisation of education systems, including the recognition of qualifications and university admission criteria, is a matter for the Member States. As a consequence, and in strict compliance with Article 12 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits any direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of nationality, the competent authorities are entitled, in principle, to make admission to universities dependent on obtaining academic recognition for qualifications acquired in another Member State. C 174 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Member States are allowed to conclude bilateral agreements with other Member States if they consider that the latter’s qualifications fulfil the national requirements. This is the case with the Convention of 12 April 1957.

It is also incumbent upon Member States to decide whether to compel interested parties with an equivalent qualification European Baccalaureate or other to undergo the same selection procedures as holders of national qualifications with a view to admitting them to particular study areas or educational establishments.

With regard to the rules applicable to persons holding a Portuguese secondary school leaving certificate, the Commission must point out that this is a purely internal matter that does not come under Community law.

It would also like to point out that, under the Statute of the European Schools, the Board of Governors is responsible for applying the Convention that created the European Schools and for representing them legally. However, so that this matter can be dealt with more quickly, the Commission will be contacting the Board of Governors with regard to the amendment to the law mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question, so that the Board can seek information from the Portuguese authorities. The Commission was not informed about this amendment.

(2001/C 174 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3679/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Export aid for milk surpluses

The recent aid or refunds payable in respect of milk powder and/or butter exports to non-member countries may have distorted the markets in southern Europe because milk will have found its way to other countries which export dairy products.

Can the Commission say which Member States have been receiving the above aid and what amounts have been granted? What is the nature of the products concerned, what quantities are involved, and to what uses have they been put?

Can the Commission also say how long the aid will continue to be paid and what amounts will be granted? What specific measures and operations will be eligible, and, assuming that the aid is to remain in existence, what purposes will they ultimately serve?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2001)

Provisional figures on export refund expenditure for skimmed milk powder and butter for the budget year 2000 are indicated on the table which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat. The table also indicates the quantities of both products exported in the period January- September 2000.

In providing these data, the Commission should like to underline that the payment of an export subsidy in a particular Member State cannot be considered as an indication of the origin of the goods exported nor of the domicile of the operator exporting them. Since export licenses may be used in any Member State and goods may be moved freely to any part of the Community, exporters may request payment of the export refund in the country where the goods are put on board a ship.

As regards skimmed milk powder, the main export destinations for the 304 800 tonnes (t) indicated below were Algeria (50 379 t), Mexico (50 013 t), Indonesia (25 151 t), the Philippines (24 688 t) and Thailand (17 263 t). In the case of butter/butteroil, the main export destinations of the 115 100 t indicated below were Russia (18 520 t), Saudi Arabia (11 865 t), Egypt (7 762 t) and Morocco (6 812 t). 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/113

Export refunds for milk and milk products are an important instrument of the common organisation of the milk and milk products market. The refund amounts for different dairy products are fixed on the basis of the price difference between the Community and world markets and taking account of the Community’s World trade organisation (WTO) commitments on export subsidies.

Consequently, future developments on export subsidies and exported volumes of milk and milk products will depend on the outcome of the new round of WTO trade negotiations, on the Community’s relative price level as well as on the Community’s exportable surplus.

Finally, the Commission believes there is no ground for assuming that exports of skimmed milk powder and butter to third countries may have distorted the dairy markets in southern Europe recently. To take butter as an example, on a total quantity of 44 078 t of surplus butter purchased into public intervention in the Community in the year 2000, 12 982 t were purchased in Spain, 3 762 t in Portugal and 2 350 t in Italy. It seems, therefore, that market support measures are relevant for the Community as a whole.

(2001/C 174 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3681/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Milk quotas and EU enlargement

In view of the impact that enlargement of the EU will have on the CAP and the European dairy sector in particular, can the Commission say what accession terms have been laid down, as far as milk is concerned, for the various applicant countries?

How does it think that enlargement will affect the European dairy sector in its current form?

How does it think that enlargement will affect the existing European milk quota system?

How is it proposed to proceed as regards milk quotas for the different applicant countries?

How might those new quotas affect the present Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

In the Common position of the Community on the agricultural chapter agreed in June 2000, the Community underlined a number of key principles governing the negotiations with the candidate countries. First, they must demonstrate, sufficiently ahead of accession, that they possess the administrative capacity for effective implementation and enforcement of the ‘acquis’ including the necessary mechanisms in place needed for the management of the various common market organisations. Second, they should achieve full compliance by the time of accession with regard to Community requirements for food safety and consumer protection. Third, transitional measures must be exceptional, limited in time and scope, and accompanied by a plan with clearly defined stages for the application of the ‘acquis’. Fourth, the acceptance of the ‘acquis’ entails the obligation to apply Community prices for agricultural products upon accession.

Recent medium term forecasts suggest that milk production levels in the candidate countries will increase very slightly over the next seven years, but that exportable surpluses will remain broadly constant. In this respect, enlargement may add slightly to existing market balance problems for the European dairy sector but should not create new difficulties. C 174 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

All the candidate countries have accepted the need to fully meet the acquis including the application of all common market organisation (CMO) regulations. Candidate countries have been invited to provide a detailed plan for the setting up of the official administration that will be responsible for the management of the milk quota system, in particular the plans for addressing problems related to farm structure and with regard to direct sales.

As regards setting quotas the reference quantity for milk must be determined taking account of historical production figures during a reference period to be defined, and the need to avoid adding to Community market surpluses, having regard also to World trade organisation (WTO) constraints. It is the Commission’s view that this period should be recent to reflect current production and consumption structures as well as improved statistical reliability.

Given these safeguards built into the Community’s negotiating position, it is not expected that the inclusion of the new member states in the CMO for milk and milk products will affect the current Member States.

It should be recalled that, regardless of enlargement, Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999, establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (1), in particular Article 3, foresees a mid-term review, worded as follows: ‘The Council undertakes to conduct a mid-term review in 2003, on the basis of a Commission report, with the aim of allowing the present quota arrangements to run out after 2006.’

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 174 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3695/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: By-catches of harbour porpoises plan of action

A ‘harbour porpoise take reduction plan’ has been drawn up in the USA and was sent to the Commission in relation to Case P/99/4288/DK.

Will the Commission please indicate what specific action has been taken in the USA as a result of this plan, and whether similar measures might be relevant in the EU?

Will the Commission consider drawing up an EU plan of action to reduce by-catches of harbour porpoises in European fisheries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The harbour porpoise take reduction plan, implemented in the United States under the Maríne Mammals Protection Act, foresees a set of integrated measures to enforce technical and behavioural modification in the use of some fishing gears (mainly gill-nets) as well as to increase co-operation among fishermen, environmental organisations, scientists and administration through the establishment of Take Reduction Teams. As regards the implementation of observer schemes, the Honourable Member should be aware that with some exceptions (Northwest Atlantic fisheries organisation (NAFO), Inter-American tropical tuna commission (IATTC), International Commission for the conservation of Atlantic tuna (ICCAT)), the Commission has no legal basis, in addition to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) Habitats Directive, for requiring that observers should or might be placed on fishing vessels of Member States. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/115

Wherever the incidental catches of harbour porpoises are caused by Community fishermen, the Commis- sion is attempting to find solutions. The Commission will take in due consideration robust scientific knowledge and advice coming both from its scientific advisory body (the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries (STECF)) and from the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) to inform its policy actions. Recommendations arising from regional fisheries organisations of which the Community is a contracting party (NAFO), North-East Atlantic fisheries convention (NEAFC), International Baltic Sea fishery commission (IBSFC), ICCAT, General fisheries council for the Mediterranean (GFCM)) will also be taken into account.

To this end, the Commission has asked to 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 asked ICES to give information and advice as soon as possible during 2001 on the following issues: an overview of fisheries that have significant impact on small cetaceans; an overview of other sources of mortality of small cetaceans; an assessment of the risks created by fisheries on identified populations and advice on possible remedial actions to reduce the impact by fishing.

However, before considering creating new legislation, the Commission aims at the proper implementation of the existing Community provisions. It is important to recall that Member States are obliged to establish a system of strict protection to ensure a favourable conservation status for all cetacean species. Moreover, harbour porpoise is included in Annex II of the Habitat Directive and Member States must designate sites to be included in the Natura 2000 ecological network. Furthermore Member States should enforce the requirements of Articles 11 and 12.4 of the Habitat Directive dealing with surveillance and monitoring of the fishing activities associated with cetacean by-catch. It is the legal responsibility of the Member States to implement these rules and to ensure compliance with them.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 174 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3696/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: By-catches

The answer of 16 October 2000 to my question E-2584/00 (1) states that ‘At the Council of 16 June 2000, the Member responsible for fishery expressed his deepest concern on this [by-catches and the action to reduce by-catches] and similar issues. To follow up, Member States will be contacted to request information to the Commission about actions they have taken or intend to take at national level’.

Have the Member States yet been asked to produce this information, and will it be accessible to the public, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Habitats Directive?

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Member States have been recently asked to produce information about the actions they have taken or intend to take at national level to reduce and mitigate cetaceans by-catches. The Commission has not yet received the requested information. C 174 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Such information will be made available to the Commission’s scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries (STECF) that is going to convene a meeting on this issue in 2001.

STECF’s report will be made available in accordance to Commission policy of public access to documents.

(2001/C 174 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3697/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Drift net fishing in the Baltic

The answer of 16 October 2000 to my question E-2584/00 (1) states that ‘The Commission welcomes all efforts to protect cetaceans and diminish porpoise by-catches. The Honourable Member is no doubt aware that Community legislation already limits the size of drift nets and prohibits their use from the start of 2002, with consequential benefits to cetacean populations’.

Will the Commission then state whether drift net fishing will continue to be legal in the Baltic after 2002, and whether drift net fishing in general is recognised as a substantial cause of death to marine mammals for example?

Does the Commission then consider that the isolated population in the Baltic of some 1 000 to 2 000 animals deserves special protection status?

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2001)

Unintentional interaction between fishing activities and marine mammals is complex, area-based, and specific to fishing gear and practice. The intensity of the phenomenon is spatially and temporally highly variable, depending among others factors from the seasonal abundance of marine mammals populations as well as of the intensity of certain fisheries. Therefore the same fishing gear might interact with marine mammals in a very different way in different localities.

The Commission makes use of the best scientific advice available to inform its action. The International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) is the scientific forum which gives advice on the Baltic Sea and, for the time being, there is evidence that incidental catches of harbour porpoise is minimal because the drift net fishery targeting salmon and the area of occurrence of porpoise only overlap to a small extent.

The measures adopted by the Council on the phasing out of drift nets (1), and of their prohibition from 2002, are not applicable in the Baltic given the special characteristics of the salmon fisheries of this sea and, in addition, also because they are not used to target the species in Annex VIII of Regulation (EC) No 1239/98.

Provided that there are no changes in the scientific advice, there is no reason to foreseen any modification of the current Regulation regarding drift nets in the Baltic.

The harbour porpoise, along with the other cetacean species, is included in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive (2). The Community therefore recognises that they are species of Community interest in need of strict protection. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/117

The Honourable Member is no doubt aware that it is the legal responsibility of the Member States to implement these environmental and fishing rules and to ensure compliance with them.

(1) 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, OJ L 171, 17.6.1998. (2) 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 174 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3698/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission (29 November 2000)

Subject: Porpoise by-catches

By letter dated 3 May 2000 the Commission was called upon by 41 organisations in 18 countries to intervene against porpoise by-catches.

How did the Commission reply to this appeal, and does it intend to take the actions proposed therein?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (26 January 2001)

The concerns raised in the letter mentioned by the Honourable Member were brought to the attention of Member States representatives at the June 2000 meeting of the Habitats committee, stressing their seriousness. The problem of incidental catches of harbour porpoises was also dealt with at the October 2000 meeting of the Habitats committee.

As for the call for broadening the Commission’s enquiries beyond the issue of Denmark’s implementation of Article 12 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the Commission requested the sender to provide more detailed information. No answer has been received yet.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 174 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (29 November 2000)

Subject: Malawi

Would the Commission outline its response to the allegations of corruption made in the European press against the Government of Malawi?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (9 January 2001)

The Commission services have been aware for some time of the apparently growing incidents of alleged corruption in Malawi. They are also aware of the most recent allegations made in the European press, focusing more particularly on the Government’s intention to purchase 39 Mercedes Benz vehicles for government ministers. This particular issue is viewed more as an instance of poor governance than as an example of corruption. C 174 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

It is interesting to note that the matter of ministerial vehicles was given some prominence in the Malawi press itself, in blatant juxtaposition to an article concerning serious needs in the human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) sector, where the financial requirement for the intended undertaking in this field amounted more or less to the cost of the 39 Mercedes Benz. More interesting even and perhaps reassuring in the given circumstances is that the newspaper which carried the articles is owned by a senior member of the Government itself. You may already be aware that, since then, concerted donor disquiet has led to President Muluzi’s decision to sell the vehicles and to use the proceeds towards reducing poverty.

The Commission continues, both through its local representation and in Brussels, to keep a close watch over the manner in which EDF funded activities are managed and to bring about corrections of any attempts at circumventing established EDF financial regulations. So far the potential incidents have been contained and there has not been need to take more overt, official action. It should be stressed that all disbursements of EU funding, whether from the EDF or the Community budget, are very closely monitored and regularly audited. There is currently an audit team in country looking into Structural Adjustment Facility funding and Food Security/Food Aid funding. It is the Commission’s firm intention to strengthen such monitoring and auditing measures generally, not only in Malawi. The Commission is preparing a Country Support Strategy in the context of the new Cotonou Agreement, which will include its considered assessment of Article 9 issues, including corruption, as well as its response strategy.

The Commission has in all its development assistance to Malawi sought to promote and strengthen indigenous good governance practices and more specifically has an on-going programme of assistance to the country’s legal sector with its Rule of Law Programme, funded under the Malawi National Indicative Programme. The Anti-Corruption Bureau, which regularly brings issues of corruption into the public eye, and whose most recent investigations have culminated in President Muluzi’s decision to sack three Government minsters on charges of corruption, receives some support under this Programme. It is perhaps through the strengthening of such national institutions that a measure of restraint on corruption can best be assured.

(2001/C 174 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3701/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: UN special session on children

Does the Commission intend to prepare, and submit to the Preparatory Committee of the UN General Assembly Special Session, a report on the effectiveness of its development cooperation programmes in relation to the progress made towards achieving the targets which were agreed at the World Summit for Children in 1990?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The special session of the United Nations General Assembly on children will next September 2001 renew the world wide commitments made at the World Summit for Children in 1990 and consider further action for children in the forthcoming decades. The plan of action established seven major and 20 supporting time-bound goals.

There is currently no explicit Community policy focus on children’s issues. However children have an important role in sectorial, especially social policies such as education and health. These issues are being addressed in the recent declaration from the Council and the Commission on development policy of the Community and in the programme of action discussed at the Development Council in November 2000. They also form the backbone of the new Cotonou Partnership Agreement as well as in the general framework of poverty eradication. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/119

Furthermore Council Regulation (EC) No 975/1999 of 29 April 1999 laying down the requirements for the implementation of development co-operation operations (1), and Council Regulation (EC) No 976/1999 of 29 April 1999 laying down the requirements for the implementation of Community operations, other than those of development co-operation, which, within the framework of Community cooperation policy, contribute to the general objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law and to that of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in third countries1, state that Community action should focus on those discriminated against or suffering from poverty or disadvantage, including children. Community support has been targeted at projects in six main areas between 1996 and 1999.

In the field of humanitarian aid the Commission is giving special emphasis on the situation of children in conflicts and is actively engaged in the campaign against the use of child soldiers. Many Commission- funded NGO projects are specially targeted for children.

The Commission will participate in co-ordination with the Member States in the preparatory process and Special Session for Children and is considering submitting to the Special Session a factual document providing an overview over its activities in support of children, including in the field of development cooperation.

(1) OJ L 120, 8.5.1999.

(2001/C 174 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3702/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE), Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE), Pere Esteve (ELDR), Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE), Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE), Luciano Caveri (ELDR), Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR), Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE), Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) and Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Language diversity in the European Union

Languages are part of the richness of Europe. With next year’s European Year of Languages, the European institutions have acknowledged the need to accord this issue an important place. Beyond the official recognition of some national languages in the European institutions, it is also vital that the Union and its Member States attend to protecting the diversity of the languages and cultures of Europe. On several occasions the Commission has announced its commitment to proposing a Community programme for lesser-used languages.

Several international charters recognise the right of citizens to maintain and develop their own languages. On 16 March 2000 Parliament adopted a reference to that effect in its report on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Does the Commission consider that a Europe of the Citizens has a duty to promote the protection and development of all languages? What concrete action will the Commission propose in the context of the European Year of Languages? When is the Commission planning to propose a solid legal basis for a specific programme at European level in favour of the lesser-used languages?

Is the Commission monitoring the process of signature and ratification of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages by the 15 Member States of the European Union? Would the Commission recommend, as Parliament did on 16 March, signing and ratifying it?

Is the Commission going to raise this issue in the accession negotiations with the applicant countries? C 174 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

Respect for linguistic and cultural diversity is one of the fundamental principles of the Union. Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that ‘The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.’ As well as being a means of communication, language is a fundamental element of individual and collective identity and a way of expressing and transmitting culture and values. The Commission is aware that, in order to encourage the development of a European identity and citizenship, measures must be taken to ensure that citizens learn to appreciate and participate more actively in this linguistic diversity, a fundamental feature of Europe.

The main objectives of the European Year of Languages are to raise awareness of the richness of linguistic diversity within the European Union and the advantages of acquiring skills in a range of languages, to encourage the lifelong learning of languages and to collect and disseminate information about the teaching of languages. Most of the activities supported will be funded through a call for proposals of projects by European associations and organisations. The Commission will also be funding a large-scale information campaign, which will emphasise Europe’s rich linguistic diversity, and events to present the Year in each Member State.

The Commission will be looking at the possibility of presenting a draft programme for safeguarding and promoting regional and lesser-used languages as a follow-up to the European Year of Languages, so that the lessons drawn from the activities and debates engendered by this great European event and the specific preparatory activities can be fully utilised.

The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is a Council of Europe initiative. Because of its importance and implications, the Commission is following its signature and ratification very closely, as it does with all Council of Europe initiatives. Member States are free to decide whether or not to adopt Council of Europe initiatives such as the Charter, and it would not be appropriate for the Commission to interfere with their decision on whether to sign or ratify this document.

The Copenhagen European Council in June 1993 stipulated that applicant countries would not be able to join the EU until they were able to fulfil their associated obligations by meeting the economic and political conditions (known as the ‘Copenhagen criteria’). With regard to the political criteria, the Copenhagen European Council concluded that applicant countries would not be admitted until they had stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The December 1999 Helsinki European Council reiterated that ‘compliance with the political criteria laid down at the Copenhagen European Council is a prerequisite for the opening of accession negotiations and compliance with all the Copenhagen criteria is the basis for accession to the Union.’ The Commission submits periodic reports on the progress achieved by the applicant countries to satisfy these criteria.

(2001/C 174 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3705/00 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 November 2000)

Subject: The treatment of pro-democracy protestors in Belarus

Is the Presidency aware of the suppression of pro-democracy supporters in Belarus? Peaceful demonstrators from the youth wing of one of Belarus’ mainstream pro-democracy parties, the Belarusian Front, were venting their anger at Belarus’ questionable democratic credentials when they were subjected to violence at the hands of the police. What are the intentions of the Council to ensure that these human rights violations are not repeated, especially in the light of Belarus’ potential entry into the European Union? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/121

(12 March 2001)

The Council follows the situation in Belarus very closely, as befits a country destined soon to find itself at the frontiers of the EU. Time and again, the EU has repeated the importance that it attaches to democratisation in Belarus. It is a source of the utmost concern that the Belarus authorities show no sign of improving their poor human rights record.

The Council therefore deplores the forcible suppression of the demonstration by opposition youth movements on Sunday 12 November 2000. Several aspects of this case offer grounds for particular concern: a large number of young demonstrators were arrested, many of those arrested were under 16 years of age, and some of those arrested have been subjected to relatively very heavy fines. In addition, there have been numerous accusations that the police used quite excessive violence in making arrests.

The Council fully echoes the position adopted by the Parliament in October 1999, when it called on the Belarus authorities to release immediately all those who are in prison for exercising their right to freedom of expression. It reiterates the appeal, made on numerous occasions, for the Belarus authorities to respect international standards in the field of human rights.

The Council has gone to the greatest lengths to try and get this message across. In their various declarations, the Presidency and the Council have constantly made clear their frustration at the stance of the Belarus authorities. Furthermore, most recently in November, the Council has given very public support to the OSCE AMG as it legitimately seeks to fulfil the terms of its mandate. These positions have been communicated at the highest possible level, as when the High Representative, Mr Solana, spoke by telephone to Mr Lukashenko.

The EU position remains that a policy of isolation would be counterproductive and would serve only to destabilise the region. Still, the EU has maintained restrictive measures on Belarus since introducing them in 1997. It is the belief of the Council that the best way to bring about an improvement in the human rights situation in Belarus is to pursue the step-by-step approach, mapped out in April 1999, which is designed to offer incentives for better relations to the Belarus authorities.

(2001/C 174 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3706/00 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Child labour in Latin America and the Caribbean

Figures issued by Unicef show that half of the 200 million children and teenagers in Latin America and the Caribbean are considered to be living in poverty and 10 % work for meagre wages. Some countries have passed laws trying to end child labour but few have made headway, as poverty remains a powerful incentive for children to work. Under-age workers were recently found on the family ranch of Mexico’s President-elect Vicente Fox, who appealed that his family should not be judged too harshly, as although child labour is illegal it is widespread.

What does the Commission intend to do to alleviate the plight of Latin American and Caribbean children? How can a President-elect justify breaking the law by arguing that it is a widespread phenomenon?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

The Commission’s strategy towards Latin America focuses on poverty reduction and tries to improve working conditions in general as well as eradicating child labour. Within the framework of the Commis- sion co-operation programmes, a number of initiatives are being launched which tackle children’s rights, C 174 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

labour conditions and the issue of street children, all over Latin America (such as the project ‘satellite street children’ executed by the NGO European Network on Street Children World-wide, ENSCW, € 874,000, and a project ‘Poder crecer’ with the objective to accompany and strengthen NGO’s that take care of children and teenagers in difficult situations such as street children, children that are in jail and under-age workers (€ 1 million) executed by the NGO BICE, International catholic Bureau for childhood).

The Commission continues to foster any positive measures which aim to facilitate the implementation of the Latin America Children Convention (Código del niño y el adolescente). In this context, one of the priority themes in Latin America for 2001 is precisely the promotion and protection of the rights of children.

The Commission has taken note of the Honourable Member’s concern of the case of underage workers found in Mexico and will avail itself of any opportunity to ask the Mexican authorities to enforce the laws on child labour in all circumstances.

(2001/C 174 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3707/00 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 November 2000)

Subject: The plight of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan

Is the Presidency aware of the infringements of the Ahmadiyya community’s human rights in Pakistan? A number of laws passed in 1974 made it a criminal offence for Ahmadis to profess, practise and preach their faith. Several members of the community have been charged with blasphemy under Section 295C, which carries the mandatory death penalty. Recent religiously motivated murders committed by orthodox Muslims against the Ahmadis have not been investigated. What does the Council intend to do to protect the fundamental rights of the Ahmadiyya community?

(12 March 2001)

The Council shares the concern expressed in the question put by the Honourable Member regarding discrimination against religious minorities in Pakistan. However, given that the regular political dialogue meetings between the Union and Pakistan were suspended following a military coup in 1999, it has become more difficult for the Union to communicate its concerns to Pakistan’s political leaders. Never- theless, the subject of the protection of religious minorities has been raised, on several occasions, with high-level interlocutors from the administration and the Pakistani Government, notably during the Troika’s ad hoc visits to Islamabad in November 1999 and November 2000. During its last visit, the Troika in particular stressed to the Minister of the Interior the importance of ensuring that religious minorities were adequately protected against all intra-community violence, that any incidents were investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted. The Troika also raised the matter of continued legal discrimination against certain minorities in Pakistan, including the issue of separate voting.

During these interviews, Minister Haider assured the Troika that the administration wished to include all minorities in the political process. While recognising that the initial discriminatory decisions taken in accordance with the anti-blasphemy legislation had alarmed the groups concerned, Mr Haider emphasised that none of these controversial decisions had been upheld on appeal. The Minister also confirmed that the government would undertake to pursue the necessary reform of the legislation in question. As regards intra-community violence, the government was aware of the extent of the problem. It would continue to take a tough line against all forms of violence and would undertake to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/123

The Troika reminded the Minister that these problems were causing grave concern in Europe and that Europe’s political leaders, NGOs and media would be keeping a close eye on the situation in Pakistan. The Council would continue to keep the situation in Pakistan under regular review and, if necessary, would raise these problems again with the relevant interlocutors via the European Ambassadors in Islamabad.

(2001/C 174 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3710/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Red Tuna catches in Dènia and Gandia

It has been noted for years in the fishing towns of Dènia and Gandia that French fishermen are using nets several miles long to catch red tuna.

Catches of these fish fail to meet the minimum authorised weight of 60 kg, and no checks of any kind are made.

Since this type of fishing is extremely deleterious to Mediterranean fish stocks, since protected species are also being caught, how does the Council [sic] intend to force the governments of the Member States concerned to adopt the appropriate measures, so as to ensure that Community fishing legislation is complied with?

Does the Commission [sic] intend to penalise those countries which fail to comply with the legislation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Over the past, French vessels, along with a few Spanish vessels, have been fishing for Bluefin tuna off Balearic Islands with purse seines, and land their catch in Spanish ports.

Community legislation does not include provisions regulating the length or the dimensions of purse seines.

The minimum landing size of Bluefin tuna is defined in Annex XII of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (1), and Annex IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterra- nean (2). It is set at 70 centimeters (cm) or 6,4 kilograms (kg). However, to provide a margin for accidental catches of smaller fish, a maximum of 15 % of the catch (in number of individuals) may consist of individuals weighing between 3,2 kg and 6,4 kg.

The reference of 60 kg as indicated by the Honourable Member is not in Community legislation.

These rules have been agreed by the Council. If they are being contravened, it is the responsibility of Member States to ensure compliance and to apply legal sanctions wherever necessary, in conformity with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (3).

National fisheries inspectors may be accompanied by the inspectors of the Commission within the framework of the Community control system applicable inter alia on the Bluefin tuna fishery by C 174 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Community fishing vessels. The Commission may initiate legal procedures under the relevant provision of the EC Treaty in respect of Member States failing to comply with their obligations under Community legislation and notably the Community control system.

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998. (2) OJ L 171, 6.7.1994. (3) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.

(2001/C 174 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3716/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Protected geographical indication (PGI) for Balsamic vinegar from Modena

Italian Presidential decree No 162 of 12 February 1965 stipulates in Article 46 that the characteristics of the composition and methods of preparing Balsamic vinegar from Modena are to be laid down by ministerial decree.

Subsequently, a ministerial decree of 15 November 1989 gave Balsamic vinegar from Modena designation of origin status.

Community procedures are now underway to obtain a protected geographical indication (PGI) for Balsamic vinegar from Modena, whereas, traditional Balsamic vinegar from Modena and Reggio Emilia protected at national level by law No 93 of 3 April 1996 already has PDO status.

In recent years, a number of firms have taken advantage of the above ministerial decree of 15 November 1989 to invest in the areas of Modena and Reggio Emilia in order to produce Balsamic vinegar with the designation ‘from Modena’.

In a judicial sitting on 30 October 2000 the Italian Council of State upholding the appeal submitted by the De Nigris company from the Campania region overturned the judgment of the Lazio regional administrative tribunal and, consequently, the Italian ministerial decree of 15 November 1989, de facto confirming the ‘non-territorial nature’ of the production of this product although it is typical of the Modena and Reggio Emilia areas.

This decision will involve the disappearance of Balsamic vinegar from Modena, which is a different product and cannot be confused in quality or price with traditional Balsamic vinegar from Modena and Reggio Emilia, but which, like the latter, is linked to the area of the provinces of Modena and Reggio.

This judgment, with its concept of ‘non-territoriality’, threatens all local products in the Community and in regions and provinces of Italy, and not only Balsamic vinegar from Modena.

Can the Commission say whether it is prepared to defend the principle of territoriality, which is linked to the valorisation, defence and production of local products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The application for registration of aceto balsamico di Modena (Modena balsamic vinegar) as a protected geographical indication was made by Italy on the basis that this was a name protected by national legislation under a decree of 15 November 1989 restricting the production area to the Provinces of Modena and Reggio Emilia.

Italy first asked the Commission to await the outcome of an appeal to the Lazio Administrative Tribunal. Subsequently the Council of State in its judicial capacity annulled the Administrative Tribunal’s judgment and consequently the 1989 decree. Following this Italy withdrew the application. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/125

The Commission can state as regards local products of well-defined origin that its set policy is to defend their promotion on the basis of the territoriality principle, i.e. defend the quality policy enshrined in Regulations (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) and No 2082/92 of 14 July 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1).

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2001/C 174 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3719/00 by Demetrio Volcic (PSE) and Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Illegal immigration in Italy

With the beginning of winter there has been a significant increase in illegal immigration by road in the area of Gorizia and Trieste in Friuli Venezia-Giulia. The number of illegal immigrants that have crossed the borders by road is now assuming similar proportions to the existing problem of illegal immigration on the Italian coast, and in particular off Apulia and Calabria.

The Friuli Venezia-Giulia regional council has asked for army intervention to combat and manage this problem. The Apulia regional council is asking what action the European Community intends to take.

On 16 March 2000 the European Parliament called on the EU to adopt adequate measures to deal with this problem and the EC made a similar appeal at the Conference on Security in the Ionian and Adriatic which took place in Ancona in May 2000.

The uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants causes problems in terms of public security and situations of uncertainty.

Commissioner Vitorino says that he is fully aware of the problems linked to the trafficking in human beings and lists the measures to combat organised crime already taken under various regional initiatives in the countries of origin.

Can the Commission say:

1. what measures it intends to take to assist communities in the Italian regions directly concerned by this problem;

2. how it intends to manage the movement of immigrants through EU countries of transit;

3. if it intends to set up monitoring points for immigration flows on Community territory;

4. if it intends to set up humanitarian aid units for immigrants in transit, and finally

5. what financial instruments it intends to use to help Italian regions of transit?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

At the special European Council meeting, held in Tampere (Finland) on 15 and 16 October 1999, the Heads of State and Government of the 15 Member States adopted far-reaching conclusions on, inter alia, the way in which a common policy regarding illegal immigration (Article 63 (ex-Article 73k) paragraph 3 lit. (b) of the EC Treaty) should be shaped. The Heads of State and Government expressed their support for a comprehensive management of migration flows at all their stages and called, inter alia, for the prevention of all forms of smuggling and trafficking in human beings. C 174 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

To this end, the Council and/or Member States were invited:

to tackle, at its source, illegal immigration, especially by combating those who engage in trafficking in human beings and economic exploitation of migrants,

to adopt legislation to this end, foreseeing severe sanctions against this serious crime,

to direct, together with Europol, the efforts to detect and dismantle the organised criminal networks involved,

to secure the rights of the victims of trafficking in persons with special emphasis on women and children,

to assist the countries of origin and of transit in order to help the authorities of those countries to strengthen their ability to combat effectively trafficking in human beings and to cope with their readmission obligations towards the Union and the Member States, and

to promote closer co-operation and mutual technical assistance between the Member States’ border control services, such as exchange programmes and technology transfers, especially on maritime borders.

It follows from the division of powers between the Community and Member States that especially the latter point has to be implemented by the Member States. The Commission does not have any operational or executive powers in the field of illegal immigration and Community legislation providing for a fair burden-sharing of the costs related to the controls of the Union’s external borders does not yet exist. Accordingly, there is currently hardly any possibility for the Commission to directly assist the Italian regions most hit by illegal immigration. As far as the issue of possible secondary movements of illegal immigrants within the Union is concerned, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to Article 23 of the 1990 Schengen Implementing Convention which sets out the principles applicable in such cases.

As indicated in its recent Communication on a Community Immigration Policy (1), the Commission will present, in the first half of 2001, a special Communication on the future return policy of the Community.

(1) COM(2000) 757 final.

(2001/C 174 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3722/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Development of sugars and insects as a result of the altered composition of the unusable parts of genetically-modified plants

1. Is the Commission aware of a recent scientific study, carried out at Southern Illinois University in the USA and published in ‘New Scientist’ on 23 September 2000, which points to hitherto unknown dangers in the harvesting of genetically-modified and other novel types of plants?

2. Is the Commission aware that, according to this study, the altered composition of the plant may result in the local ecological balance being disturbed as a result of the abnormal levels of substances such as sugars in the unusable harvested parts of these types of plant, which may lead to their attracting different species of insect than the original (non-genetically-manipulated) plant? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/127

3. Is the Commission aware that the supervisory authorities are only concerned with the saleable products derived from a plant (whether GMO or non-GMO) and that only the useable parts are tested for equivalence of composition, so that changes to the composition of other parts of the plant remain unnoticed and thus in practice unsupervised?

4. Is the Commission aware that it is now possible to compare the genetic activity of the original plant and the new species by means of DNA analysis, and of the researcher’s opinion that this analysis requires refinement because it is currently at the ‘experimental’ stage?

5. Does the Commission agree with this scientist, who is supported by concerned bodies such as ‘Gene Watch UK’, in thinking that such an analysis in spite of still being at the experimental stage and regardless of the possible costs is of vital importance to prevent the even more expensive future environmental problems which might be caused by disturbing the natural balance?

6. What possibilities does the Commission see of adapting the proposed legislation on GMOs to the most recent scientific discoveries?

7. Does the Commission propose to take account of these results, in accordance with the precautionary principle, in the forthcoming legislation?

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

1. and 2. The potential effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) described in the New Scientist article relating to a conference report have to be taken into account in the environmental risk assessment according to Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (1). Such a risk assessment has to be carried out before a consent may be given for placing a genetically modified organism on the market. It appears therefore that the conference report does not refer to new information that is not already taken into account under the risk assessment of Directive 90/220/EEC. A more thorough evaluation of the report cited can only be given after assessment of the original data presented at the conference after publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

3. The procedures for the environmental risk assessment laid down in Directive 90/220/EEC, foresee that the complete GMO and not only parts of it are taken into account. For example, in the case of oilseed rape not only the seed, but the whole oilseed rape plant is taken into account in the risk assessment.

4. and 5. The issue of ‘substantial equivalence’, which is referred to in the question is currently being intensively discussed in the scientific community. This discussion is also taken up by the scientific committees set up at Community level and involved in the assessment of product approvals. These discussions on ‘substantial equivalence’ also include the assessment of the current best practices or methods to be used in order to further define the principle of ‘substantial equivalence’.

6. and 7. Mandatory involvement of the independent scientific committees in the environmental risk assessment of notifications, as is foreseen under the revised Directive 90/220/EEC, ensures that the latest scientific developments and techniques are applied in the risk assessment. In addition a ‘safeguard clause’ in Directive 90/220/EEC enables Member States to ban specific approved products should new scientific evidence justify the re-evaluation of that product.

The precautionary principle relates to a structured approach to the analysis of risk, which comprises three elements: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. The precautionary principle is not a new concept. It has been used by the Community for some time in a range of policy areas environment, human, animal and plant health and it is explicitly mentioned in the environmental provisions of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. C 174 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3729/00 by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: VAT deductions VAT Committee guidelines

According to a notice issued by the Irish VAT authorities in August 1990, which was published in a brochure entitled ‘VAT and Financial Services’ (June 1999, Appendix VIII, p. 102), at a recent meeting of the VAT Committee in Brussels, an agreement was reached to the effect that all expenditure relating to the purchase or sale of company shares concerns exempted activities and therefore does not give rise to an entitlement to deduct VAT at source.

Can the Commission, which provides the chairman and secretariat of the Advisory Committee on VAT set up under Article 29 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1), confirm that the committee adopted the above guidelines unanimously? If it can, why has it not made them public?

Why has the Commission submitted only two reports on the application of the common system of value added tax in the Member States since 1992, when, under the terms of Article 34 of Directive 77/388/EEC, it should have submitted a first report on 1 January 1982 and further reports every two years since then?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2001)

The Commission can confirm that delegations at the July 1990 meeting of the VAT Committee were unanimous in the view that VAT on costs relating to share transactions is not deductible, such transactions being exempt under Article 13(B)(d)(5) 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.

The VAT Committee, which was set up under Article 29 of the Directive, is an advisory committee. This means that its guidelines have no legal force and the Member States are not obliged to apply them. A Member State may therefore choose to deviate from the common interpretation, but such divergences can also result from court rulings condemning practices based on common interpretations. Since the guidelines are not legally binding, they cannot be invoked in court by parties in litigation. Nor do they figure in the accession treaties of new Member States.

Furthermore, the rules of procedure adopted by the Committee under Article 29(3) of the Sixth Directive state that Member States may publish guidelines adopted on specific questions, but that they do so on their own responsibility.

In these circumstances, the Commission does not see publishing the guidelines of the VAT Committee as part of its responsibilities.

However, the lack of transparency and the guidelines’ lack of legal status did lead the Commission, in June 1997, to present a proposal for a directive changing the status of the VAT Committee (1). The proposal is intended to give legal force to Commission decisions adopted with the Committee’s assent and to ensure their official publication. The Commission believes that changing the Committee’s status would enable more uniform application of the common VAT system throughout the Community. The Council has yet to come to an agreement on the proposal.

The Commission’s 1994 report on the functioning of the transitional arrangements (2) and its 1996 technical memorandum on the common VAT system offer a detailed description of how the VAT system works. The scant progress achieved in the Council since the 1996 report means that there has been very little material change in the working of the common VAT system. This is why the Commission, on 7 June 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/129

last year, adopted a new strategy to improve the operation of the VAT system within the context of the internal market (3). Meanwhile the Commission has preferred to concentrate on new legislative projects, including proposals for directives on e-commerce, taxable persons, the right of deduction and reduced rates on highly labour-intensive services.

(1) OJ C 278, 13.9.1997. (2) COM(94) 515 final. (3) COM(2000) 348 final.

(2001/C 174 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3732/00 by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Subject: Massacre in La Union, Colombia

On 8 July 2000, 20 masked paramilitaries entered the village of La Union in Colombia and massacred six men. The paramilitaries stated they would be back and told the community to leave their land.

1. Will the Commission give an assurance that the Colombian Government’s investigation into the massacre at La Union will be monitored very closely at EU level, including the role and responsibility of the army?

2. Will the Commission indicate what support at EU level can be provided for the UN Human Rights Office in Colombia, which currently has a shortfall of USD 2 million, representing 60 % of its required funding?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2000)

Deeply shocked by the massacre that took place in ‘La Unión’, the Union immediately called on the Colombian government to investigate the exact circumstances of these crimes. The Colombian government set up a commission of inquiry, consisting of officials from the offices of the Public prosecutor, the Attorney general and the Ombudsman, who are in charge of investigating the massacre. They have carried out investigation missions, but have not issued their report yet. The EUAmbassadors in Bogota are following closely this issue.

The Colombian authorities have demonstrated increased willingness to respond to the international claims. First steps have been taken by the government (the lay-off of army officers involved in human rights violations and the trial of military personnel before civilian courts). But there is obviously still a long way to go and the international community should continue with an active human rights policy.

As for the United Nations Office for Human Rights in Bogota, the Union has been supporting its activities right from the outset and has granted a total amount of € 1,21 million over three years. The Union, however, made it clear that its contribution was intended to help ‘launch the process’, an objective that has already been achieved. Discussions are currently underway in order to explore the possibility of providing additional funding, which fall under the mandate of the Office. C 174 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3740/00 by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Subject: ‘Everything But Arms’ proposal

In light of the ‘Everything But Arms’ proposal concerning the unilateral abolition of tariffs for the 48 least developed countries in the world, the Member States requested information on the impact of this proposal on European agriculture in terms of cost. This study is currently being carried out by the European Commission.

I understand that this impact assessment is to be completed in advance of a Council decision on the proposal.

In my capacity as a Member of the European Parliament, I hereby request that this document and any supporting documentation be made available by the Commission to myself and the other members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture as soon as the report has been completed and forwarded to the Council.

Will the European Commission agree to this request?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to the recent Commission proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 (1) so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least-developed countries (2).

The Commission will be happy to send the Honourable Member, and the relevant committees of the Parliament, an impact assessment on the above proposal when it is sent to the Council.

Although the Commission is certainly proposing an ‘autonomous’ measure under the Community’s generalized system of preferences, this should not be seen as ‘unilateral’ tariff eradication as the Commission proposal responds to multilateral commitments, and is being followed by initiatives from other developed countries.

(1) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998. (2) COM(2000) 561 final.

(2001/C 174 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3742/00 by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Subject: Insurance companies’ use of genetic tests for inherited diseases

As the Commission is no doubt aware there is concern that insurance companies inside and outside the EU may seek authorisation to have access to and use genetic tests with the ultimate aim of either refusing cover or increasing premiums. The great concern is that some people may be refused life insurance and mortgages on the basis of the results of genetic tests.

Will the Commission outline whether or not it has considered this issue, and will it give an assurance that it will not support or propose legislation aimed at giving insurance companies access to or the right to see genetic test results? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/131

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of the concerns about a possible general application of genetic test results for insurance purposes in all Member States.

As far as single market rules on insurance and data protection are concerned, there is no specific provision regarding the use of genetic data for insurance purposes. Under Community law and in line with the subsidiarity principle, it is for Member States to decide whether or not to authorize the use of genetic data, taking into account ‘general good’ requirements. According to information available to the Commission, insurers in most Member States are subject to restrictions of some kind. These are either legal (as in Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Austria,) or else insurers operate on the basis of voluntary agreements (the German, Irish and Italian national insurance associations have agreed not to ask for results of genetic tests. British insurers will only ask for results of these tests in excess of a certain minimum sum insured). It should be noted that a recent Parliament Resolution on supplementary health insurance (1) called on the Commission to examine the possibility of prohibiting the use of personal medical data, such as genetic typing.

However, Article 8 of directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2) requires the consent of the data subject for the processing of genetic data concerning their health, unless a specific exception applies.

(1) A5-0266/2000, of 16.11.2000. (2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2001/C 174 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3743/00 by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Council

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Clarifications concerning the reply to priority Written Question P-2247/00 on Opus Dei and European officials’ right to exercise discretion

Knowing that:

on 30 June 2000, I tabled priority Written Question P-2247/2000,

Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure provides that such questions should be answered within 3 weeks, while non-priority questions should be answered within 6 weeks,

on 7 November 2000, the Council ‘replied’ as follows: ‘The first four questions raised by the Honourable Member have never been brought up before the Council. The last three questions are obviously matters for the internal organisation of the general secretariat’.

The Council:

does it regard itself as bound by those provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament that relate to the Council?

why does it reply only to questions that have already been brought before it?

is it not possible to table parliamentary questions concerning the powers of the general secretariat?

are the activities of the general secretariat confidential?

what staff regulations apply to Council officials? C 174 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

what action does the Council intend to take in relation to the officials responsible for drafting the reply to question P-2247/00?

does the Council intend to answer the questions raised in question P-2247/00, and if so, when?

(12 March 2001)

The Council believes that it gave a proper and full reply to question P-2247/00.

The Council was not apprised of the facts set out in question P-2247/00 before the Honourable Member’s question was referred to it. The reply stating that ‘the first four questions raised by the Honourable Member have never been brought before the Council’ has to be understood against that background.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is not bound by the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as inferred from the joint reply by the Council to Written Questions E-1299/00 and E-1300/00 put by Charles Tannock and P-1541/00 put by Michl Ebner. For all that, the Council has never refused to reply to parliamentary questions concerning the powers or activities of its General Secretariat.

In the case in point, the decision to which the Honourable Member referred in question P-2247/00 (‘… the secretariat of the Council of Ministers refused to allow the holding of a meeting on its premises organised by an association of officials, the Amicale de la pensée critique, on the question “Do sects in general, and Opus Dei in particular, represent a threat to a democratic and pluralist Europe?”’) was not taken. In fact, in order to take account of the comments made by the administration of the General Secretariat of the Council on the wisdom of the wording of the planned topic, which was likely to cause controversy, the Amicale de la pensée critique decided to hold the scheduled meeting off the Council premises, as it is always free to do, and withdrew its request. The General Secretariat of the Council took note of that decision.

Officials of the General Secretariat of the Council are subject to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, as laid down by amended Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968. The Council has not found there to be any delay in the preparation of the reply to question P-2247/00 and therefore does not intend to take any action or make any special arrangements.

(2001/C 174 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3746/00 by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) and Karl Olsson (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: TSE in pigs

What do we actually know about prions, the agents which pass on TSE and Creutzfeld-Jacobs disease? No- one knows exactly how this protein becomes a hazard but we do know that it does.

The disease is spread via feedstuffs and food and the incubation period can extend over several years. Contagious prions have already crossed two species barriers, from sheep to cattle and from cattle to humans. We have also known for more than ten years that prions enter the food chain via meal containing animal remains.

Pigs are fed the same type of foodstuffs as cattle and have the same digestive system as humans. The reason pigs have so far not demonstrated TSE symptoms might well be that they do not live long enough for the disease to develop.

Can the Commission therefore exclude the possibility that pigs might be carriers of TSE?

If not, when does the Commission intend to propose that TSE tests are also carried out on pigmeat? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/133

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

The Commission, in matters related to health and consumer protection, bases its risk management measures on the most recent available evidence and sound scientific advice. This advice is provided in the form of scientific opinions adopted by the scientific steering committee (SSC). The SSC itself is assisted by the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy/bovine spongiform encephalopathy (TSE/BSE) ad hoc Group composed of Europe’s leading scientists in the field of TSEs. All the SSC’s reports and opinions are publicly available on the Internet site of the Health and Consumer Directorate General.

Limitations of knowledge in the field of TSEs, including the species barrier, are listed and discussed in:

the scientific opinion on Oral exposure of humans to the BSE agent: infective dose and species barrier. Adopted by the scientific steering committee at its meeting of 13-14 April 2000, following a public consultation via Internet between 6 and 27 March 2000.

Updated Scientific Report on the ‘Safety of meat-and-bone meal derived from mammalian animals fed to non-ruminant food-producing farm animals’. Scientific steering committee, meeting of 24-25 Sep- tember 1998.

The issue of TSEs in pigs to which the Honourable Members refers, is addressed in two reports and three opinions of the SSC:

the scientific opinion on ‘Fallen stock’, addressing the risks of non conventional transmissible agents, conventional infectious agents or other hazards such as toxic substances entering the human food or animal feed chains via raw material from fallen stock and dead animals (including also: ruminants, pigs, poultry, fish, wild/exotic/zoo animals, fur animals, cats, laboratory animals and fish) or via condemned materials. Adopted by the scientific steering committee at its meeting of 24-25 June 1999.

the scientific report on ‘Fallen stock’ addressing the above issues in detail. Submitted to the scientific steering committee at its meeting of 24-25 June 1999.

the scientific opinion on the risk born by recycling animal by-products as feed with regard to propagating TSE in non-ruminant farmed animals. Adopted by the SSC on 17 September 1999.

the scientific report on the Risk Borne by Recycling Animal By-Products as Feed with Regard to Propagating TSE’s in Non-ruminant Farmed Animals. Prepared by a working group for the scientific steering committee as an input into the elaboration of the opinion on the same subject adopted on 16-17 September 1999.

the scientific opinion on the scientific basis for import bans proposed by 3 Member States with regard to BSE risks in France and the Republic of Ireland; on the scientific basis for several measures proposed by France with regard to BSE risks; and on the scientific basis for banning animal protein from the feed for all farmed animals, including pig, poultry, fish and pet animals. Adopted by the scientific steering committee at its meeting of 27-28 November 2000.

With regard to the questions posed by the Honourable Members, these reports and opinions can be summarised as follows: ‘(…) there is no epidemiological evidence that pigs, poultry or fish are susceptible to BSE or that BSE has moved into these species. So far there is no scientific evidence of the occurrence of TSE in farmed pigs, poultry and fish. Only pigs have been found to be susceptible to intra-cerebral challenge under experimental conditions. Also the hypothesis that pigs, poultry or fish do act, after oral challenge, as healthy carriers of TSE-agents is not supported by the limited experimental data available.’ [Extract from the opinion adopted on 27-28 November 2000.] C 174 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

The Commission therefore at this stage sees no justification in proposing TSE tests to be carried out on pig meat. In this context it also needs to be stressed that currently no tests are available either for pigs or for meat in general including cattle meat. As far as farmed animals for human consumption are concerned, the only operational tests that are available have been developed and evaluated to be used on central nervous tissue (brain and spinal cord) of ruminants.

(2001/C 174 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3747/00 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against foreign coach drivers in France

French law allows huge fines to be levied on coach drivers for the slightest infringements, such as not completely accurate tachograph discs. The fines are completely disproportionate to the offences.

The French police make especially frequent checks on foreign coach companies.

These constitute an indirect obstacle to the freedom to provide services.

1. Is the Commission aware of this pattern?

2. Does the Commission consider these measures in France to be compatible with Community law?

3. If not, does the Commission intend to initiate infringement proceedings?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

1. The Commission is aware of a change in French law, which authorises higher penalties, where serious offences are detected and a ‘document de suivi’ is absent.

As regards general discrimination against foreign bus drivers by the French authorities, statistics provided by the French authorities for offences detected within their territory over the past decade (see Commission reports for 1991-1992 (1), 1993-1994 (2); 1995-1996 (3)) and the French data sent for the forthcoming report for years 1997-1998 do not indicate an abnormally high number of non-residents checked or offences detected on the part of non-resident drivers. On the contrary, the number of non-resident drivers checked and found to be offending has consistently been a much lower figure than that for resident drivers.

2. and 3. The Commission is still examining whether the French law mentioned above is in conformity with Community law. However normally the issue of penalties for road transport offences is a matter for Member States to decide under the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission can only advocate that sanctions for infringements of Community law are sufficiently dissuasive, proportionate and effective.

(1) COM(95) 713 final. (2) COM(97) 698 final. (3) COM(2000) 84 final. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/135

(2001/C 174 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3749/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (4 December 2000)

Subject: Serious deficiencies in the application of Community Directives 89/362 and 92/46 in Greece

The investigation carried out in Greece by the EU Food and Veterinary Office between 27 and 31 March 2000 revealed serious deficiencies in the application of Community Directives 89/362 (1) and 92/46 (2).

What deficiencies did the EU Food and Veterinary Office’s investigation detect in the application of Community Directives 89/362 and 92/46 in Greece?

What implications does the defective application of Community Directives 89/362 and 92/46 have for consumer and animal health?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that Greece applies these two Community directives in full?

(1) OJ L 156, 8.6.1989, p. 30. (2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (19 February 2001)

Detailed information on the deficiencies observed by the inspectors from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) during their mission to Greece, to which the Honourable Member refers, is presented in the final report (SANCO/1063/2000), which is available at the following Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/index_en.html.

The recommendations made by the FVO inspectors for remedying these deficiencies can also be found there.

The deficiency with the most serious implication for public and animal health is that relating to brucellosis. This disease, which affects herds of small ruminants (sheep, goats) and bovine animals, can be transmitted to people who come into contact with animals (such as shepherds or farming families) or who drink raw milk or dairy products made from unpasteurised milk. This is why Council Directive 92/ 46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products stipulates in Article 3(2) that milk from infected farms should be heat-treated.

The Greek authorities estimate that the incidence of this zoonosis in 1999 was 20 cases per 100 000 population.

The Commission has, for several years, been providing financial backing for eradication programmes submitted by Greece in this area. Owing to problematic conditions in Greece, such as the shortage of veterinary staff, inadequate identification processes, zootechnical practices and transhumance, insufficient progress has been made in combating the disease. With the support of the Commission, the Greek authorities changed their policy in 1998 and began to vaccinate animals. The results, particularly with regard to reducing the infection rate among humans, will only become apparent in a few years’ time.

For further information on brucella melitensis, the Honourable Member is referred to the Food and Veterinary Office report (SANCO/1035/99), which can be consulted on the Internet at: http:// europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/reports.

As a result of the two reports, the Greek health authorities have embarked on a programme of corrective measures to be implemented in the short and medium term.

With a view to assessing the implementation of these measures, the Food and Veterinary Office has planned two follow-up missions to Greece. The first, concerning hygiene in the dairy industry, will take place from 12 to 16 March 2001, followed by the second, relating to the eradication of brucellosis, from 25 to 29 June 2001. The conclusions of the missions will be discussed within the Commission, which will then take any steps necessary to ensure consumer protection both inside and outside Greece. C 174 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3752/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Ivory trade

Given that the imports into the European Union of commercial ivory for non-personal use have been prohibited since 1990, can the Commission confirm what information it has on stocks of ivory currently held in the Member States of the European Union? If it has no such information, can it state how it monitors the sale of ivory in the EU and, ensures that only ivory with exemption certificates under Article 10 of Regulation 338/97 (1) may be sold?

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The Commission does not possess information on stocks of ivory currently held in the Member States. Under Council Regulation (EC) 338/97 of 9 December 1996 (1) and Commission Regulation 939/97 of 26 May 1997 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (2), there are no controls on the sale of worked ivory acquired before 1 June 1947. Raw ivory and worked ivory of more recent origin can only be sold under an exemption granted on a case-by-case basis by the competent authority of the Member State in which the specimen is located.

The monitoring of compliance with the provisions of these Regulations is a responsibility of the Member States, although the Commission can and does draw the attention of the authorities of the Member States to circumstances and situations whose investigation appears necessary.

(1) OJ C 61, 3.3.1997. (2) OJ C 140, 30.5.1997.

(2001/C 174 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3755/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Spatial planning in the EU: Interreg II C

Interreg II C was one of the Community initiatives adopted during the 1994-1999 programming period under which funding was given to a series of projects aimed at promoting transnational cooperation in the sphere of spatial planning.

Can the Commission provide information on the results of Interreg II C and the conclusions it has drawn from those results, as well as their relationship to and influence on the European Spatial Strategy, especially regarding the outlying maritime regions of Objective 1 as it applies to the existing EU of fifteen?

Can the Commission provide information on the conclusions it has drawn from Interreg II C concerning the impact of the expected accession of the candidate countries on the outlying maritime regions of Objective 1 as it applies to the existing EU of fifteen? 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/137

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The aims of strand C of the Community Interreg II initiative on transnational cooperation were: to help restore the balance between different areas of the Community; to foster transnational cooperation and partnership within a common framework; to help Member States and their regions to take a preventive and cooperative approach to common problems; and, lastly, to improve the impact of Community policies on spatial development. The latter aim was closely linked to the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP).

To date, only a few programmes covered by Interreg II C have undergone an interim assessment. Since others are currently being assessed, it would be premature to draw conclusions from the few completed interim assessments and hence to provide only partial results.

Also, in accordance with the EC Treaty, the second report on economic and social cohesion will examine how disparities between Member States and regions (including peripheral maritime regions) have changed and how Community policies (including structural policies and particularly Interreg) have helped to reduce those disparities. By focusing on the situation facing a Union of 27 members, the second report will be able to set out guidelines for future cohesion policy. The report will be published at the beginning of 2001 and will be submitted at a forum on cohesion which will be held in Brussels on 21 May.

(2001/C 174 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3765/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Transport of live animals over long distances

In recent years the transport of animals in Europe has increased because the EU always used to regard living animals as products. This had to be changed thanks to the legally binding protocol of 1997 which came into force in 1999, and which acknowledged that living animals are sentient beings. However, this has not resulted in living animals being spared long journeys. All kinds of provisions in the protocol mean that animals can still be transported from Aberdeen to Athens for slaughter.

1. Can the Commission explain why animals which are recognised as sentient beings still have to suffer distress during their long transport journeys?

2. Is the Commission aware of the serious animal welfare problems and infringements of the law which have been noted by animal welfare organisations and have shocked public opinion?

3. What concrete initiatives has the Commission taken as a result of the discussion of this issue at the Agriculture Council in June, at which several Member States expressed their grave concern about animal welfare during long-distance transport and called for a fundamental review of policy in this area, particularly the replacement of long-distance live animal transport by trading in meat and carcasses? Does the Commission consider that long-distance live animal transport should be replaced by the trading in meat and carcasses?

(a) If so, when will the Commission introduce a ban on the transport of live animals?

(b) If not, what additional measures will the Commission take to make the legal protection of animals as sentient beings effective?

4. In how many cases are export subsidies withdrawn or not paid on the grounds of failure to comply with the provisions of Regulation (EC) 1254/1999 (1) on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal with regard to animal welfare?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. C 174 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The Commission is aware that journeys in breach of Directive 91/628/EC (1) as amended (2) are still taking place within the Community. Day-to-day enforcement of Community legislation is the responsibility of Member States. The Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission undertakes on-the-spot checks in Member States to ensure that authorities apply Community legislation in an effective and uniform manner.

It should be mentioned that the Commission has opened infringement proceedings against some Member States in relation to their failure to implement Community legislation in this field.

In addition, the Commission adopted on 5 December 2000 a report (3) on the implementation by the Member States of rules on animal transport. The Council and the Parliament will discuss this report. It finds major shortcomings in enforcement of the legislation by national authorities. The Commission intends to review the current legislation as a follow-up to this report.

Measures to encourage the slaughter of animals closer to the places where they are raised will be examined in that context, taking account of the fact that economies of scale and higher meat hygiene standards lead towards a concentration of and reduction in the number of slaughterhouses.

An overview of the cases where export subsidies are withdrawn or not paid on the grounds of failure to comply with the provisions of Council Regulation 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (4) is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. (2) Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, OJ L 148, 30.6.1995. (3) COM(2000) 809 final. (4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 174 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3769/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Accidents in the EU

In reaction to the tragic accident in Kaprun in Austria, where over 150 people lost their lives in tragic circumstances, and given that accidents of this kind are occurring more and more frequently, what specific steps does the Commission intend to take to protect, within the shortest possible space of time, those travelling through European road and rail tunnels?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Since the cable train fire at Kaprun on 11 November 2000, the Commission has been reassessing the measures the Community could take to improve the safety of road and rail tunnels. It is already apparent that safety levels in tunnels can vary considerably depending on the length and design of the tunnel, its equipment, the way it is operated and the volume and nature of the traffic using it. It falls primarily to the authorities directly in charge of tunnels to reassess their safety on a regular basis and to take steps to maintain that safety at a high level. 19.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174 E/139

The Community can provide value added in three areas. On the technical side, without duplicating the work of such international bodies as the World Road Association, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Community can devise a methodology for overall tunnel safety assessment, taking account of all factors affecting safety levels, so as to encourage greater safety in certain tunnels without producing detailed requirements for alterations. The Commission is also assessing the expediency of introducing a European regulatory framework for new tunnels. On the operating side, it is important that tunnels be rapidly equipped with automatic hazard and accident detection systems, and with automatic vehicle alert and fire extinguishing systems. Further research work is required, and the Community programme will be called upon to help move things forward. On the financial side, major tunnels which provide more direct traffic routes are of Community interest, and the Community may thus be expected to draw upon available sources of funding to make a financial contribution towards work to make them safe. To this end, part of the trans-European transport networks budget could be earmarked for improvements to the oldest tunnels.

(2001/C 174 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3780/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Objective 2 aid to Hainaut

The awarding of Objective 2 aid to the Walloon province of Hainaut is leading to the relocation of firms which have been established for many years in the neighbouring province of Western Flanders.

The businesses operators in question acknowledge that the removal of their activities to Hainaut is entirely dependent on their obtaining Objective 2 subsidies. If these business operators do not obtain any European aid, they will keep their operations in Western Flanders. In order to be considered for such aid they have to have their company headquarters in Hainaut.

I should be glad if the Commission would answer the following questions. For the sake of completeness I should add that these questions were first submitted to the Commission in mid-March 2000 (Written Question E-0951/00). Since then the Commission has merely said that the information in question still had to be gathered.